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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 16-18, 33, and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “…another superimposed hologram which interacts with the other differently polarised beams thereby to modulate both differently polarised beams to make first diffraction orders of both polarised beams with uniform polarization come out of the hologram together to be used as the measurement beam.” To be consistent and avoid antecedent basis issues, claim 16 should instead recite “…another superimposed hologram which interacts with the other differently polarised beams thereby to modulate both differently polarised beams to make first diffraction orders of both differently polarised beams with uniform polarization come out of the hologram together to be used as the measurement beam.”
Claims 17-18 are also objected to by virtue of their dependence on claim 16.
The 2nd to last line of claim 33 recites “and the other direct to the reference detector.” The 2nd to last line of claim 33 should instead recite “and the other directed to the reference detector.”
Claim 42 recites “…another superimposed hologram which interacts with the other differently polarised beam thereby to modulate both polarised beams to make first diffraction orders of both polarised beams come out of the hologram together with uniform polarization.” To be consistent and avoid antecedent basis issues, claim 42 should instead recite “…another superimposed hologram which interacts with the other differently polarised beam thereby to modulate both differently polarised beams to make first diffraction orders of both differently polarised beams come out of the hologram together with uniform polarization.”
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.
Claim 21, 33, 38 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the claim ends by stating “to make first diffraction orders of both polarized beams with uniform polarization come out of the hologram together to be used as the measurement beam”, but it is unclear whether “the hologram” there refers back to “each of the holograms” from line 5 of the claim, or “a hologram” or “another superimposed hologram” in lines 6-7 of the claim. It would appear that “the hologram” referenced in the last line of claim 16 is referring to “each of the holograms”. Therefore, as best understood and interpreted, “the holograms” mentioned in the last line of claim 16 is referring to “each of the holograms”.
Claims 17-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 16.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "measurement beams" in “…directing the measurement beams through one or more Fourier imaging systems before detecting the polarisation properties”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, which claim 21 depends on, only recites “the measurement beam” that interacts with an object. As best understood and interpreted, there is only one measurement beam interacting with an object.
The term “suitable” in claim 33 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of the term “suitable” to describe a suitable beam splitter is subjective which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what a suitable beam splitter would be. The specification also does not clearly define what a suitable beam splitter would be. [0064] of the PGPub merely reiterates that the system may comprise a suitable beam splitting arrangement configured to split the measurement beam into two paths. [0070] of the PGPub does recite that the beam generating arrangement may comprise a half wave plate and/or a polarizing beam splitter to split the light beam from the light source into the two polarised beams, however, this is an example of a beam generating arrangement rather than explicitly defining what a suitable beam splitter would be. Therefore, as best understood and therefore interpreted, a suitable beam splitter is merely any element which can split a beam.
The term “suitable” in claim 38 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of the term “suitable” to describe a suitable beam splitter is subjective which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what a suitable beam splitter would be. The specification also does not clearly define what a suitable beam splitter would be. [0064] of the PGPub merely reiterates that the system may comprise a suitable beam splitting arrangement configured to split the measurement beam into two paths. [0070] of the PGPub does recite that the beam generating arrangement may comprise a half wave plate and/or a polarizing beam splitter to split the light beam from the light source into the two polarised beams, however, this is an example of a beam generating arrangement rather than explicitly defining what a suitable beam splitter would be. Therefore, as best understood and therefore interpreted, a suitable beam splitter is merely any element which can split a beam.
Regarding claim 42, the claim ends by stating “to make first diffraction orders of both polarized beams come out of the hologram together with uniform polarisation”, but it is unclear whether “the hologram” there refers back to “each hologram” from line 2 of the claim, or “a hologram” or “another superimposed hologram” in lines 2-3 of the claim. It would appear that “the hologram” referenced in the last line of claim 42 is referring to “each hologram”. Therefore, as best understood and interpreted, “the holograms” mentioned in the last line of claim 42 is referring to “each hologram.”
The term “suitable” in claim 45 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The use of the term “suitable” to describe a suitable optical element is subjective which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what a suitable optical element would be. [0115] provides an example of what a suitable optical element could be, which could be mirrors. However, mirrors are merely presented as an example and not a definite definition for a suitable optical element. Therefore, as best understood and therefore interpreted, suitable optical elements are merely any elements which can provide the function of expanding and collimating the light beam from the light source.
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 1, 3-4, 21, 24-26, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al et al (“High-speed spatial control of the intensity, phase and polarization of vector beams using a digital micro-mirror device”, 2016, Optics Express, Vol. 24, Issue 25, pp. 29269-29282) in view of Sanford (US 3,831,436).
Regarding Claim 1, Mitchell et al teaches a method for measuring an optical characteristic of an object, wherein the method comprises:
directing a uniformly polarised measurement beam (Page 8, last paragraph: Uniformed polarized beam is generated from combining light from both beam A and beam B (shown in Fig. 1);
rotating the state of polarisation of the measurement beam with holograms (Page 8, paragraph 4: Hologram patterns are fine-tuned to ensure accurate generation of the required polarization states.; Further shown in Fig. 6 and described on page 11, last paragraph: “We preloaded 10 patterns designed to switch the vector beam gradually from a radially polarised to azimuthally polarised state, by locally rotating the polarisation through a series of chirally polarised states.”);
detecting polarisation properties of the measurement beam without interacting with an object (Abstract: “The polarization state of the generated beams is characterized with spatially resolved Stokes measurements.”; Shown in Fig. 1 where there is no object and the generated beam is characterized by a CMOS.) for each state of polarization of the measurement beam (Fig. 1 caption describes that the CMOS camera is used to measure the spatially resolved polarization states of the generated beams.); and
using the detected polarization properties of the measurement beam without interacting with the object (Abstract: The polarization state of the generated beams is characterized.; Shown in Fig. 1 where there is no object) for each state of polarization (Fig. 1 caption describes that the CMOS camera is used to measure the spatially resolved polarization states of the generated beams.) to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic (polarization state from Abstract).
Mitchell et al appears to be silent to directing a uniformly polarised measurement beam onto an object;
detecting polarisation properties of the measurement beam after interacting with the object; and
using the detected polarization properties of the measurement beam after interacting with the object to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object.
Sanford, related to a polariscope, does teach directing a polarized measurement beam (Fig. 1: object beam 36 is polarized by polarizer 12 and waveplate 16; Col. 2, ll. 38-58) onto an object (Fig. 1: object 30) and
detecting polarisation properties of the measurement beam after interacting with the object for each state of polarisation of the measurement beam (Abstract: “The apparatus consists of a conventional off-axis transmission holographic set-up with the addition of several polarization optical elements to alter the polarization of the light at various stages of a procedure to study an object…After producing the hologram these elements are readjusted to any desired state of polarization and the corresponding interference pattern is observed in real-time and may be changed at any time to view a different type of interference pattern.”); and
using the detected polarization properties (Abstract: polarization can be measured by the polariscope) of the measurement beam after interacting with the object (Fig. 1: object beam 36 is incident onto object 30) to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object (Col. 1, ll. 48-57: Changes in birefringence can be viewed in real time.; Col. 2, ll. 7-9: Physical characteristics of a birefringent material can be analyzed in real time.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell et al to direct a uniformly polarised measurement beam onto an object;
detecting polarisation properties of the measurement beam after interacting with the object; and
using the detected polarization properties of the measurement beam after interacting with the object to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object, as disclosed by Sanford. The above-mentioned method has the advantage of allowing real-time observation of a complete set of interference patterns from a single reference hologram to study an object (Abstract from Sanford).
Regarding Claim 3, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford (for claim 1) appears to be silent to the measurement beam without interacting with the object is a reference beam.
Sanford does teach that the measurement beam without interacting with the object is a reference beam (Fig. 1: reference beam 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mitchell et al combined with Sanford (for claim 1) so that the measurement beam without interacting with the object is a reference beam, as disclosed by Sanford. The use of a reference beam is known in the field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements (use of a reference beam) according to known methods to yield predictable results (to have a reference for comparing measurement results) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 4, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford teaches the method as claimed in claim 3.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford further teaches the method comprises splitting a uniformly polarised beam (Mitchell et al, Page 8, last paragraph: Uniformed polarized beam is generated from combining light from both beam A and beam B (shown in Fig. 1) into two identical beams (Sanford, Fig. 1 shows a beam splitter splitting a beam), wherein one of the beams is the measurement beam (Sanford, Fig. 1: object beam 36) which is directed onto the object (Sanford, Fig. 1: object 30) and the other is the reference beam (Sanford, Fig. 1: reference beam 34; The reference beam would necessarily be identical to the object beam before the object beam is incident onto the object because the reference beam is used as a reference to the object beam.).
Regarding Claim 21, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford further teaches that the method comprises directing the measurement beams (Mitchell et al, Fig. 1: beams A and B when combined to be directed through QWP) through a second polarising element (Mitchell et al, Fig. 1: QWP (quarter-wave plate) or LP (linear polarizer can be inserted before the CMOS camera) after interacting with the object (Sanford, Fig. 1: object 30).
Regarding Claim 24, Mitchell et al et al modified by Sanford teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford further teaches that the method comprises directing the measurement beams (Mitchell et al, Fig. 1: Beams A and B) through one or more Fourier imaging systems (Mitchell et al, Page 5, 3rd paragraph: “The aperture (APT) positioned before the beam displacers (near but not exactly at the Fourier plane of the DMD due to space constraints) is useful to remove other diffraction orders during the alignment process.” The presence of a Fourier plane would necessarily mean that there is a Fourier imaging system.) before detecting the polarisation properties (Mitchell et al, Shown in Fig. 1 where the CMOS camera used to detect polarization properties is after the aperture APT and beam displacers BD1 and BD2.).
Regarding Claim 25, Mitchell et al teaches a system for measuring an optical characteristic of an object, wherein the system comprises:
a beam generating arrangement comprising a holographic device (Fig. 1: DMD), wherein the beam generating arrangement is configured to generate and direct a uniformly polarised measurement beam (Page 8, last paragraph: Uniformed polarized beam is generated from combining light from both beam A and beam B (shown in Fig. 1)), wherein the holographic device is configured to rotate a state of polarisation of the measurement beam with holograms (Page 8, paragraph 4: Hologram patterns (on DMD which are computer-generated (Page 6, 3rd paragraph)) are fine-tuned to ensure accurate generation of the required polarization states.);
a detector arrangement (Fig. 1: CMOS) configured to detect polarisation properties of the measurement beam without interacting with the object (Abstract: “The polarization state of the generated beams is characterized with spatially resolved Stokes measurements.”; Shown in Fig. 1 where there is no object and the generated beam is characterized by a CMOS.) for each the state of polarisation of the measurement beam (Fig. 1 caption describes that the CMOS camera is used to measure the spatially resolved polarization states of the generated beams.); and
a processor (There would necessarily be a processor to do the following steps.) configured to use the detected polarization properties of the measurement beams without interacting with the object (Abstract: The polarization state of the generated beams is characterized.; Shown in Fig. 1 where there is no object) for each state of polarisation of the measurement beams (Fig. 1 caption describes that the CMOS camera is used to measure the spatially resolved polarization states of the generated beams.) to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic (polarization state from Abstract).
Mitchell et al appears to be silent to directing a uniformly polarised measurement beam onto an object;
a detector arrangement configured to detect polarisation properties of the measurement beam after interacting with the object; and
a processor configured to use the detected polarization properties of the measurement beams after interacting with the object to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object.
Sanford, related to a polariscope, does teach directing a polarized measurement beam (Fig. 1: object beam 36 polarized by polarizer 12 and waveplate 16; Col. 2, ll. 38-58) onto an object (Fig. 1: object 30);
a detector arrangement configured to detect polarisation properties of the measurement beam after interacting with the object (Abstract: “The apparatus consists of a conventional off-axis transmission holographic set-up with the addition of several polarization optical elements to alter the polarization of the light at various stages of a procedure to study an object…After producing the hologram these elements are readjusted to any desired state of polarization and the corresponding interference pattern is observed in real-time and may be changed at any time to view a different type of interference pattern.”); and
a processor configured to use the detected polarization properties (Abstract: polarization can be measured by the polariscope) of the measurement beam after interacting with the object (Fig. 1: object beam 36 incident on object 30) to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object (Col. 1, ll. 48-57: Changes in birefringence can be viewed in real time.; Col. 2, ll. 7-9: Physical characteristics of a birefringent material can be analyzed in real time.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell et al to direct a uniformly polarised measurement beam onto an object;
a detector arrangement configured to detect polarisation properties of the measurement beam after interacting with the object; and
a processor configured to use the detected polarization properties of the measurement beams after interacting with the object to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object, as disclosed by Sanford. The above-mentioned method has the advantage of allowing real-time observation of a complete set of interference patterns from a single reference hologram to study an object (Abstract from Sanford).
Regarding Claim 26, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford teaches the system as claimed in claim 25.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford further teaches that the beam generating arrangement is configured to generate a uniformly polarised initial measurement beam having an initial polarisation state (Mitchell et al, Page 8, last paragraph: Uniformed polarized beam is generated from combining light from both beam A and beam B (shown in Fig. 1) where the uniform polarized light beam would have an initial polarization state.); and
generate a plurality of uniformly polarised subsequent measurement beams having subsequent polarisation states by way of holograms provided by the holographic device, wherein each subsequent polarisation state is rotated from an immediately preceding polarisation state by way of the holograms (Mitchell et al, Abstract: “Here we describe the use of a single digital micro-mirror device (DMD) (where computer-generated holograms are generated) to generate and rapidly switch vector beams with spatially controllable intensity, phase and polarisation. We demonstrate local spatial control over linear, elliptical and circular polarisation, allowing the generation of radially and azimuthally polarised beams and Poincaré beams.”).
Regarding Claim 51, Mitchell et al teaches a method for measuring an optical characteristic of an object, wherein the method comprises:
a) generating a uniformly polarised initial measurement beam having an initial polarisation state (Page 8, last paragraph: Uniformed polarized beam is generated from combining light from both beam A and beam B (shown in Fig. 1));
c) detecting polarization properties of the initial measurement beam without interacting with an object (Abstract: “The polarization state of the generated beams is characterized with spatially resolved Stokes measurements.”; Shown in Fig. 1 where there is no object and the generated beam is characterized by a CMOS.);
d) generating a uniformly polarised (Page 8, last paragraph: Uniformed polarized beam is generated from combining light from both beam A and beam B (shown in Fig. 1)) subsequent/second measurement beam having a subsequent polarisation state by way of a hologram, wherein the subsequent polarisation state is rotated from the initial polarisation state (Abstract: “Here we describe the use of a single digital micro-mirror device (DMD) to generate and rapidly switch vector beams with spatially controllable intensity, phase and polarisation.” The polarisation state is switchable so that a subsequent polarisation state is rotated from the initial polarisation state.) and/or any preceding polarisation state of the measurement beam by way of the hologram;
e) directing the subsequent measurement beam towards a CMOS (Abstract and Fig. 1)
f) detecting polarization properties of the subsequent measurement beam without interacting with the object (Abstract: “The polarization state of the generated beams is characterized with spatially resolved Stokes measurements.”; Shown in Fig. 1 where there is no object and the generated beam is characterized by a CMOS.) and after interacting with the object;
g) repeating steps d) to f) for a predetermined number of times (Abstract: “We demonstrate local spatial control over linear, elliptical and circular polarisation, allowing the generation of radially and azimuthally polarised beams and Poincaré beams. All of these can be switched at rates of up to 4kHz (limited only by our DMD model), a rate ~2 orders of magnitude faster than the switching speeds of typical phase-only spatial light modulators.); and
h) using the detected polarization properties of the initial and subsequent/second measurement beams without interacting with the object (Abstract: The polarization state of the generated beams is characterized.; Shown in Fig. 1 where there is no object) to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object (polarization state from Abstract).
Mitchell et al appears to be silent to b) directing the initial measurement beam onto an object;
c) detecting polarization properties of the initial measurement beam after interacting with the object;
e) directing the subsequent measurement beam onto the object;
f) detecting polarization properties of the subsequent measurement beam after interacting with the object;
h) using the detected polarization properties of the initial and subsequent/second measurement beams after interacting with the object to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object.
Sanford, related to polariscope, does teach b) directing the initial measurement beam (Fig. 1: object beam 36 is polarized by polarizer 12 and waveplate 16; Col. 2, ll. 38-58) onto an object (Fig. 1: object 30);
c) detecting polarization properties of the initial measurement beam after interacting with the object (Abstract: “The apparatus consists of a conventional off-axis transmission holographic set-up with the addition of several polarization optical elements to alter the polarization of the light at various stages of a procedure to study an object…After producing the hologram these elements are readjusted to any desired state of polarization and the corresponding interference pattern is observed in real-time and may be changed at any time to view a different type of interference pattern.”);
e) directing the subsequent measurement beam onto the object (Col. 1, ll. 54-57: “To view different patterns and measure each of the principal indices of refraction, thereby completely analyzing the object, it is necessary to obtain the required number of independent interference patterns.” To have independent interference patterns would require directing a subsequent measurement beam onto the object.);
f) detecting polarization properties of the subsequent measurement beam after interacting with the object (Col. 1, ll. 54-57; Invention is related to a polariscope);
h) using the detected polarization properties of the initial and subsequent/second measurement beams after interacting with the object to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object (Col. 1, ll. 54-57: “To view different patterns and measure each of the principal indices of refraction, thereby completely analyzing the object, it is necessary to obtain the required number of independent interference patterns.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mitchell et al to incorporate b) directing the initial measurement beam onto an object;
c) detecting polarization properties of the initial measurement beam after interacting with the object;
e) directing the subsequent measurement beam onto the object;
f) detecting polarization properties of the subsequent measurement beam after interacting with the object;
h) using the detected polarization properties of the initial and subsequent/second measurement beams after interacting with the object to determine a measurement of at least one optical characteristic of the object, as disclosed by Sanford. The above-mentioned method has the advantage of allowing real-time observation of a complete set of interference patterns from a single reference hologram to study an object (Abstract from Sanford).
Claims 11 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al (“High-speed spatial control of the intensity, phase and polarization of vector beams using a digital micro-mirror device”, 2016, Optics Express, Vol. 24, Issue 25, pp. 29269-29282) in view of Sanford (US 3,831,436) and Bo-Zhao et al (“Real-time Stokes polarimetry using a digital micromirror device”, Optics Express, Vol. 27, No. 21/14, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 11/25/2024), and further in view of Singh et al (“Digital Stokes polarimetry and its application to structured light: tutorial”, 2020, Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Vol. 37, No. 11, pp. C33-C44).
Regarding Claim 11, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford further teaches that each of the holograms (Mitchell et al, Abstract: “Here we describe the use of a single digital micro-mirror device (DMD) to generate and rapidly switch vector beams with spatially controllable intensity, phase and polarisation. We demonstrate local spatial control over linear, elliptical and circular polarisation, allowing the generation of radially and azimuthally polarised beams and Poincaré beams.”) are arranged to interact with an incident light beam to produce the uniformly polarized measurement beam (Mitchell et al, Page 8, last paragraph: Uniformed polarized beam is generated from combining light from both beam A and beam B (shown in Fig. 1)).
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford appears to be silent to each of the holograms comprises at least two holograms superimposed.
Bo-Zhao et al, related to polarimetry, does teach that each hologram comprises at least two holograms superimposed (Page 1, last paragraph to page 2, 1st paragraph: A digital hologram containing four multiplexed gratings (the super imposed holograms) is displayed on a DMD.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell et al combined with Sanford so that each hologram comprises at least two holograms superimposed, as disclosed by Bo-Zhao et al. The advantage of having super imposed holograms is that it allows for an all-digital version of a wavefront-splitting technique with real-time reconstruction of polarization (Page 1, last paragraph of Bo-Zhao et al).
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford and Bo-Zhao et al appears to be silent to having multiple incident light beams.
Singh et al, related to polarimetry, does teach having multiple incident light beams interacting with the holograms (Shown in Fig. 1(c) and described on page C39, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: A vector beam was propagated through a PG (polarization grating) which produced two independent beams paths (A and B as shown in Fig. 1(c)) where the two beam paths were directed onto the DMD screen.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell et al combined with Sanford and Bo-Zhao et al to have multiple incident light beams, as disclosed by Singh et al. The above-mentioned configuration has the advantage of allowing for each of the left- and right-circularly polarized components (beams A and B) to be independently modulated (page C39, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph from Singh).
Regarding Claim 29, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford teaches the system as claimed in claim 25.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford further teaches that each hologram provided by the holographic device comprises a DMD pattern (Mitchell et al, Fig. 6 and page 11, last paragraph) and is arranged to interact with an incident light beam (Mitchell et al, Shown in Fig. 1) to produce the uniformly polarised measurement beam having a predetermined polarisation state (Mitchell et al, Page 8, last paragraph: Uniformed polarized beam is generated from combining light from both beam A and beam B (shown in Fig. 1).).
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford appears to be silent to each hologram provided by the holographic device comprises two super imposed holograms.
Bo-Zhao et al, related to polarimetry, does teach that each hologram provided by the holographic device comprises two super imposed holograms (Page 1, last paragraph to page 2, 1st paragraph: A digital hologram containing four multiplexed gratings (the super imposed holograms) is displayed on a DMD.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell et al combined with Sanford so that each hologram provided by the holographic device comprises two super imposed holograms, as disclosed by Bo-Zhao et al. The advantage of having super imposed holograms is that it allows for an all-digital version of a wavefront-splitting technique with real-time reconstruction of polarization (Page 1, last paragraph of Bo-Zhao et al).
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford and Bo-Zhao et al appears to be silent to having multiple incident light beams.
Singh et al, related to polarimetry, does teach having multiple incident light beams interacting with the holograms (Shown in Fig. 1(c) and described on page C39, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: A vector beam was propagated through a PG (polarization grating) which produced two independent beams paths (A and B as shown in Fig. 1(c)) where the two beam paths were directed onto the DMD screen.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell et al combined with Sanford and Bo-Zhao et al to have multiple incident light beams interacting with the holograms, as disclosed by Singh et al. The above-mentioned configuration has the advantage of allowing for each of the left- and right-circularly polarized components (beams A and B) to be independently modulated (page C39, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph from Singh).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al et al (“High-speed spatial control of the intensity, phase and polarization of vector beams using a digital micro-mirror device”, 2016, Optics Express, Vol. 24, Issue 25, pp. 29269-29282) in view of Sanford (US 3,831,436) and further in view of Kroger (US 6,370,407 B1).
Regarding Claim 33, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford teaches the system as claimed in claim 25.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford further teaches that the detector arrangement (Mitchell et al, Fig. 1: CMOS) is configured to:
detect the polarisation properties of the measurement beams (Mitchell et al, Abstract: “The polarization state of the generated beams is characterized with spatially resolved Stokes measurements.”; Shown in Fig. 1 where there is no object and the generated beam is characterized by a CMOS.) after interaction with the object (Sanford, Fig. 1: object 30) to generate polarization measurement values, wherein the polarization measurement values represent output polarization states of the measurement beams after interaction with the object (Mitchell et al, Page 8, last paragraph to page 9, 1st paragraph: Polarization state across the beams was measured then transformed into polarization ellipses to calculate the magnitudes of the polarization.); and
detect the polarisation properties of the measurement beams without interacting with the object to generate polarization reference values, wherein the polarization reference values represent output polarization states of the measurement beams without interacting with the object (Mitchell et al, Page 8, last paragraph to page 9, 1st paragraph: Polarization state across the beams was measured then transformed into polarization ellipses to calculate the magnitudes of the polarization.), wherein
the detector arrangement (Mitchell et al, Fig. 1: CMOS) comprises a detector (Mitchell et al, Fig. 1: CMOS) configured to detect the polarisation properties of the measurement beams without interacting with the object in order to generate the polarisation reference values (Mitchell et al, Abstract: “The polarization state of the generated beams is characterized with spatially resolved Stokes measurements.”; Shown in Fig. 1 where there is no object and the generated beam is characterized by a CMOS.), and wherein
the system comprises a suitable beam splittinq arrangement (Sanford, Fig. 1: beam splitter) configured to split the measurement beam into two paths (Sanford, Fig. 1: reference beam 34 and object beam 36), one directed to intersect with the object (Sanford, Fig. 1: object 30) and detector (Sanford, Fig. 1: There would be a detector at the observer 38).
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford appears to be silent to the detector arrangement comprises a reference detector configured to detect the polarisation properties of the measurement beams without interacting with the object in order to generate the polarisation reference values, and wherein
the system comprises a suitable beam splittinq arrangement configured to split the measurement beam into two paths where one is direct to the reference detector.
Kroeger, related to polarimetry, does teach to a detector arrangement (Fig. 10A: Detector 8A) comprises a reference detector (Col. 3, ll. 26-39: Second detector 8A is used to analyze a reference beam) configured to detect the polarisation properties of the measurement beams without interacting with the object in order to generate the polarisation reference values (Shown in Fig. 10A and described in Col. 3, ll. 26-39), and wherein
the system comprises a suitable beam splittinq arrangement (Fig. 10A: beam splitter 12) configured to split the measurement beam into two paths (Fig. 10A: beams 2D and 2E) where one is direct to the reference detector (Fig. 10A: detector 8A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell et al combined with Sanford so that the detector arrangement comprises a reference detector configured to detect the polarisation properties of the measurement beams without interacting with the object in order to generate the polarisation reference values, and wherein
the system comprises a suitable beam splittinq arrangement configured to split the measurement beam into two paths where one is direct to the reference detector, as disclosed by Kroger. Having a reference detector for measuring a reference beam is known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have known to combine prior art elements (having a reference detector for measuring a reference beam) according to known methods to yield predictable results (with the advantage of providing a baseline reference for measurements involving an object/sample) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claims 10, 38-40, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al et al (“High-speed spatial control of the intensity, phase and polarization of vector beams using a digital micro-mirror device”, 2016, Optics Express, Vol. 24, Issue 25, pp. 29269-29282) in view of Sanford (US 3,831,436) and further in view of Singh et al (“Digital Stokes polarimetry and its application to structured light: tutorial”, 2020, Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Vol. 37, No. 11, pp. C33-C44).
Regarding Claim 10, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford further teaches that each of the holograms is configured to interact with an incident light beam to produce the uniformly polarised measurement beam (Mitchell et al, Page 8, last paragraph: Uniformed polarized beam is generated from combining light from both beam A and beam B (shown in Fig. 1)) having a predetermined polarisation state (Mitchell et al, Abstract: “Here we describe the use of a single digital micro-mirror device (DMD) to generate and rapidly switch vector beams with spatially controllable intensity, phase and polarisation. We demonstrate local spatial control over linear, elliptical and circular polarisation, allowing the generation of radially and azimuthally polarised beams and Poincaré beams.”).
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford appears to be silent to each of the holograms is configured to interact with a pair of incident light beams.
Singh et al, related to polarimetry, does teach that a hologram is configured to interact with a pair of incident light beams (Shown in Fig. 1(c) where the polarization grating PG splits beam U(r) to beams UA and UB to be incident onto the digital micromirror DMD).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell et al combined with Sanford so that each of the holograms are configured to interact with a pair of incident light beams, as disclosed by Singh. The advantage of having each hologram configured to interact with a pair of incident light beams is that each of the left- and right-circularly polarized components (beams A and B) can be independently modulated (page C39, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph from Singh).
Regarding Claim 38, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford teaches the system as claimed in claim 25.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford further teaches the beam generating arrangement (Mitchell et al, Beams are generated in Fig. 1).
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford appears to be silent to the beam generating arrangement comprises a suitable beam splitter to split the light beam from a light source into two paths, wherein the light beams travelling in the two paths are differently polarised beams or have two different polarisation components.
Singh et al, related to polarimetry, does teach the beam generating arrangement (Fig. 1(c): beam generating arrangement is not shown but there would necessarily be components to generate the beam shown in Fig. 1) comprises a suitable beam splitter (Fig. 1(c): polarization grating) to split the light beam from a light source into two paths (Fig. 1(c): polarization grating polarly splits the beam into UA and UB), wherein the light beams travelling in the two paths are differently polarised beams or have two different polarisation components (Shown in Fig. 1(c) and described on page C39, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: A vector beam was propagated through a PG (polarization grating) which produced two independent beams paths (A and B as shown in Fig. 1(c)) where the two beam paths are left- and right-circularly polarized, respectively.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitchell et al combined with Sanford so that the beam generating arrangement comprises a suitable beam splitter to split the light beam from a light source into two paths, wherein the light beams travelling in the two paths are differently polarised beams or have two different polarisation components, as disclosed by Singh et al. The above-mentioned configuration has the advantage of allowing for each of the left- and right-circularly polarized components (beams A and B) to be independently modulated (page C39, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph from Singh et al).
Regarding Claim 39, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford and Singh et al teaches the system as claimed in claim 38.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford and Singh et al further teaches that the holographic device (Mitchell et al, Fig. 1: DMD) is located downstream from the light source (Mitchell et al, Shown in Fig. 1 where the laser is located before the DMD) and intersects with the two paths so that the light beams travelling in the two paths both intersect the holographic device (Singh et al, Shown in Fig. 1(c) where beams UA and UB intersect with the DMD).
Regarding Claim 40, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford and Singh et al teaches the system as claimed in claim 38.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford and Singh et al further teaches that the two paths intersect at the holographic device with an angle therebetween (Singh et al, Shown in Fig. 1(c) where there is an angle between beams UA and UB.).
Regarding Claim 45, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford and Singh et al teaches the system as claimed in claim 38.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford and Singh et al further teaches that the beam generating arrangement comprises suitable optical components (Mitchell et al, Fig. 1: lenses F1 and F2) to expand and collimate the light beam from the light source (Mitchell et al, Shown in Fig. 1 where F1 and F2 expand and collimate a light beam from the laser; Further described on page 4, 1st paragraph of Experimental set-up section: “A horizontally linearly polarised Helium-Neon laser beam is expanded (using lenses F1 and F2) and collimated to overfill the active area of the DMD chip.”) prior to splitting the same into the two paths (Mitchell et al, Shown in Fig. 1 where F1 and F2 are before the splitting of the beams into two paths).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 and 42 are 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 16, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford further teaches that the method comprises:
splitting a light beam from a light source (Mitchell et al, Fig. 1: laser) into two paths (Mitchell et al, Fig. 1: Beams A and B) with differently polarised beams travelling in the two paths (Mitchell et al, Fig. 1: polarization of beams A and B are shown in the dashed boxes which show that they have different polarizations starting at the half-wave-plate HWP1.);
providing the holograms (Mitchell et al, Abstract: DMD is used to generate and rapidly switch between holograms with spatially controllable intensity, phase, and polarization.) to interact with one path (Mitchell et al, Shown in Fig. 1 where the laser incidents one beam onto the DMD.), wherein each of the holograms comprise a hologram which interacts with one polarized beam (Mitchell et al, Fig. 1: Helium-Neon laser beam is horizontally linearly polarized as described on page, last paragraph.)
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford appears to be silent to providing the holograms to interact with the two paths, wherein each of the holograms comprise a hologram which interacts with one polarised beam.
Singh et al, related to polarimetry, does teach providing the holograms to interact with the two paths, wherein each of the holograms comprise a hologram which interacts with one polarised beam (Shown in Fig. 1(c) and described on page C39, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: A vector beam was propagated through a PG (polarization grating) which produced two independent beams paths (A and B as shown in Fig. 1(c)) where the two beam paths are left- and right-circularly polarized, respectively.).
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford and Singh et al appears to be silent to a superimposed hologram which interacts with the other differently polarised beam thereby to modulate both differently polarised beams to make first diffraction orders of both polarised beams with uniform polarisation come out of the hologram together to be used as the measurement beam.
Bo-Zhao et al, related to polarimetry, does teach a superimposed hologram (Page 1, last paragraph to page 2, 1st paragraph: A digital hologram containing four multiplexed gratings (the super imposed holograms) is displayed on a DMD.).
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford, Singh et al, and Bo-Zhao et al does not teach a superimposed hologram which interacts with the other differently polarised beam thereby to modulate both differently polarised beams to make first diffraction orders of both polarised beams with uniform polarisation come out of the hologram together to be used as the measurement beam. At best, Bo-Zhao et al teaches a superimposed hologram which interacts with an input beam which is then split into four identical copies for simultaneous measurement of the intensities (Shown in Fig. 1 and described in the caption of Fig. 1).
Therefore, as to Claim 16, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for measuring an optical characteristic of an object, wherein the method comprises a superimposed hologram which interacts with the other differently polarised beam thereby to modulate both differently polarised beams to make first diffraction orders of both polarised beams with uniform polarisation come out of the hologram together to be used as the measurement beam, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 16.
Claims 17-18 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 16.
Regarding Claim 42, Mitchell et al modified by Sanford and Singh et al teaches the system as claimed in claim 38.
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford and Singh et al further teaches that each of the holograms comprise a hologram which interacts with one polarized beam (Mitchell et al, Fig. 1: Helium-Neon laser beam is horizontally linearly polarized as described on page, last paragraph.)
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford and Singh et al appears to be silent to another superimposed hologram which interacts with the other differently polarised beam thereby to modulate both differently polarised beams to make first diffraction orders of both differently polarised beams come out of the hologram together with uniform polarisation.
Bo-Zhao et al, related to polarimetry, does teach a superimposed hologram (Page 1, last paragraph to page 2, 1st paragraph: A digital hologram containing four multiplexed gratings (the super imposed holograms) is displayed on a DMD.).
Mitchell et al modified by Sanford, Singh et al, and Bo-Zhao et al does not teach another superimposed hologram which interacts with the other differently polarised beam thereby to modulate both differently polarised beams to make first diffraction orders of both differently polarised beams come out of the hologram together with uniform polarisation. At best, Bo-Zhao et al teaches a superimposed hologram which interacts with an input beam which is then split into four identical copies for simultaneous measurement of the intensities (Shown in Fig. 1 and described in the caption of Fig. 1).
Therefore, as to Claim 42, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a system for measuring an optical characteristic of an object, wherein the system comprises another superimposed hologram which interacts with the other differently polarised beam thereby to modulate both differently polarised beams to make first diffraction orders of both differently polarised beams come out of the hologram together with uniform polarisation, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 42.
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
Prosecution Insights