DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09 April 2024 and 07 August 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-24 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, line 4 recites the limitation “determine, based on the signals” which should be amended to recite “determining, based on the signals” since claim 13 is directed to a method.
Further regarding claim 13, line 7 recites the limitation “determine a defocused value” which should be amended to recite “determining a defocused value” since claim 13 is directed to a method.
Further regarding claim 13, line 9 recites the limitation “direct an adjustment” which should be amended to recite “directing an adjustment” since claim 13 is directed to a method.
Thus claim 13 is objected to. Since claim 13 is objected to, claims 14-24 are also objected to since claims 14-24 depend on claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 12-15, 18-19, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanks (US 2005/0047287 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Hanks teaches a system (see Fig. 5-9) comprising:
an optical sub-system (Fig. 5 optical optics system 68 corresponding to the elements shown in Fig. 6A-8B) comprising:
one or more detectors (Fig. 6A leading photosensor 74, trailing photosensor 76 of quadrature photosensor 48 of Fig. 1) configured to detect light from a light modulation target (Fig. 5 reflectivity change 66) of a sample (Fig. 5 storage media 20) as the sample is scanned along a scan direction (paragraphs 0022, 0025), wherein the one or more detectors comprise:
two or more detection elements (Fig. 6A leading photosensor 74, trailing photosensor 76), wherein the two or more detection elements are configured to detect the light modulation target at different points in time as the sample is scanned along the scan direction (paragraphs 0025-0030) by virtue of a spatial separation between the two or more detection elements (see Fig. 6A-8B where photosensors 74 and 76 are spatially separated from each other); and
a controller (Fig. 6A-8B controller 50) communicatively coupled to the one or more detectors (see Fig. 6A-8B) and including one or more processors (paragraph 0018) configured to execute program instructions (paragraphs 0018-0019) causing the one or more processors to:
acquire signals from the light modulation target using the two or more detection elements of the one or more detectors as the sample is scanned along the scan direction (paragraphs 0018-0019, 0022, 0025-0027; see also Fig. 10 step 128),
determine, based on the signals, a time difference between the different points in time that the light modulation target is detected during the scanning of the sample (paragraphs 0028-0031, Fig. 10 step 130);
determine a defocused value indicative of the one or more detectors being under-focused or over-focused based on the time difference (paragraphs 0028-0032; the magnitude and sign of the focus error signal 126 indicates whether the detectors are over or under focused; see also Fig. 10 steps 132, 134, 140, 144, 150, 156); and
direct an adjustment of a focus of the optical sub-system based on the defocused value (paragraphs 0028-0032; see also Fig. 10 steps 146, 152, 160).
Regarding claim 2, Hanks teaches the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the defocused value comprises a defocused distance based on the time difference (see abstract, paragraphs 0018-0019, 0029-0031; the time difference that represents the focus error signal correlates to a distance the optical subsystem needs to be moved).
Regarding claim 3, Hanks teaches the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the defocused value is further based on a scanning speed (paragraph 0031) and an angle of diversion of an illumination beam at the light modulation target (see Fig. 6A-8B; the angle of diversion of the illumination beam at storage media 20 inherently effects the magnitude of the focus error signal).
Regarding claim 6, Hanks teaches the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the light modulation target is configured to induce at least one of: an intensity modulation or a phase modulation (paragraph 0022; the reflectivity change 66 inherently causes a modulation in intensity).
Regarding claim 7, Hanks teaches the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the controller is configured to: continuously determine defocused values of a plurality of light modulation targets positioned along the scan direction (see Fig. 1, paragraph 0022 reciting the reflectivity change feature 66 may comprise a pattern (e.g. stripes) thus creating a plurality of light modulation targets, paragraph 0032 reciting the steps of Fig. 10 being repeated once an adjustment is made, meaning the repeated calculation of focus error signals) and continuously direct adjustments of the focus of the optical sub-system based on the defocused values (see Fig. 10, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 10, Hanks teaches the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the one or more detectors comprise a multi-pixel detector which comprises the two or more detection elements (see Fig. 6A-8B leading photosensor 74 and trailing photosensor 76, paragraphs 0023, 0035; see also claims 6-8 of Hanks).
Regarding claim 12, Hanks teaches the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the scanning comprises at least one of: an actuation of a translation stage, or an adjustment of a component of the optical sub-system that is configured to scan an illumination spot along the scan direction (paragraphs 0018-0019, 0022, 0025-0029; the focus actuator adjusts objective lens 42, which scans the storage media 20 as it is moved).
Regarding claim 13, Hanks teaches a method (abstract, Fig. 10, paragraphs 0025-0032) comprising:
acquiring signals from a light modulation target (Fig. 5 reflectivity change 66) using two or more detection elements of one or more detectors (Fig. 6A leading photosensor 74, trailing photosensor 76 of quadrature photosensor 48 of Fig. 1) as a sample (Fig. 5 storage media 20) is scanned along a scan direction (paragraphs 0018-0019, 0022, 0025-0027; see also Fig. 10 step 128),
determining, based on the signals, a time difference between different points in time that the light modulation target is detected during the scanning of the sample (paragraphs 0028-0031, Fig. 10 step 130);
determining a defocused value indicative of the one or more detectors being under-focused or over-focused based on the time difference (paragraphs 0028-0032; the magnitude and sign of the focus error signal 126 indicates whether the detectors are over or under focused; see also Fig. 10 steps 132, 134, 140, 144, 150, 156); and
directing an adjustment of a focus of an optical sub-system based on the defocused value (paragraphs 0028-0032; see also Fig. 10 steps 146, 152, 160),
wherein the one or more detectors are configured to detect light from the light modulation target of the sample as the sample is scanned along the scan direction (paragraphs 0022, 0025), wherein the one or more detectors comprise:
two or more detection elements (Fig. 6A leading photosensor 74, trailing photosensor 76), wherein the two or more detection elements are configured to detect the light modulation target at different points in time as the sample is scanned along the scan direction (paragraphs 0025-0030) by virtue of a spatial separation between the two or more detection elements (see Fig. 6A-8B where photosensors 74 and 76 are spatially separated from each other).
Regarding claim 14, Hanks teaches the method of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches the defocused value comprises a defocused distance based on the time difference (see abstract, paragraphs 0018-0019, 0029-0031; the time difference that represents the focus error signal correlates to a distance the optical subsystem needs to be moved).
Regarding claim 15, Hanks teaches the method of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches the defocused value is further based on a scanning speed (paragraph 0031) and an angle of diversion of an illumination beam at the light modulation target (see Fig. 6A-8B; the angle of diversion of the illumination beam at storage media 20 inherently effects the magnitude of the focus error signal).
Regarding claim 18, Hanks teaches the method of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches the light modulation target is configured to induce at least one of: an intensity modulation or a phase modulation (paragraph 0022; the reflectivity change 66 inherently causes a modulation in intensity).
Regarding claim 19, Hanks teaches the method of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches continuously determining defocused values of a plurality of light modulation targets positioned along the scan direction (see Fig. 1, paragraph 0022 reciting the reflectivity change feature 66 may comprise a pattern (e.g. stripes) thus creating a plurality of light modulation targets, paragraph 0032 reciting the steps of Fig. 10 being repeated once an adjustment is made, meaning the repeated calculation of focus error signals) and continuously directing adjustments of the focus of the optical sub-system based on the defocused values (see Fig. 10, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 22, Hanks teaches the method of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches the one or more detectors comprise a multi-pixel detector which comprises the two or more detection elements (see Fig. 6A-8B leading photosensor 74 and trailing photosensor 76, paragraphs 0023, 0035; see also claims 6-8 of Hanks).
Regarding claim 24, Hanks teaches the method of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches the scanning comprises at least one of: an actuation of a translation stage, or an adjustment of a component of the optical sub-system that is configured to scan an illumination spot along the scan direction (paragraphs 0018-0019, 0022, 0025-0029; the focus actuator adjusts objective lens 42, which scans the storage media 20 as it is moved).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanks (US 2005/0047287 A1, of record) in view of Granger et al. (US Patent No. 5,300,766), hereinafter Granger.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Hanks teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 13, as outlined above, but does not teach the one or more detectors are located in a pupil plane of the optical sub-system.
Granger, which relates to systems to correct aberrations, teaches one or more detectors located in a pupil plane of an optical sub-system (see Granger Fig. 5 pupil sensor array 20, col. 5 line 59-col. 6 line 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system and method of Hanks to have the one or more detectors are located in a pupil plane of the optical sub-system, as taught by Granger, for the benefit of detecting transverse aberrations in the vertical plane (Granger: col. 7 lines 15-42).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Hanks teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches the two or more detection elements comprise four or more detection elements (paragraph 0023 describing a quadrature photosensor 48 that comprises the leading and trailing photosensors 74, 76; see also Fig. 2, paragraph 0035, and claim 8). Hanks does not teach a first set of the four or more detection elements are configured for a first scan direction and wherein a second set of the four or more detection elements are configured for a second scan direction orthogonal to the first scan direction.
Granger teaches a first set of detection elements configured for a first scan direction (Granger: Fig. 5 sensors 21 of pupil sensor array 20 configured to generate signals corresponding to vertical aberrations, see col. 7 lines 15-42) and a second set of detection elements configured for a second scan direction orthogonal to the first scan direction (Granger: Fig. 1 linear image sensor array 16 configured to generate signals corresponding to horizontal aberrations, see col. 7 line 49-col. 8 line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system and method of Hanks to have a first set of the four or more detection elements are configured for a first scan direction and wherein a second set of the four or more detection elements are configured for a second scan direction orthogonal to the first scan direction, as taught by Granger, for the benefit of correcting aberrations in both the vertical and horizontal directions (see Granger col. 7 line 15-col. 8 line 7).
Claims 8-9 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanks (US 2005/0047287 A1, of record) in view of Mautz et al. (US 2004/0125191 A1), hereinafter Mautz.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Hanks teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches the scanning along the scan direction comprises a pre-scan (paragraph 0032 recites that a scan of the reflectivity change 66 can be made and then the process can be repeated, thus the first scan is a pre-scan) and wherein the controller is further configured to: direct a rescan of the light modulation target (see Fig. 10, paragraphs 0031-0032), wherein the light modulation target comprises an overlay target (see Fig. 5-8B reflectivity change 66 is an overlaid target residing on label layer 30 (paragraph 0022)).
Hanks does not teach determining an overlay measurement based on the rescan.
Mautz, which relates to measuring plate-shaped objects such as compact discs and is thus from the same field of endeavor as Hanks, teaches determining an overlay measurement based on a scan (see Mautz paragraph 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system and method of Hanks to include determining an overlay measurement based on the rescan, as taught by Mautz, for the benefit of determining the quality of the compact disk of Hanks (see Mautz paragraph 0007).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Hanks teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches the light modulation target is spaced away from an overlay target (Fig. 3 reflectivity layer 26 is an overlay target), wherein the adjustment of the focus of the optical sub-system is configured to be performed during the scanning but before acquiring signals from the overlay target (paragraph 0032 recites that after the focus is corrected based on the reflectivity change 66, the process is repeated; paragraph 0022 recites that the reflectivity change can be applied to the label layer 30 and data reflectivity layer (overlay target) 26).
Hanks does not teach acquiring overlay signals from the overlay target.
Mautz teaches acquiring overlay signals from an overlay target (see Mautz paragraph 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system and method of Hanks to include acquiring overlay signals from an overlay target, as taught by Mautz, for the benefit of determining the quality of the compact disk of Hanks (see Mautz paragraph 0007).
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanks (US 2005/0047287 A1, of record) in view of Li et al. (US Patent No. 9,885,656 B2, of record), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claims 11 and 23, Hanks teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 13, as outlined above, but does not teach each of the two or more detection elements comprise a single photo-diode detector.
Li, which relates to system and methods to adjust the focus of an optical system, teaches one or more detectors comprising two or more detection elements that comprise a single photodiode detector (see Li Fig. 1 photodiodes 115 and 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system and method of Hanks to have each of the two or more detection elements comprise a single photodiode detector, as taught by Li, for the benefit of having detectors that provide the same performance in terms of photo-electron efficiency, time response, and electronic amplification gains (see Li col. 5 line 67-col. 6 line 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Suzuki (US Patent No. 6,818,875 B1) relates to an auto-focusing apparatus for a telescopic optical system. Jahani et al. (US 2026/0186424 A1) relates to a system and method of determining a focus position with an integrated photonic sensor. Hirano et al. (US 2024/0280500 A1) relates to a system and method that adjusts the focus position of an optical subsystem.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights