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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 04/20/2026 is acknowledged and has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Beam dispersing element in claim 1
Beam combining element in claim 1
Processing unit in claim 9
Beam diagnostic unit in claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US20210223102A1) and Kowarz (US20070146700A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches a source system for spectrally shaping a broadband illumination beam to obtain a spectrally shaped illumination beam (Fig. 5A; paragraph [0013] describes the optical system depicted in Fig. 5A as performing spectral shaping; paragraph [0023] discloses the light source may be a broadband light source), the system comprising:
a beam dispersing element (534, Fig. 5A) configured to disperse the broadband illumination beam (paragraph [0058]);
a module (510, Fig. 5A) configured to spatially modulate the broadband illumination beam subsequent to being dispersed (by definition, a spectral shape control aperture modulates light); and
a beam combining element (538, Fig. 5A) to recombine the spatially modulated broadband illumination beam (paragraph [0058]) to obtain an output source beam to be incident on an object such that the output source beam is deflected from the object to a sensor to enable the object to be imaged, measured or inspected (Fig. 2A depicts the spectral shaping system outputting the light beam on an object 250, which reflects a signal to a detector 260).
Zhao fails to teach a grating light valve module.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spectral imaging systems, Kowarz teaches a grating light valve which modulates a dispersed illumination beam (48, Fig. 6; paragraph [0111]) discloses that the spatial light modulator may be a grating light valve.
Grating light valves are well-known spatial modulators that have the advantage of being fully programmable and high-speed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to substitute the spectral shape control aperture which modulates dispersed light taught in Zhao with the grating light valve taught in Kowarz with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to use the grating light valve in place of the spectral shape control aperture taught in Zhao in order to gain the advantage of the modulation module being fully programmable and high-speed.
Regarding claim 2, Zhao as modified by Kowarz teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches control (Kowarz: 156, Fig. 2) of the grating light valve module controls transmission per spectral component of the spectrally shaped illumination beam (Kowarz: paragraphs [0060], [0086]).
Kowarz discloses controlling the spectral components allows for the selection of components that are of particular interest in an application, which has certain advantages for spectral imaging in different applications (paragraph [0086]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the system of Zhao as modified by Kowarz with the control of the grating light valve transmission per spectral component in order to best suit specific applications of the system.
Regarding claim 6, Zhao as modified by Kowarz teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches at least one imaging optic (Zhao: 532, Fig. 5A) configured to image the dispersed broadband illumination beam onto the modulation module (Zhao: paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao as modified by Kowarz teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the grating light valve module is configurable such that intensity of each spectral component of the dispersed broadband illumination beam is individually controllable (Kowarz: paragraph [0111] describes using a grating light valve as the light modulator. By definition, a grating light valve controls the intensity of each component).
As discussed above in claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to use the grating light valve in place of the spectral shape control aperture taught in Zhao as modified by Kowarz in order to gain the advantage of the modulation module being fully programmable and high-speed.
Regarding claim 9, Zhao as modified by Kowarz teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches a processing unit (Kowarz: control logic processor - 156, Fig. 2) configured to control at least the grating light valve module (Kowarz: paragraph [0060]).
The processor taught in Kowarz enables complete control of the grating light valve, therefore ensuring the desired modulation. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Zhao as modified by Kowarz with the processor taught in Kowarz in order to gain complete control of the modulation.
Regarding claim 17, Zhao as modified by Kowarz teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches a beam directing arrangement (Kowarz: mirror - 65, Fig. 9) configured to pass the dispersed broadband illumination beam two or more times on the grating light valve module, wherein the dispersed broadband illumination beam is modulated on each pass (Kowarz: paragraph [0070] discloses a double-pass configuration may be used).
Kowarz discloses the double-pass configuration allows for selection of spectral components of interest (paragraph [0070]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Zhao as modified by Kowarz with the mirror and double-pass configuration taught by Kowarz in order to ensure the components of interest are selected.
Regarding claim 18, Zhao as modified by Kowarz teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches an illumination source configured to provide the broadband illumination beam (Zhao: paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 19, Zhao as modified by Kowarz teaches the invention as explained above in claim 18, and further teaches the illumination source comprises a low etendue illumination source (Zhao: paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 20, Zhao as modified by Kowarz teaches the invention as explained above in claim 18, and further teaches the illumination source comprises a hollow core fiber (Zhao: Fig. 5A depicts the source as a fiber) configured to confine a broadening medium (Zhao: paragraph [0058]) and an excitation radiation source configured to provide excitation radiation for exciting the broadening medium (Zhao: paragraph [0038] discloses the light source may be a broadband light source).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US20210223102A1) and Kowarz (US20070146700A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dersken (US20060103827A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao as modified by Kowarz teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach that specularly reflected radiation from the grating light valve module is comprised within the output source beam, and any radiation diffracted by the grating light valve module is not comprised within the output source beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of illumination shaping, Dersken teaches a filter which filters out diffracted light, leaving undiffracted light only to reach an object to be measured (paragraph [0020]).
Undiffracted light yields a higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Therefore, it would be advantageous to use the filter taught in Dersken to filter out diffracted light in order to maximize the SNR. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Zhao as modified by Kowarz with the filtering out of diffracted light as taught by Dersken in order to enhance the SNR of the measurements.
Regarding claim 4, Zhao as modified by Kowarz and Dersken teaches the invention as explained above in claim 3, and further teaches a stop (Kowarz: 47, Fig. 6) operable to block all the radiation diffracted by the grating light valve module and to transmit the specularly reflected radiation (Dersken: paragraph [0020]).
Kowarz teaches a stop to block undiffracted light. However, as discussed above in claim 3, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Zhao as modified by Kowarz with the filtering out of diffracted light as taught by Dersken in order to enhance the SNR of the measurements. Further, a stop is a well-known element in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to swap out the filter taught in Dersken for the stop taught in Kowarz as stops block light uniformly. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the blocking of diffracted radiation taught by Zhao as modified by Kowarz and Derksen with the stop taught in Kowarz in order to uniformly block undiffracted light.
Regarding claim 5, Zhao as modified by Kowarz and Dersken teaches the invention as explained above in claim 4, and further teaches the stop (Kowarz: 47, Fig. 6) is located in a pupil plane between the grating light valve module (Kowarz: 48, Fig. 6) and the beam combining element (Kowarz: 45b, Fig. 6).
As discussed above in claim 4, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the blocking of diffracted radiation taught by Zhao as modified by Kowarz and Derksen with the stop taught in Kowarz in order to uniformly block undiffracted light.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US20210223102A1) and Kowarz (US20070146700A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further evidenced by Silicon Light Machines ("Silicon Light Machines - Grating Light Valve Technology Brief", June 2001).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao as modified by Kowarz teaches the invention as explained above in claim 7, and further teaches the individual control of the intensity of each spectral component comprises a continuous analogue control between a minimum and maximum intensity (Kowarz: paragraph [0111] describes using a grating light valve as the light modulator. A key feature and advantage of grating light valves is their continuous modulation (see Silicon Light Machines, page 2, paragraph 2 and paragraph 4).
As discussed above in claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to use the grating light valve in place of the spectral shape control aperture taught in Zhao as modified by Kowarz in order to gain the advantage of the modulation module being fully programmable and high-speed.
Claims 10-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US20210223102A1) and Kowarz (US20070146700A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Eng (US20200371344A1).
Regarding claim 10, Zhao as modified by Kowarz teaches the invention explained above in claim 9, but fails to teach a beam diagnostic module configured to measure one or more parameters of an output spectrum of the output source beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of shaping illumination sources, Eng teaches the use of a beam diagnostic module (spectrometer - 318, Fig. 3A) which measures parameters of the output spectrum of the output source beam (paragraph [0046]).
The beam diagnostic module taught in Eng enables a user to select and check the shape, power, or intensity of the output source beam (paragraph [0046]), therefore ensuring the source beam is as expected. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the system of Zhao and modified by Kowarz with the beam diagnostic module taught in Eng in order to ensure the source beam is the desired shape, intensity and power.
Regarding claim 11, Zhao as modified by Kowarz and Eng teaches the invention explained above in claim 10, and further teaches the beam diagnostic module is configured to measure the output spectrum over a time period (Eng: paragraph [0046]); and
the processing unit is configured to adjust one or more spectral components of the dispersed broadband illumination beam via control of the grating light valve module to compensate for intensity changes in any one or more spectral components over the time period (Eng: paragraph [0046] further discloses a controller to control a spatial light modulator based upon the measurements of the spectrometer).
As discussed above in claim 10, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the system of Zhao and modified by Kowarz and Eng with the beam diagnostic module taught in Eng in order to ensure the source beam is the desired shape, intensity and power.
Regarding claim 12, Zhao as modified by Kowarz and Eng teaches the invention explained above in claim 10, and further teaches the beam diagnostic module is configured to measure the output spectrum over a first portion of a measurement period (Eng: paragraph [0046]); and
based on the measured output spectrum, the processing unit is configured to adjust one or more spectral components of the dispersed broadband illumination beam via control of the grating light valve module to minimize intensity fluctuation caused by source noise in a second portion of the measurement period (Eng: paragraph [0046] discloses the beam diagnostic module and a controller adjust the spatial light modulator, depending on the intensity of the measured output beam. Paragraph [0046] further discloses this is done in a closed loop manner, meaning it is done continuously and would be measuring the output beam in a first portion of time and correcting in a second portion of time).
As discussed above in claim 10, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the system of Zhao and modified by Kowarz and Eng with the beam diagnostic module taught in Eng in order to ensure the source beam is the desired shape, intensity and power.
Regarding claim 13, Zhao as modified by Kowarz and Eng teaches the invention explained above in claim 12, and further teaches the processing unit is configured to adjust the one or more spectral components in real time during a measurement (Eng: paragraph [0046] discloses the measurements and adjustments are done in a closed loop manner).
As discussed above in claim 10, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the system of Zhao and modified by Kowarz and Eng with the beam diagnostic module and beam corrections taught in Eng in order to ensure the source beam is the desired shape, intensity and power.
Regarding claim 15, Zhao as modified by Kowarz and Eng teaches the invention explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the measurement of the output spectrum comprises measurement of intensity per spectral component and/or power spectral density (Eng: paragraph [0046] discloses the spectrometer measures intensity or power of the output beam).
As discussed above in claim 10, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the system of Zhao and modified by Kowarz and Eng with the beam diagnostic module and beam corrections taught in Eng in order to ensure the source beam is the desired shape, intensity and power.
Regarding claim 16, Zhao as modified by Kowarz and Eng teaches the invention explained above in claim 10, and further teaches the beam diagnostic module comprises a spectrometer (Eng: paragraph [0046]).
As discussed above in claim 10, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the system of Zhao and modified by Kowarz and Eng with the beam diagnostic module and beam corrections taught in Eng in order to ensure the source beam is the desired shape, intensity and power.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US20210223102A1) as modified by Kowarz (US20070146700A1) and Eng (US20200371344A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Reijnders (WO2021008929A1).
Regarding claim 14, Zhao as modified by Kowarz and Eng teaches the invention as explained above in claim 12, but fails to teach the processing unit is configured to average a measured parameter of one or more spectral components over the first portion of the measurement period.
However, in the same field of endeavor of controlling light source beams, Reijnders discloses a spectrometer which measures a characteristic of the spectrum of a light source beam (paragraph [0013]), where the characteristic is determined by calculating a running variation over a time window (paragraph [0084], point 5).
It is a well-known procedure to take an average measurement in order to account for fluctuations in measurement. A person of ordinary skill would be able to reasonably apply the averaging taught in Reijnders to the system of Zhao as modified by Kowarz and Eng with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Zhao as modified by Kowarz and Eng with the averaging taught by Reijnders in order to minimize the influence of fluctuations in the measurement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 11:00-8:00 ET.
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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights