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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1A incorrectly labels the surface 411 of sub-prism 410 and surface 421 of sub-prism 420 as 41 and 42, respectively. Element 41 from Fig. 1A should instead be 411 and element 42 from Fig. 1A should instead be 421. See page 13, lines 21-23 of the specification for description of Fig. 1A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figures 3A and 3B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. Page 11, lines 9-10 of the specification describes Figs. 3A and 3B as depicting prior art methods for measuring an angle between surfaces. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
In Fig. 4A, elements 710, 720, and 725 are not mentioned in the specification.
In Fig. 5E, element 932 is not described in the specification. Element 932’ is described in the specification on page 22, lines 15-32, however, element 932 is not described.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 40, 42, 44-46, 52, 55-56, and 59 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 11-13 of claim 40 recites “…sensing light beams reflected from the at least one first surface and the at least one second surface; based on the sensed data, determining an average actual relative orientation between…” where “the sensed data” has insufficient antecedent basis. It would appear that lines 11-13 of claim 40 should instead recite “…sensing light beams reflected from the at least one first surface and the at least one second surface to obtain sensed data; based on the sensed data, determining an average actual relative orientation between…”.
Line 2 of claim 42 recites “…the at least one incident light beam…” which has insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the at least one incident light beam” from claim 42 is referring to “at least one collimated incident light beam” in claim 40 or another incident light beam altogether. It would appear that “the at least one incident light beam” from claim 42 should instead recite “the at least one collimated incident light beam.”
Line 1 of claim 44 recites “…the at least one incident light beam…” which has insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the at least one incident light beam” from claim 44 is referring to “at least one collimated incident light beam” in claim 40 or another incident light beam altogether. It would appear that “the at least one incident light beam” from claim 44 should instead recite “the at least one collimated incident light beam.”
Line 1 of claim 45 recites “…the at least one incident light beam…” which has insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the at least one incident light beam” from claim 45 is referring to “at least one collimated incident light beam” in claim 40 or another incident light beam altogether. It would appear that “the at least one incident light beam” from claim 45 should instead recite “the at least one collimated incident light beam.”
Line 5 of claim 46 recites “…the light reflected from the first surface and the second surface…” which has insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the light reflected” is referring to “the light beams reflected from the first surface and the second surface…” (lines 1-2) from claim 46 or other reflected light altogether. It would appear that “the light reflected from the first surface and the second surface” should instead recite “the light beams reflected from the first surface and the second surface…”.
Line 1 of claim 52 recites “…the first prism and and/or the second prism…” when it should instead recite “…the first prism [[and]] and/or the second prism…”.
Line 1 of claim 55 recites “…the at least one incident light beam…” which has insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the at least one incident light beam” from claim 55 is referring to “at least one collimated incident light beam” in claim 40 or another incident light beam altogether. It would appear that “the at least one incident light beam” from claim 55 should instead recite “the at least one collimated incident light beam.”
Line 2 of claim 56 recites “…the at least one incident light beam…” which has insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the at least one incident light beam” from claim 56 is referring to “at least one collimated incident light beam” in claim 40 or another incident light beam altogether. It would appear that “the at least one incident light beam” from claim 56 should instead recite “the at least one collimated incident light beam.”
Line 15 of claim 59 recites “…based on the sensed data…” where “the sensed data” has insufficient antecedent basis. It would appear that lines 11-12 should instead recite “…one or more detectors configured to sense light beams reflected from the first and second surfaces to obtain sensed data;…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 41-43 and 46-47 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.
Lines 2-3 of claim 41 recites the limitation “…the actual relative orientation” in “…if the difference between the actual relative orientation and the intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces is above the accuracy threshold.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the actual relative orientation” is referring to “an average actual relative orientation” (line 13 of claim 40), “the weighted average actual relative orientation” (lines 16-17 of claim 40), or another actual relative orientation altogether. The examiner cannot reasonably ascertain what “the actual relative orientation” is referring to because there are multiple “actual relative orientations” recited in claim 40 and the specification does not provide any clarity as to which actual relative orientation is being referred to. Page 2 line 21 to page 3 line 6, page 3 lines 12-20, page 5 line 15 to page 6 line 4, and page 6 line 25 to page 7 line 20 of the specification mentions an actual relative orientation but does not provide further details as to whether an actual relative orientation is referring to an average actual relative orientation, a weighted average actual relative orientation, or another actual relative orientation altogether.
Lines 3-5 of claim 42 recites the limitation “…the actual relative orientation” in “…determining the actual relative orientation between the first and second surfaces if the difference between the actual relative orientation and the intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces is above the accuracy threshold.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the actual relative orientation” is referring to “an average actual relative orientation” (line 13 of claim 40), “the weighted average actual relative orientation” (lines 16-17 of claim 40), or another actual relative orientation altogether. The examiner cannot reasonably ascertain what “the actual relative orientation” is referring to because there are multiple “actual relative orientations” recited in claim 40 and the specification does not provide any clarity as to which actual relative orientation is being referred to. Page 2 line 21 to page 3 line 6, page 3 lines 12-20, page 5 line 15 to page 6 line 4, and page 6 line 25 to page 7 line 20 of the specification mentions an actual relative orientation but does not provide further details as to whether an actual relative orientation is referring to an average actual relative orientation, a weighted average actual relative orientation, or another actual relative orientation altogether.
Lines 2-4 of claim 43 recites the limitation “…the actual relative orientation” in “…if the difference between the actual relative orientation and an intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces is below the accuracy threshold…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the actual relative orientation” in the claim. It is unclear whether “the actual relative orientation” is referring to “an average actual relative orientation” (line 13 of claim 40), “the weighted average actual relative orientation” (lines 16-17 of claim 40), or another actual relative orientation altogether. The examiner cannot reasonably ascertain what “the actual relative orientation” is referring to because there are multiple “actual relative orientations” recited in claim 40 and the specification does not provide any clarity as to which actual relative orientation is being referred to. Page 2 line 21 to page 3 line 6, page 3 lines 12-20, page 5 line 15 to page 6 line 4, and page 6 line 25 to page 7 line 20 of the specification mentions an actual relative orientation but does not provide further details as to whether an actual relative orientation is referring to an average actual relative orientation, a weighted average actual relative orientation, or another actual relative orientation altogether.
Lines 2-4 of claim 43 recites the limitation “…an intended relative orientation” in “…if the difference between the actual relative orientation and an intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces is below the accuracy threshold…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “an intended relative orientation” in the claim. Claim 40 already recites “an intended relative orientation” (line 17 of claim 40), therefore, it is unclear whether “an intended relative orientation” of claim 43 is referring to “an intended relative orientation” of claim 40 or another intended relative orientation altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, “an intended relative orientation” recited in claim 43 is referring to the same intended relative orientation of claim 40, therefore, it would appear that “an intended relative orientation” in claim 43 should instead recite “the intended relative orientation.”
Line 2-4 of claim 46 recites the limitation “…the actual relative orientation” in “…the difference between the actual relative orientation and the intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the actual relative orientation” is referring to “an average actual relative orientation” (line 13 of claim 40), “the weighted average actual relative orientation” (lines 16-17 of claim 40), or another actual relative orientation altogether. The examiner cannot reasonably ascertain what “the actual relative orientation” is referring to because there are multiple “actual relative orientations” recited in claim 40 and the specification does not provide any clarity as to which actual relative orientation is being referred to. Page 2 line 21 to page 3 line 6, page 3 lines 12-20, page 5 line 15 to page 6 line 4, and page 6 line 25 to page 7 line 20 of the specification mentions an actual relative orientation but does not provide further details as to whether an actual relative orientation is referring to an average actual relative orientation, a weighted average actual relative orientation, or another actual relative orientation altogether.
Line 2-4 of claim 47 recites the limitation “…the actual relative orientation” in “…the difference between the actual relative orientation and the intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces is derived from measuring an interference pattern of the reflected light beams”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the actual relative orientation” is referring to “an average actual relative orientation” (line 13 of claim 40), “the weighted average actual relative orientation” (lines 16-17 of claim 40), or another actual relative orientation altogether. The examiner cannot reasonably ascertain what “the actual relative orientation” is referring to because there are multiple “actual relative orientations” recited in claim 40 and the specification does not provide any clarity as to which actual relative orientation is being referred to. Page 2 line 21 to page 3 line 6, page 3 lines 12-20, page 5 line 15 to page 6 line 4, and page 6 line 25 to page 7 line 20 of the specification mentions an actual relative orientation but does not provide further details as to whether an actual relative orientation is referring to an average actual relative orientation, a weighted average actual relative orientation, or another actual relative orientation altogether.
Line 1 of claim 47 recites “…the incident light beams…” which has insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “the incident light beams” from claim 47 is referring to “at least one collimated incident light beam” in claim 40 or other incident light beams altogether. Furthermore, claim 40 does not recite a plurality of incident beams whereas claim 44 does recite in lines 1-2 “the at least one incident light beam comprises a first incident light beam and a second incident light beam.” It would appear that claim 47 should instead be dependent on claim 44 or should be amended to recite “…wherein the incident light beam[[s]] [[are]] is coherent…”. As best understood and therefore interpreted, claim 47 only has only incident light beam.
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 40-44, 52-53, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura (JP 2019117363 A (also known as WO 2019131277 A1), which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025 where portions of an attached translation are cited below) in view of Memesawa (JP H09304036 A, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025 and portions of a translation the Applicant provided is cited below), and further in view of Sharma (US 20070002911 A1).
Regarding Claim 40, Fujimura teaches a method for producing a composite prism having a plurality of planar external surfaces by aligning and bonding two or more prism components along bonding surfaces (Abstract and [0006-0007]; [0011]: First optical element and second optical element may include a prism) thereof, the method comprising stages of:
bringing the bonding surfaces (Fig. 1: surfaces 2b and 1a) of the first prism component and the second prism component into close proximity or contact ([0006-0007]);
aligning at least one first surface (Fig. 1: first surface 2a) of the first prism component (Fig. 1: first prism 2) and at least one second surface (Fig. 1: second surface 1b) of the second prism component (Fig. 1: prism 1), wherein at least one of the first surface and the second surface is an internal facet (Fig. 1: second surface 1b is an internal facet);
projecting at least one collimated incident light beam ([0009]: Autocollimator generates an inspection light which is shown in Fig. 2 where the autocollimator is element 15) on the at least one first surface (Fig. 1: surface 2a is incident by light L1 [0019]) and the at least one second surface (Fig. 1: surface 1b is incident by light L5);
sensing light beams ([0045]: Return light T’ of the inspection light T is used for detecting deviation as shown in Fig. 2) reflected from the at least one second surface (Fig. 1: surface 1b is an optical surface that internally reflects the light L3 [0024]);
based on the sensed data, determining an actual relative orientation between the at least one first surface and the at least one second surface (paragraphs [0054-0058], [0063-0066], and [0070] describe an offset/shift amount is determined and corrected by rotating prism 2 to reduce the offset/shift amount into an allowable range); and
joining, using a controllably rotatable mechanical axis (Fig. 2: gonio stage 13 [0041]: “The gonio stage 13 is a rotation stage having a rotation center Q on an axis parallel to the Z axis.”), the first and second prism components along their bonding surfaces if the difference between the actual relative orientation and an intended relative orientation between the at least one first surface and the at least one second surface is below an accuracy threshold ([0053-0057]: Inspection light T is incident along the optical axis of the optical element assembly 4 and the reflected inspection light T’ is detected and used to determine if there is a deviation along the optical axis. If determined to have a deviation along the optical axis, an operation of rotating and moving the first prism 2 around the movement center Q is performed.),
wherein one or more of the prism components are transparent or semi-transparent ([0022]: Prisms are made of a glass material, a transparent resin material, or the like.).
Fujimura appears to be silent to sensing light beams reflected from the at least one first surface and the at least one second surface.
Memesawa, related to measuring prism angles, does teach that the sensing light beams reflected from the at least one first surface and the at least one second surface (shown in Fig. 2 where there are two incident beams from laser optic systems 12 and 16 which are incident onto two different surfaces of prism 21 where both beams are reflected into light position detection parts 15 and 17, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura so that sensing light beams are reflected from the at least one first surface and the at least one second surface, as disclosed by Memesawa. The advantage of sensing light beams reflected from two different surfaces is that an angle of a prism can be measured (Abstract from Memesawa).
Fujimura modified by Memesawa appears to be silent to determining average and weighted values.
Sharma, related to aligning optical components, does teach determining average and weighted values related to position/orientation ([0035]: “It is also possible to detect both filters (or multiple optical elements in the general case) and to take an average (or a weighted average) of their positions/orientations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura combined with Memesawa to incorporate determining average and weighted values, as disclosed by Sharma. Determining averages and weighted values is well known in the field of endeavor and a standard procedure in data analysis. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (determining averages and weighted values for data analysis) to yield predictable results (to obtain a better representation of the measurement data) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 41, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma further teaches that the method further comprises realigning the first and second surfaces if the difference between the actual relative orientation and the intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces is above the accuracy threshold (Fujimura, [0055-0058]: “If the amount of deviation exceeds the determination allowable value, step S6 is performed.”).
Regarding Claim 42, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma further teaches that the method further comprises repeating the stages of aligning the first and second surfaces, projecting the at least one incident light beam, and determining the actual relative orientation between the first and second surfaces if the difference between the actual relative orientation and the intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces is above the accuracy threshold (Fujimura, [0055-0058]: “If the amount of deviation exceeds the determination allowable value, step S6 is performed.” This section also describes an offset/shift amount is determined and used to rotate prism 2 to reduce the offset/shift amount until the offset/shift amount reaches an allowable range.).
Regarding Claim 43, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma further teaches that an adhesive is applied between the bonding surfaces prior to the stage of aligning the first and second surfaces, and wherein, if the difference between the actual relative orientation and an intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces is below the accuracy threshold, the first prism component and the second prism component are cured along the bonding surfaces thereof (Fujimura, [0006-0007]: “…disposing an uncured adhesive between the first bonding surface and the second bonding surface, and between the first bonding surface and the second bonding surface After the adhesive is placed, the first optical element and the second optical element are moved in parallel relative to each other along the reference axis so that the layer thickness of the adhesive becomes constant. Thinning and axial light on the design of the second bonding surface of the second optical element after the adhesive is thinned. Moving the second optical element relative to the first optical element such that the second joint surface tilts with respect to the reference axis centering on the surface point located substantially at the center of the second optical element; The optical element assembly in the uncured state of the adhesive including the first optical element and the second optical element along the design incident light path when the second optical element is relatively rotated.”; see also [0054-0055]).
Regarding Claim 44, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma further teaches that the at least one incident light beam (Fujimura, Fig. 1: incident beam L1) comprises a first incident light beam (Fujimura, Fig. 1: L1) and a second incident light beam (Fujimura, Fig. 1: L5) is directed at a first angle and a second angle relative to the first surface (Fujimura, Fig. 1: surface 2a) and the second surface (Fujimura, Fig. 1: second surface 1b).
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma (for claim 40) appears to be silent to the at least one incident light beam comprises a first incident light beam and a second incident light beam directed at a first angle and a second angle relative to the first surface and the second surface, respectively.
Memesawa, related to measuring prism angles, does that the at least one incident light beam comprises a first incident light beam (Fig. 2: beam from laser optic system 12) and a second incident light beam (Fig. 2: beam from laser optic system 16) directed at a first angle and a second angle relative to the first surface and the second surface, respectively (shown in Fig. 2 where there are two incident beams from laser optic systems 12 and 16 which are incident onto two different surfaces of prism 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura combined with Memesawa and Sharma (for claim 40) so that the at least one incident light beam comprises a first incident light beam and a second incident light beam directed at a first angle and a second angle relative to the first surface and the second surface, respectively, as disclosed by Memesawa. The advantage of a first incident light beam and a second incident light beam directed at a first angle and a second angle relative to a first surface and a second surface, respectively, is that an angle of a prism can be measured (Abstract from Memesawa).
Regarding Claim 52, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma further teaches that the first prism and and/or the second prism components (Fujimura, Fig. 1: prism 1) comprise an embedded internal facet (Fujimura, Fig. 1: surface 1b).
Regarding Claim 53, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma further teaches that a third surface (Fujimura, Fig. 1: third surface 1c) and/or second surfaces are coated with a reflective coating (Fujimura, [0025]: “The third surface 1c may be provided with a reflecting coating to increase the reflectance.”).
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma (in claim 40) appears to be silent to the first surface is coated with a reflective coating. However, Fujimura does teach that a third surface 1c may be provided with a reflection coating to increase the reflectance ([0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura combined with Memesawa and Sharma (for claim 40) so that the first surface and/or second surfaces are coated with a reflective coating, as disclosed by Fujimura. The advantage of having surfaces be coated with reflective coatings is that the reflectance can be increased ([0025] from Fujimura).
Regarding Claim 57, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma further teaches determining a relative position of the first prism component with respect to the second prism component (Fujimura, shift amount/offset from [0055-0060]).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura (JP 2019117363 A (also known as WO 2019131277 A1), which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025 where portions of an attached translation are cited below) in view of Memesawa (JP H09304036 A, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025 and portions of a translation the Applicant provided is cited below) and Sharma (US 20070002911 A1), and further in view of Lee (US 5,872,663A which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025).
Regarding Claim 46, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma further teaches that the light beams reflected from the first surface and the second surface are focused onto a photosensitive surface (Fujimura, optical sensor from [0070] and reflection detection is shown in Fig. 2), and wherein the difference between the actual relative orientation and the intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces is derived from locations of a first spot formed on the photosensitive surface by the light reflected from the first surface and the second surface, respectively (Fujimura, [0056-0058] and [0070]).
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma appears to be silent to a second spot formed on the photosensitive surface by the light reflected from the second surface.
Lee, related to fabricating optical elements, does teach a first spot (Figs. 4 and 5: surface 42a of second negative bar 44b) and a second spot (Figs. 4 and 5: surface 42a of first negative bar 44a) formed on the photosensitive surface by the light reflected from a first and second prism/bars (Col. 4, ll. 66 to Col. 5, ll. 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura combined with Memesawa and Sharma so that a second spot formed on the photosensitive surface by the light reflected from the second surface, as disclosed by Lee. The above-mentioned method has the advantage of providing alignment and calibration (Col. 4, ll. 66 to Col. 5, ll. 37 from Lee).
Claims 45, 47-48 and 54-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura (JP 2019117363 A (also known as WO 2019131277 A1), which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025 where portions of an attached translation are cited below) in view of Memesawa (JP H09304036 A, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025 and portions of a translation the Applicant provided is cited below) and Sharma (US 20070002911 A1), and further in view of Inoue (JPH 11173825 A, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025 where portions of an attached translation is cited below).
Regarding Claim 45, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharm appears to be silent to the at least one incident light beam is monochromatic and coherent.
Inoue, related to measuring the profile of a prism, does teach that the at least one incident light beam is monochromatic and coherent ([0006]: A laser is used where a laser is monochromatic and coherent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura combined with Memesawa and Sharma so that the at least one incident light beam is monochromatic and coherent, as disclosed by Inoue. Use of laser light which is monochromatic and coherent is well-known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one known element for another (using a laser as a light source instead of another type of light source) to obtain predictable results (as incident light) (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)).
Regarding Claim 47, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma further teaches the incident light beam (Fujimura, Fig. 1 and 2: inspection light T) and wherein the difference between the actual relative orientation and the intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces is derived (Fujimura, [0055-0058]: “If the amount of deviation exceeds the determination allowable value, step S6 is performed.” This section also describes an offset/shift amount is determined and used to rotate prism 2 to reduce the offset/shift amount between prisms 1 and 2 until the offset/shift amount reaches an allowable range.).
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma appears to be silent to the incident light beam is coherent and wherein the difference between the actual relative orientation and the intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces is derived from measuring of an interference pattern of the reflected light beams.
Inoue, related to measuring the profile of a prism, does teach that the incident light beam is coherent (laser beam from [0006] where a laser is coherent) and wherein the difference between the actual relative orientation and the intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces is derived from measuring of an interference pattern of the reflected light beams ([0012]: “The squareness error α can be represented by using the phase difference Δλ. Further, the surface accuracy of two right-angled planes can be evaluated from the interference fringe pattern measured by this measuring method.”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura combined with Memesawa and Sharma so that the incident light beam is coherent and wherein the difference between the actual relative orientation and the intended relative orientation between the first and second surfaces is derived from measuring of an interference pattern of the reflected light beams, as disclosed by Inoue.
Using a laser, which is coherent light, is known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (use of a laser to provide a coherent beam) to yield predictable results (for optical measurements) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
The advantage of measuring an interference pattern of the reflected light beams is that the interference pattern can be evaluated to determine the surface accuracy between two right-angled planes ([0012] from Inoue).
Regarding Claim 48, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma further teaches the first surface (Fujimura, Fig. 1: first surface 2a) and the second surface (Fujimura, Fig. 1: second surface 1b).
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma appears to be silent to the first surface and the second surface are oriented perpendicularly, or substantially perpendicularly, to one another.
Inoue, related to measuring the profile of a prism, does teach that the first surface (Fig. 2: surface 2’) and the second surface (Fig. 2: surface 3’) are oriented perpendicularly, or substantially perpendicularly, to one another (shown in Fig. 2 where the angle between surface 2’ and surface 3’ is 90 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura combined with Memesawa and Sharma so that the first surface and the second surface are oriented perpendicularly, or substantially perpendicularly, to one another, as disclosed by Inoue. The above-mentioned configuration allows for evaluating the squareness and surface accuracy of a right-angle prism ([0001-0002] from Inoue) where a right-angle prism is well-known prism shape.
Regarding Claim 54, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma further teaches that the second surface is an embedded internal facet and wherein the method further comprises an initial stage of submerging the composite prism in an immersive medium having a refractive index equal to the second prism component; and/or
wherein the second prism component (Fujimura, Fig. 1: prism 1) comprises a first sub-prism (Fujimura, Fig. 1: second prism 1A) and a second sub-prism (Fujimura, Fig. 1: third prism 1B), which are joined (Fujimura, shown in Fig. 1), wherein the second surface is an internal facet defined by a boundary between the first sub-prism and the second sub-prism (Fujimura, Shown in Fig. 1 where second surface 1b is a boundary between prism 1A and 1B).
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma appears to be silent to the method further comprises an initial stage of immersing the composite prism in a medium having a refractive index equal to the first sub-prism.
Inoue, related to measuring the profile of a prism, does teach a method comprises an initial stage of immersing the composite prism in a medium having a refractive index equal to the first sub-prism ([0015]: “FIG. 2 is a schematic configuration diagram of a main part for explaining an embodiment of the invention of Claim 2. This invention, as shown in FIG. After forming a reflective film, for example, a metal coating 18 on 2′ and 3′ by a vacuum deposition method, the entire prism is dipped in a matching liquid 15 having a refractive index equal to that of the prism 14, and the laser light 11 of the laser phase measuring interferometer 4 is obtained. It is characterized in that the two surfaces 2' and 3' perpendicular to the direction to be measured are arranged at 45° and the liquid surface 17 of the matching liquid is arranged perpendicularly to the direction.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura combined with Memesawa and Sharma to incorporate a method which comprises an initial stage of immersing the composite prism in a medium having a refractive index equal to the first sub-prism, as disclosed by Inoue. The above-mentioned method has the advantage of allowing for squareness and surface accuracy of two rectangular faces on a prism to be measured and estimated ([0005-0006] and [0014] from Inoue).
Regarding Claim 55, Fujimura modified by Memesawa, Sharma and Inoue teach the method of claim 54.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa, Sharma and Inoue further teach that the at least one incident light beam (Inoue, Fig. 2: laser light 11) is projected normally to a surface of the immersive medium (Inoue, Fig. 2: matching liquid 15).
Regarding Claim 56, Fujimura modified by Memesawa, Sharma and Inoue teach the method of claim 55.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa, Sharma and Inoue further teaches that the second prism component (Fujimura, Fig. 1: prism 1) comprises the first sub-prism (Fujimura, Fig. 1: prism 1A) and the second sub-prism (Fujimura, Fig. 1: prism 1B), and wherein the second incident light beam (Fujimura, Fig. 2: inspection light T) comprises a first incident light beam (Fujimura, Fig. 1: L1) and a second incident light beam (Fujimura, Fig. 1: L3 to L5) propagated onto a first surface (Fujimura, Fig. 1: first surface 2a) and a second surface (Fujimura, Fig. 1: second surface 1b), respectively, and wherein the second incident light beam traverses the first sub-prism to reach the second surface (Fujimura, shown in Fig. 1 where incident beam L1 traverses through prism 1A to reach second surface 1b).
Fujimura modified by Memesawa, Sharma and Inoue (for claim 55) appears to be silent to the at least one incident light beam comprises a first incident light beam and a second incident light beam propagated onto the first surface and the second surface, respectively.
Inoue, related to measuring the profile of a prism, does teach that the at least one incident light beam (Fig. 1: laser light 11) comprises a first incident light beam and a second incident light beam propagated onto the first surface and the second surface, respectively (Fig. 1: laser light 11 is incident onto rectangular face 3’ (first surface) and rectangular face 2’ (second surface), respectively ([0003].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura modified by Memesawa, Sharma and Inoue (for claim 55) so that the at least one incident light beam comprises a first incident light beam and a second incident light beam propagated onto the first surface and the second surface, respectively, as disclosed by Inoue. The advantage of the above-mentioned method is that the squareness and surface accuracy of the two rectangular faces 2’ and 3’ can be measured and estimated ([0005-0006] and [0014] from Inoue).
Claims 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura (JP 2019117363 A (also known as WO 2019131277 A1), which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025 where portions of an attached translation are cited below) in view of Memesawa (JP H09304036 A, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025 and portions of a translation the Applicant provided is cited below) and Sharma (US 20070002911 A1), and further in view of Ofir (US 20170363799 A1, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025).
Regarding Claim 49, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma appears to be silent to an angle between the first and second surface is intended to be less than about 20 Deg.
Ofir, related to a waveguide, does teach that an angle between the first (Fig. 1: selective reflecting surface 22) and second surface (Fig. 1: other selective reflecting surface 22) is intended to be less than about 20 Deg (Shown in Fig. 1 where the selective reflecting surfaces 22 are parallel to each other ([0021]) so the angle between them is 0 degrees or substantially 0 degrees.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma so that an angle between the first and second surface is intended to be less than about 20 Deg, as disclosed by Ofir. The advantage of having a first and second surface be parallel or substantially parallel to each other is that the light waves inside a light guide can be coupled into the eyes of the view/detector which optimizes directionality of the light waves to an observer ([0021] from Ofir).
Regarding Claim 50, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma appears to be silent to the first and second surface are intended to be parallel or substantially parallel to each other.
Ofir, related to a waveguide, does teach that the first (Fig. 1: selective reflecting surface 22) and second surface (Fig. 1: other selective reflecting surface 22) are intended to be parallel or substantially parallel to each other (shown in Fig. 1 and described in [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura combined with Memesawa and Sharma so that the first and second surface are intended to be parallel or substantially parallel to each other, as disclosed by Ofir. The advantage of having a first and second surface be parallel or substantially parallel to each other is that the light waves inside a light guide can be coupled into the eyes of the view/detector which optimizes directionality of the light waves to an observer ([0021] from Ofir).
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura (JP 2019117363 A (also known as WO 2019131277 A1), which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025 where portions of an attached translation are cited below) in view of Memesawa (JP H09304036 A, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025 and portions of a translation the Applicant provided is cited below) and Sharma (US 20070002911 A1), and further in view of Choi (US 20050152051 A1).
Regarding Claim 58, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma further teaches the collimated incident light beam (Fujimura, Fig. 2: autocollimator 15).
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma appears to be silent to the collimated incident light beam is a polarized light.
Choi, related to prisms, does teach that the collimated incident light beam (Fig. 9: light source 51 is collimated by collimating lens 53) is a polarized light (Fig. 9: half-wave plate 34 polarizes the collimated light from collimating lens 53 [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma so that the collimated incident light beam is a polarized light, as disclosed by Choi. Polarizing collimating light is known in the field of endeavor, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (using a polarizer to polarize collimating light) to yield predictable results (for beam shaping) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura (JP 2019117363 A (also known as WO 2019131277 A1), which was disclosed in the IDS dated 07/24/2025 where portions of an attached translation are cited below) in view of Sharma (US 20070002911 A1).
Regarding Claim 59, Fujimura teaches a system for producing a composite prism having a plurality of planar external surfaces by aligning and bonding two or more prism components along bonding surfaces (Fig. 2: optical element bonding apparatus 10) thereof, the system comprising:
an infrastructure (Fig. 2: moving stage 11B and driving unit 1C) configured to bring the bonding surfaces (Fig. 1: surfaces 1a and 2b) of the first prism component (Fig. 1: prism 2) and the second prism component (Fig. 1: prism 1) into close proximity or contact (described in [0006-0007], [0035], and shown in Figs. 1 and 2);
a controllably rotatable mechanical axis (Fig. 2: gonio stage 13 [0041]: “The gonio stage 13 is a rotation stage having a rotation center Q on an axis parallel to the Z axis.”) configured to align at least one first surface (Fig. 1: first surface 2a) of the first prism component and at least one second surface (Fig. 1: second surface 1b) of the second prism component (described in [0041] and shown in Fig. 2; [0053-0057]: Inspection light T is incident along the optical axis of the optical element assembly 4 and the reflected inspection light T’ is detected and used to determine if there is a deviation along the optical axis. If determined to have a deviation along the optical axis, an operation of rotating and moving the first prism 2 around the movement center Q is performed.);
a light source configured to project at least one collimated incident light beam (Fig. 2: autocollimator 15) on the at least one first surface (Figs. 1 and 2: first surface 2a is incident by light L1 [0019]) and the at least one second surface (Fig. 1: second surface 1b is incident by light L5);
one or more detectors configured to sense light beams reflected from the first and second surfaces (optical sensor from [0070]); and
a computational module configured to determining an actual relative orientation between the at least one first surface and the at least one second surface based on the sensed data (The steps disclosed in paragraphs [0054-0058], [0063-0066], [0070] would necessarily require a computational module to compute whether the shift amount of the optical axis of the return light Ti is within an allowable range [0058].), and if a difference between the actual relative orientation and an intended relative orientation between the at least one first surface and the at least one second surface is below an accuracy threshold, determine a correction angle for the controllably rotatable mechanical axis ([0053-0057]: Inspection light T is incident along the optical axis of the optical element assembly 4 and the reflected inspection light T’ is detected and used to determine if there is a deviation along the optical axis. If determined to have a deviation along the optical axis, an operation of rotating and moving the first prism 2 around the movement center Q is performed.), wherein one or more of the prism components are transparent or semi-transparent ([0022]: Prisms are made of a glass material, a transparent resin material, or the like.).
Fujimura appears to be silent to determining average and weighted values.
Sharma, related to aligning optical components, does teach determining average and weighted values related to position/orientation ([0035]: “It is also possible to detect both filters (or multiple optical elements in the general case) and to take an average (or a weighted average) of their positions/orientations.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fujimura to incorporate determining average and weighted values, as disclosed by Sharma. Determining averages and weighted values is well known in the field of endeavor and a standard procedure in data analysis. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods (determining averages and weighted values for data analysis) to yield predictable results (to obtain a better representation of the measurement data) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 51 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 51, Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma teaches the method of claim 40.
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma further teaches that the at least one second surface (Fujimura, Fig. 1: second surface 1b) wherein the projecting of the at least one collimated incident light beam (Fujimura, Fig. 2: inspection light T) and the sensing of the light beams are separately performed on the first surface (Fujimura, optical sensor from [0070] and detection shown in Fig. 2 with returned light T’).
Fujimura modified by Memesawa and Sharma does not teach that the at least one second surface comprises a plurality of internal facets nominally co-parallel, wherein the projecting of the at least one collimated incident light beam and the sensing of the light beams are separately performed on the first surface and each one of the internal facets. At best, Fujimura only teaches one internal facet (Fig. 1: second surface 1b).
Therefore, as to Claim 51, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for producing a composite prism having a plurality of planar external surfaces by aligning and bonding two or more prism components along bonding surfaces, the method comprising the at least one second surface comprises a plurality of internal facets nominally co-parallel, wherein the projecting of the at least one collimated incident light beam and the sensing of the light beams are separately performed on the first surface and each one of the internal facets, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 51.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm EST.
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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877