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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0056], the Examiner assumes that “two components, 318 and 320” should actually be --two components, 320 and 322--. Likewise, the other disclosures of component 318, in [0056-0057], should be replaced to indicate component 322.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On Line 2, the Examiner assumes that “optically identical..” should actually be --optically identical.--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 9, 11-15, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Safrani (US 2020/0011654), hereinafter Safrani.
Claim 1: Safrani discloses an apparatus (100, Fig. 1A) comprising:
a first interferometer (108a) [0030];
a second interferometer (108b) [0030];
an illuminator (102) that provides coherent light to the first interferometer (108a) and to the second interferometer (108b) [0029]; and
an imager (124) (“In one embodiment, the one or more processors 124 may consist of a[n]… image computer” [0034]) that simultaneously captures a first set of interferograms of a target object (110) and a reference object (112) from the first interferometer (108a) and a second set of interferograms of the target object (110) and the reference object (112) from the second interferometer (108b) [0031],
wherein the first set of interferograms and the second set of interferograms each encode phase information from the target object (110), the reference object (112), and noise sources (inherent, claim 14), and
wherein encoded noise data from the first set of interferograms and the second set of interferograms is differentially minimized to yield substantially noise-free phase information from the target object (110) [0026].
Claim 2: Safrani further discloses wherein the first interferometer (108a) and the second interferometer (108b) are optically identical (evident from Fig. 1A, “the use of two interferometers to simultaneously generate interferograms between opposing sides of test and reference samples provides excellent synchronization between the two interferograms” [0025]).
Claim 3: Safrani further discloses wherein the first interferometer (108a) and the second interferometer (108b) share a common reference object (112) [0031].
Claim 4: Safrani further discloses wherein the first interferometer (108a) and the second interferometer (108b) are positioned at substantially equal distances from the target object (110) (evident from Fig. 1A and inherent in “dual-interferometer sample thickness gauge 100” [0028]).
Claim 5: Safrani further discloses wherein the first interferometer (108a) and the second interferometer (108b) are symmetrically positioned around the imager (124) (evident from Fig. 1A).
Claim 9: Safrani further discloses wherein the noise sources comprise at least one of thermal variations, air turbulence, micro-scatterers, external light sources, mechanical vibrations, and electromagnetic interference (“system-generated noise” [0026]).
Claim 11: Safrani discloses a method (using thickness gauge 100, Fig. 1A), comprising:
producing a first set of interferograms of a target object (110) and a reference object (112) using a first interferometer (108a) [0031];
simultaneously producing a second set of interferograms of the target object (110) and the reference object (112) using a second interferometer (108b) [0031],
wherein the first set of interferograms and the second set of interferograms each encode phase information from the target object (110), the reference object (112), and noise sources (inherent, claim 14); and
differentially minimizing encoded noise data from the first set of interferograms and from the second set of interferograms to yield substantially noise-free phase information from the target object (110) [0026].
Claim 12: Safrani further discloses wherein the first interferometer (108a) and the second interferometer (108b) are optically identical (evident from Fig. 1A, “the use of two interferometers to simultaneously generate interferograms between opposing sides of test and reference samples provides excellent synchronization between the two interferograms” [0025]).
Claim 13: Safrani further discloses wherein the first interferometer (108a) and the second interferometer (108b) share a common reference object (112) [0031].
Claim 14: Safrani further discloses wherein the first interferometer (108a) and the second interferometer (108b) are positioned at substantially equal distances from the target object (110) (evident from Fig. 1A and inherent in “dual-interferometer sample thickness gauge 100” [0028]).
Claim 15: Safrani further discloses wherein the first interferometer (108a) and the second interferometer (108b) are symmetrically positioned around the imager (124) (evident from Fig. 1A).
Claim 19: Safrani further discloses wherein the noise sources comprise at least one of thermal variations, air turbulence, micro-scatterers, external light sources, mechanical vibrations, and electromagnetic interference (“system-generated noise” [0026]).
Claim 21: Safrani discloses a system (100, Fig. 1A), comprising:
means for producing a first set of interferograms of a target object (110) and a reference object (112) using a first interferometer (108a) [0031];
means for simultaneously producing a second set of interferograms of the target object (110) and the reference object (112) using a second interferometer [0031],
wherein the first set of interferograms and the second set of interferograms each encode phase information from the target object (110), the reference object (112), and noise sources (inherent, claim 14); and
means for differentially minimizing encoded noise data from the first set of interferograms and from the second set of interferograms to yield substantially noise-free phase information from the target object (110) [0026].
Claim 22: Safrani discloses a computer program product (124) comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium with computer-executable instructions tangibly embodied thereon that, when executed by a processor (“In one embodiment, the one or more processors 124 may consist of… any other computer system (e.g., networked computer) configured to execute a program configured to operate the sample thickness gauge 100” [0034]), perform operations comprising:
producing a first set of interferograms of a target object (110) and a reference object (112) using a first interferometer (108a) [0031];
simultaneously producing a second set of interferograms of the target object (110) and the reference object (112) using a second interferometer (108b) [0031],
wherein the first set of interferograms and the second set of interferograms each encode phase information from the target object (110), the reference object (112), and noise sources (inherent, claim 14); and
differentially minimizing encoded noise data from the first set of interferograms and from the second set of interferograms to yield substantially noise-free phase information from the target object (110) [0026].
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Safrani, in evidence of Sprague (US 3,804,521), hereinafter Sprague.
Claims 6,16: Safrani does not explicitly disclose wherein the coherent light used by the first interferometer and the second interferometer comprises diffraction fringes.
However, as evidenced by Sprague, a light source inherently has two measures of coherence, one of which is the spatial coherence, which is defined by diffraction fringes (Col. 3, Lines 36-40).
Therefore, it is evident that Safrani’s coherent light comprises diffraction fringes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safrani as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Göhnermeier (DE 102022102572), hereinafter Göhnermeier (citations use the attached English translation).
Claims 7,17: Safrani discloses coherent light emitted by the first interferometer and the second interferometer, but is silent with respect a compensator optical element.
Göhnermeier, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical interferometry, discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
an illuminator (26) that provides coherent light [0050],
wherein the coherent light emitted passes through a compensator optical element (32) [0050].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Safrani’s apparatus with a compensator optical element for the purpose of adjusting the path length of the reference or measurement beam, as desired (Göhnermeier [0050]).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safrani.
Claims 8,18: Safrani does not explicitly disclose wherein coherent light used by the first interferometer and the second interferometer has a wavelength selected to provide a specific amount of intrinsic scattering within the target object.
However, this wavelength selection amounts to no more than routine experimentation to optimize of the apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Safrani’s coherent light to have a wavelength that yields a desired amount of intrinsic scattering in the target object for the purpose of accurately characterizing the target object. In addition, the selection of a wavelength is obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safrani as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Lampert et al. (US 2016/0003610), hereinafter Lampert.
Claim 10: Safrani is silent with respect to the target object comprising one of a region of dental anatomy and a geographic region.
Lampert, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical apparatus, discloses an apparatus (20, Fig. 1A) that makes measurements of a target object, wherein the target object comprises a region of dental anatomy (26) [0041]. Furthermore, language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intended use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Safrani’s target object to be a region of dental anatomy for the purpose of “subsequent use in design and/or manufacture of prosthesis for the patient (e.g., a crown or a bridge)” (Lampert [0041]).
Claim 20: Safrani is silent with respect to the target object comprising one of a region of dental anatomy and a geographic region.
Lampert, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical apparatus, discloses a method (using apparatus 20, Fig. 1A) of making measurements of a target object, wherein the target object comprises a region of dental anatomy (26) [0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Safrani’s target object to be a region of dental anatomy for the purpose of “subsequent use in design and/or manufacture of prosthesis for the patient (e.g., a crown or a bridge)” (Lampert [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877