DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the argument on claims 4 and 16 presented on p. 9 of the Applicant’s Remarks, Sato teaches in paragraph [0163] obtaining internal structure of a desired sample.
In response to the argument on claim 8 to 13 and 17 – 20, it is determined that argument is persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 – 7, and 15 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2015/0268628 A1; cited in the IDS filed on 3/6/24), and further in view of Masumura (US 2012/0182558 A1).
With respect to independent claim 1, Sato teaches in Figs. 1 – 4 an optical measurement system comprising:
a first light source 2; see paragraph [0080] configured to generate near infrared rays as disclosed in paragraph [0177];
a silicon-based image sensor 4; CCD in paragraph [0074]; and
an optical system comprising a beam splitter BS configured to divide light from the first light source into first light and second light R and L in paragraph [0080],
wherein the optical system is configured to record with the image sensor, a first hologram as disclosed in paragraph [0080 – 0083] resulting from modulation with the second light, of light obtained by illumination of a sample 6 with the first light, the second light R being diverging light.
Sato is silent with a component in at least a part of a wavelength range from 1000 to 1200 nm.
Masumura, a pertinent art, teaches in paragraph [0016] a light source at near infrared light including 400 to 1500 nm. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Sato in order to use eye-safe light source. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Sato teaches in Fig. 3 wherein the optical system is configured to generate the first hologram from reflected light obtained by illumination of the sample with the first light, and in the optical system, a second hologram is recorded from reflected light obtained by illumination with the first light, of a reference plane instead of the sample.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Sato teaches in paragraphs [0071 – 0073] wherein the optical system is an off-axis holography optical system.
With respect to dependent claim 6, Sato teaches wherein the optical system comprises a restriction mechanism configured to restrict mask 63; see paragraph [0086] a size of a range where the sample is illuminated with the first light such that a component corresponding to the first light is not superimposed on a component other than the component corresponding to the first light in a spatial frequency domain of a hologram recorded with the image sensor.
With respect to independent claim 7, Sato teaches in Figs. 2 – 3 An optical measurement method using an optical system comprising a beam splitter BS configured to divide light from a first light source 2 configured to generate near infrared rays as discussed above in the rejection justification to claim 1 into first light Q and second light R, the optical measurement method comprising: recording with a silicon-based image sensor 4; CCD, a first hologram resulting from modulation with the second light, of light obtained by illumination of a sample with the first light, the second light being diverging light; and recording with the image sensor, a second hologram resulting from modulation of the first light with the second light while there is no sample.
Sato is silent with a component in at least a part of a wavelength range from 1000 to 1200 nm.
Masumura, a pertinent art, teaches in paragraph [0016] a light source at near infrared light including 400 to 1500 nm. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Sato in order to use eye-safe light source. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 15, in Fig. 3 Sato teaches generating the first hologram from reflected light obtained by illumination of the sample with the first light, wherein a second hologram is recorded from reflected light obtained by illumination with the first light, of a reference plane instead of the sample.
With respect to dependent claim 16, Sato teaches measuring an internal structure in paragraph [0012] of the sample based on the first hologram recorded when the first light source is combined with a first configuration in which the first hologram is generated from transmitted light obtained by illumination of the sample with the first light; and measuring a surface geometry in paragraph [0078] of the sample based on the first hologram recorded when the second light source is combined with a second configuration in which the first hologram is generated from reflected light obtained by illumination of the sample with the first light.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato modified by Masumura, and further in view of Sato2 (US 2020/0264559 A1; cited in the IDS filed on 3/6/24).
The teaching of Sato modified by Masumura has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Sato is silent with wherein the optical system is configured to generate the first hologram from transmitted light obtained by illumination of the sample with the first light, and in the optical system, a second hologram is recorded from transmitted light obtained by illumination with the first light, of a substrate instead of the sample, the substrate being included in the sample and not being an object to be measured.
Sato, a pertinent art, teaches in Fig. 4 wherein the optical system is configured to generate the first hologram from transmitted light obtained by illumination of the sample 4 with the first light, and in the optical system, a second hologram is recorded from transmitted light obtained by illumination with the first light, of a substrate instead of the sample, the substrate being included in the sample and not being an object to be measured. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Sato modified by Masumura in order to perform a transmissive measurement of desired spectroscopy among the available options (reflective and transmitted measurements are well-known in the art). This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 14, Sato is silent with generating the first hologram from transmitted light obtained by illumination of the sample with the first light, wherein a second hologram is recorded from transmitted light obtained by illumination with the first light, of a substrate instead of the sample, the substrate being included in the sample and not being an object to be measured.
Sato2, a pertinent art, teaches in Fig. 4 wherein the optical system is configured to generate the first hologram from transmitted light obtained by illumination of the sample 4 with the first light, and in the optical system, a second hologram is recorded from transmitted light obtained by illumination with the first light, of a substrate instead of the sample, the substrate being included in the sample and not being an object to be measured. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Sato in order to perform a transmissive measurement of desired spectroscopy among the available options (reflective and transmitted). This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Obvious to try – choosing form a finite number of predictable results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato modified by Masumura, and further in view of Sato2 and Prakapenka (US 2021/0010944 A1).
The teaching of Sato modified by Masumura and Sato2 has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Sato is silent with a second light source configured to generate visible light; and a processing apparatus, wherein the optical system is switchable between a first configuration in which the first hologram is generated from transmitted light obtained by illumination of the sample with the first light and a second configuration in which the first hologram is generated from reflected light obtained by illumination of the sample with the first light, and the processing apparatus is configured to measure an internal structure of the sample based on the first hologram recorded when the first light source is combined with the first configuration of the optical system, and measure a surface geometry of the sample based on the first hologram recorded when the second light source is combined with the second configuration of the optical system.
Sato teaches obtaining internal structure in paragraph [0163]
As discussed above, Sato2 teaches transmission measurement and In paragraphs [0011 – 0012], Prakapenka, a pertinent art, teaches using two light sources, infrared and visible. In view of these, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Sato in order to determine property defects and/or damage of desired sample (See paragraph [0012] of Prakapenka). This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10 – 13 and 18 – 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to independent claims 8 and its dependent claim 10- 12, the prior art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest:
wherein the optical system comprises a mechanism configured to change an angle of illumination with the first light by using a movable mirror, and the processing apparatus is configured to calculate a composed amplitude phase distribution by summing the amplitude phase distribution calculated for each angle of illumination with the first light, with the amplitude phase distribution being maintained as a complex number.
With respect to independent claim 13 and its dependent claims 18 – 20, the same allowable subject matter as in claim 8.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights