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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 03/31/26 regarding rejected claims 1-2, pages 4-5, the new added limitation “the diffusion member is an optical fiber having a wound shape resulting from being wound for at least three turns” has been found in reference of Fewkes et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0088888), (figure 13A, LED 150, diffusing optical fiber 12).
3. With respect to applicant’s remarks regarding rejected claim 1 on pages 4-5, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argues “In particular, it is respectfully submitted that the applied art does not teach or render obvious the point light source includes an LED, a diffusion member that diffuses and emits light from the LED, and a pinhole member having a pinhole into which light from the diffusion member is incident, and the diffusion member is an optical fiber having a wound shape resulting from being wound for at least three turns, as recited in Claim 1”. However, JP4500157 clearly teaches in figure 1, a point light source 10 including white led 11 and pinhole 12. Moreover, JP4500157 also teaches in figure 7, the light source 4a with diffusing member rod lens 4b.
Although JP4500157 does not teach the amended limitation “the diffusion member is an optical fiber having a wound shape resulting from being wound for at least three turns”, this new limitation has been found in new reference of Fewkes et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0088888), (figure 13A, LED 150, diffusing optical fiber 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify JP 4500157 by having the diffusion member is an optical fiber having a wound shape resulting from being wound for at least three turns in order to have efficient diffused light.
4. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/25, has been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claim(s) 1, 2, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4500157 in view of Fewkes et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0088888). Hereafter “JP4500157” and “Fewkes”. (Please see the attached files for references of JP4500157 in previous Office Action).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 7-8, JP4500157 teaches an optical system for a shape measuring device page 1, TECHNICAL-FIELD; Figure 1) comprising:
a parallel light irradiation system that irradiates, with parallel light (the following figure 1, beams AA), a portion to be measured that is an outer peripheral end edge portion of an object to be measured having a disk shape along a circular surface of the object to be measured such that the portion to be measured of the object to be measured is disposed in a light flux (the following figure 1, edge portion of an object 1 to be measured is disposed in a light flux beams AA; Page 3, lines 3-13); and
an imaging optical system that images the portion to be measured (figure 1, sensor 32),
wherein the parallel light irradiation system includes a point light source, a collimator lens that emits light from the point light source as parallel light, and a telecentric lens having a both side or object side telecentric structure to be irradiated with light from the collimator lens through the object to be measured (figure 1, collimator lens 20, a point light source 10, telecentric lens 31, object wafer 1),
the imaging optical system includes an image sensor onto which an image of the portion to be measured, the image by light passing through the telecentric lens is projected (figure 1, an image sensor 32, telecentric lens 31; Page 4, lines 1-25), and
the point light source includes an LED (figure 1, elements 10, 11; Figures 7, 8, element 4a), a diffusion member that diffuses and emits light from the LED (page 2, lines 2-4; Figures 7-8, rod lens 4b is not different from a diffuser); and a pinhole member having a pinhole into which light from the diffusion member is incident (the following figure 1, aperture B).
[AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (AA)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
562
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, JP4500157 does not teach the diffusion member is an optical fiber having a wound shape resulting from being wound for at least three turns. Fewkes teaches the diffusion member is an optical fiber having a wound shape resulting from being wound for at least three turns, (figure 13A, LED 150, diffusing optical fiber 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify JP 4500157 by having the diffusion member is an optical fiber having a wound shape resulting from being wound for at least three turns in order to have efficient diffused light.
Regarding Claim(s) 7-8, JP4500157 in view of Fewkes teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a brightness distribution of the light irradiated to the image sensor is equal to or less than 25%, or less or 20%. Fewkes teaches the minimum scattering illumination intensity is not less than 0.7 of the maximum scattering illumination intensity, that means the illumination intensity is equal or more than 0.3 of the maximum scattering illumination intensity, ([0091]). Although, Fewkes does not teach exactly a brightness/intensity distribution of the light within the claimed range, Fewkes teaches a brightness distribution range close to the range of equal to or less than 25%, or less or 20%. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
8. Claim(s) 5-6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 4500157 in view of Fewkes et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0088888) further in view of Akamatsu (U.S. Pat. No. 7,456,978). Hereafter “JP4500157”, “Fewkes”, “Akamatsu”. (Please see the attached files for references of JP4500157 in previous Office Action).
Regarding Claim(s) 5-6, JP4500157 in view of Fewkes teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a diameter of the pinhole is 1 µm to 1mm, and 10 µm to 800. Akamatsu teaches a pinhole including an opening having a size of diameter 200 µn (column 4, lines 56-57). Therefore, Akamatsu clearly teaches a preferred range for a diameter of the pinhole totally within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use an appropriate range for a diameter of the pinhole as instantly claimed motivated by the desire to have a desire system. This is in line with In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 which hold discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Double Patenting
9. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
10. Claim 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of Akamatsu (U.S. Patent No. 7,456,978), in view of JP 4500157, further in view of Fewkes et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0088888). Hereafter, “Akamatsu ‘978”, “JP4500157”, “Fewkes”. (Please see the attached files for reference of JP4500157).
As to claim 1, 2, Akamatsu ‘978 claims an optical system for a shape measuring device comprising:
a parallel light irradiation system that irradiates, with parallel light (claim 1, line 3), a portion to be measured that is an outer peripheral end edge portion of an object to be measured having a disk shape along a circular surface of the object to be measured such that the portion to be measured of the object to be measured is disposed in a light flux (claim 1, lines 6-9); and
an imaging optical system that images the portion to be measured,
wherein the parallel light irradiation system includes a point light source, a collimator lens that emits light from the point light source as parallel light (claim 1, lines 3-4), and a telecentric lens having a both side or object side telecentric structure to be irradiated with light from the collimator lens through the object to be measured (claim 1, lines 12-16,
the imaging optical system includes an image sensor onto which an image of the portion to be measured, the image by light passing through the telecentric lens is projected (claim 1, lines 17-20).
However, Akamatsu ‘978 does not claim the point light source includes an LED, a diffusion member that diffuses and emits light from the LED; and a pinhole member having a pinhole into which light from the diffusion member is incident. JP4500157 teaches the point light source includes an LED (figure 1, elements 10, 11; Figures 7, 8, element 4a), a diffusion member that diffuses and emits light from the LED (page 2, lines 2-4; Figures 7-8, rod lens 4b is not different from a diffuser); and a pinhole member having a pinhole into which light from the diffusion member is incident (the following figure 1, aperture B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to include in Akamatsu ‘978 a diffusion member and a pinhole member having a pinhole into which light from the diffusion member is incident taught by JP4500157 for the purpose of diffusing and transmitting optical signals. Thus, the uniformity of light is attained.
Moreover, Akamatsu ‘978 in view of JP4500157 does not teach the diffusion member is an optical fiber having a wound shape resulting from being wound for at least three turns. Fewkes teaches the diffusion member is an optical fiber having a wound shape resulting from being wound for at least three turns, (figure 13A, LED 150, diffusing optical fiber 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Akamatsu ‘978 and JP 4500157 by having the diffusion member is an optical fiber having a wound shape resulting from being wound for at least three turns in order to have efficient diffused light.
Regarding Claim(s) 5-6, Akamatsu ‘978 in view of JP4500157, and further in view of Fewkes teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a diameter of the pinhole is 1 µm to 1mm, or 10 µm to 800. Akamatsu teaches a pinhole including an opening having a size of diameter 200 µn (column 4, lines 56-57). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate a diameter of the pinhole range for the benefit of well operated inspection system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim(s) 7-8, Akamatsu ‘978 in view of JP4500157, and in view of Fewkes teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for a brightness distribution of the light irradiated to the image sensor is equal to or less than 25%, or less or 20%. Fewkes teaches the minimum scattering illumination intensity is not less than 0.7 of the maximum scattering illumination intensity, that means the illumination intensity is equal or more than 0.3 of the maximum scattering illumination intensity, ([0091]). Although, Fewkes does not teach exactly a brightness/intensity distribution of the light within the claimed range, Fewkes teaches a brightness distribution range close to the range of equal to or less than 25%, or less or 20%. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (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 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.
April 22, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights