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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds the maximum allowable length of 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A light receiving element configured to receive object light . . .” in claims 1-8.
“An angular deviation detection unit configured to detect an angular deviation of the optical axis of the object light . . . in claims 1-8.
“An instruction unit configured to issue an instruction . . .” in claims 1-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 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.
Claim limitation “an angular deviation detection unit” as found in claims 1 and 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As “an angular deviation detection unit” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth above, the examiner turns to the specification to ascertain what the corresponding structure is for that detection unit. However, no explicitly structure appears to be set forth in the specification for that unit. Instead, the specification only appears to describe the unit using the language by which it is claimed – an angular deviation detection unit (see paragraphs 0043 and 0134-0136, for example). As a result, it is unclear what structure corresponds to this unit. Is it a computer? A processor? A calculator? Circuitry? Some other structure that is able to detect an angular deviation of the optical axis of the object light from the optical axis of the reference light based on the received light signal? Without an answer to these questions, the structure for the claimed unit is not clear, and the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be ascertained.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For the above claims, the examiner notes that while the specification discloses demodulation calculation unit 52 that includes various other units 53, 54, and 55 to be a processor as per paragraphs 0117-0118, the angular deviation detection unit is not part of the demodulation calculation unit, and therefore this disclosed structure is not sufficient for the claimed angular deviation detection unit.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for the same reasons by virtue of their dependence on at least claim 1, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
Further regarding claims 1 and 8, lines 13-17 of claim 1 and lines 14-18 of claim 8 recite, “A first aperture element disposed on a light path through which the object light and the reference light enter the light receiving element, and configured to detect a positional deviation of an optical axis of the object light from an optical axis of the reference light”. Given the plain meaning of “a first aperture element”, it is unclear how the aperture element can “detect a positional deviation of an optical axis of the object light from an optical axis of the reference light”.
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 “configured to detect a positional deviation of an optical axis of the object light from an optical axis of the reference light”, 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, claims 1 and 8 are 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; amending these limitations into claims 1 and 8 would obviate the rejection set forth above.
Further regarding claim 7, this claim is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 1 and 8 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”. 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the claims are rejected for a lack of written description for the reasons set forth above regarding 35 USC 112(b) and indefiniteness. The rejection is made because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all structure that can perform the claimed function. Because the specification has not clearly defined structure for an angular deviation detection unit, this indicates that applicant has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for the same reasons by virtue of their dependence on at least claim 1, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The examiner notes that, given the nature of the rejection above, the examiner’s discussion of the allowability of the claims in view of the prior art is based on the best understanding of the claimed invention and what performs the detection of a positional deviation while using the claimed terminology for the angular deviation detection unit in spite of the 35 USC 112(b) and (a) rejection made above.
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 light receiving element, the aperture element including a light detection area configured to detect a positional deviation of an optical axis of the object light from an optical axis of the reference light, 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 the received light signal; and an instruction unit configured to issue 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 angular deviation detection unit and a detection result of the angular deviation detected by the angular deviation detection unit, 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, where the interferometer includes, among other essential features, a first aperture element disposed on a light path through which the object light and the reference light enter the light receiving element, the aperture element including a light detection area configured to detect a positional deviation of an optical axis of the object light from an optical axis of the reference light, 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 the received light signal, where the method comprises issuing an instruction to change a relative arrangement between the optical interference unit and the object based on a detection result of the positional deviation and a detection result of the angular deviation; and changing the arrangement based on the instruction, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With regard to the above claims, US 2022/0065892 to Yamada discloses (Fig. 1) a laser interferometer 1 featuring an optical system 50 that includes a laser 18, an object 14 to be measured, a reference object 12 that is a frequency shifter type optical modulator for adjusting the frequency of the reference beam, and a light receiving element 10 for detection of interference light between beam L3 returning from the object and beam L2 returning from the reference (see paragraphs 0027-0031) While not eligible as prior art, US 2023/0085489 to Yamada discloses another interferometer (Fig. 1) where a laser 2 sends light to an object 14 that is tilted so that light L3 is on a different optical axis than the input light L1b; and a frequency shifter type optical modulator 12 as the reference object for providing reference light L2 with a frequency shifted from light L1a, and a light receiving element 10 to detect interference between light beams L3 and L2 (see paragraphs 0045-0051).
JP 2000-293877 to Yoshikawa discloses the closest art to the claimed first aperture element, where a detector to detect the position of a laser beam is provided. This detector includes a minute aperture head that is provided with photo diodes 2A-2D surrounding a minute aperture 1 in order to provide optical axis detection of an irradiated light beam, where the light detected by the photo diodes is processed by detector 5 to detect the optical axis of the light beam thrown to the minute aperture (see the abstract).
US 2021/0239452 to Engelhardt also discloses a method and apparatus for detecting changes in direction of a light beam (Fig. 1 and 2) where the change in angular orientation of a light beam 2 is passed into an interferometer 3 which includes a shearing interferometer 18 to split the input light beam into partial beams 4 and 5 which are detected by the image sensor 7 of camera 3 to use the interference pattern 6 to determine the angular orientation (see paragraphs 0059-0060).
However, while this prior art teaches the idea of optical interferometry with a frequency modulated reference beam and using interferometry to detect the angular orientation of a light beam, and while Yoshikawa in particular discloses the specific aperture element set forth by the claimed invention, this prior art, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the specifics of the claimed invention as set forth above that uses the positional deviation information and the angular deviation information to adjust a relative arrangement between the interferometer and the object being measured.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. 4,730,928 to Gabriel et al. discloses a device for performing position measurement by a laser beam using a four quadrant detector 460 and a separate aperture 462 where if the aperture is not aligned with the beam axis 40, signals from the detector are dependent on X and Y direction offsets (see Fig. 7A and Col. 9, lines 52-65); CN 2847219 Y to Zhu et al. discloses a device for measuring laser beam parallelism using quadrant detectors 7 and 8 (see Fig. 1); US 2015/0177381 to Yap et al. discloses a sensor and method for determining an angle of arrival of incident light where the background discloses that conventional angle of arrival sensors use an aperture for collecting incident light and projecting illuminated spot onto a four quadrant detector (see paragraph 0002); and WO 2023/222916 to Redmond et al. discloses a prior art device (Fig. 2) where light reflected off a small reflector 22 passes through a pinhole aperture 24 to a quadrant photodiode D to determine the position of the reflector.
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 February 2, 2026