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 .
Response to Arguments
The amendment to the abstract made in the response filed May 1, 2026 overcomes the objection to the abstract made in the February 6, 2026 Office action. The objection is hereby withdrawn.
The amendments made to at least claims 1 and 8 in the May 1, 2026 response amended all limitations that were interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in the previous Office action to positively recite structure. As a result, no limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
The amendments made to claims 1 and 8 in the May 1, 2026 response are sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejection, along with all rejections of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b).
However, the separate rejection of claims 1 and 7 regarding the aperture elements outputting a detection signal do not appear to be addressed by applicant’s arguments, so those rejections will be maintained as found below, and additionally, that rejection will be applied to claim 11.
Claim Interpretation
As noted above, no limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 15 of the claim recites “based on a detection signal output from the first aperture element”. Given the plain meaning of “the first aperture element”, it is unclear how the aperture element can output a detection signal as claimed.
MPEP 2111.01 states the following: “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” “The presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted by the applicant by clearly setting forth a different definition of the term in the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997)” (emphasis added). “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Phillips v. AWH Corp.,415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("In the absence of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim terms, the words are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art.").”
These portions of MPEP 2111.01, therefore, state that the language of the claim must be given their plain meaning to one having ordinary skill in the art unless an explicit definition can be found in the specification to import that meaning into the claim. In this case, the plain meaning of an aperture element is an element that allows light to pass through the opening of the element while blocking the remainder of the light, thereby limiting the light that propagates through the system. As a result, in a plain meaning, an aperture element would not be output a detection signal as claimed, as an aperture element, on its own, cannot detect light. While the examiner recognizes the fact that the specification, in paragraphs 0102-0105, along with Fig. 5, show the aperture element to be a quadrant photodiode having an aperture at the center, there is no special definition tied to this disclosure from the specification to allow for importing the specifics of the disclosed aperture element into the claim.
As a result, claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite because it is unclear how an aperture element, given its plain meaning, can perform the claimed function of detecting a positional deviation of an optical axis of the object light from an optical axis of the reference light. See also MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claims 3-7 inherit the above issue by virtue of their dependency on at least claim 1, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend. The examiner notes that claim 2 sets forth the specific structure needed to perform the claimed function of the first aperture element outputting a detection signal.
Further regarding claims 7 and 11, these claims are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1 for the language “the second aperture element is configured to detect a positional deviation of the optical axis of the object light that passed through the first aperture from the optical axis of the reference light that passed through the first aperture” (with similar language in claim 11). While paragraphs 0180-0183 and Fig. 18 show that the second aperture element is also a quadrant photodiode having an aperture in the center, there is no special definition tied to this disclosure from the specification to allow for importing the specifics of the disclosed aperture element into the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 8-10 are allowed in view of the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a laser interferometer, the interferometer comprising, among other essential features, a first aperture element disposed on a light path through which the object light and the reference light enter the photodetector; and a processor configured to detect a positional deviation of an optical axis of the object light from an optical axis of the reference light by calculating an irradiation position of the object light based on a detection signal output from the photodetector, and an angular deviation detection unit that is configured to detect an angular deviation of the optical axis of the object light from the optical axis of the reference light based on an AC amplitude of the received light signal; and provide information relating to an instruction to change a relative arrangement between the optical interference unit and the object based on a detection result of the positional deviation detected by the processor and a detection result of the angular deviation detected by the processor, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 8, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of adjusting an optical axis of a laser interferometer, the method comprising, among other essential steps, receiving the object light and the reference light, which have passed through a light path of a first aperture element, by a photodetector, to generate a received light signal corresponding to intensities of the object light and the reference light; detecting an angular deviation of a first optical axis of the object light from a second optical axis of the reference light based on the received light signa; and changing a relative arrangement between the object and each of the laser source, the light modulator, the photodetector, and the first aperture element based on the angular deviation, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
The examiner notes that claim 11 would be considered allowable for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 8 should the 35 USC 112(b) rejection be properly overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights