DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 17 are amended.
Claims 21-23 are new.
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the X-rays incident on the reflecting surface of the deformable mirror is grazing incident. However, this limitation does not further limit the apparatus and is instead drawn to an intended use. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishioka (JP 2002122719 A).
Regarding Claim 1: Nishioka discloses a deformable mirror comprising:
a first substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface and made of a piezoelectric material (Fig. 4, 9c);
a reflecting electrode provided in the first surface and having a reflecting surface on which an X-ray is grazing incident (9a);
a plurality of control electrodes arranged at intervals in a predetermined direction in the second surface (9b); and
a power supply structured to apply a voltage between the reflecting electrode and the plurality of control electrodes (Fig. 1, power supply 12).
Please note that the limitation “on which an X-ray is grazing incident” does not further limit the structure of the mirror. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 2: Nishioka discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric material is a piezoelectric single crystal material ([227]: “Examples of the material used for the piezoelectric elements 9c and 9c' include… lithium niobate…crystals of the same substance…”).
Regarding Claim 3: Nishioka discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 2, wherein the piezoelectric single crystal material is lithium niobate (LN) or lithium tantalate (LT) ([227]: “Examples of the material used for the piezoelectric elements 9c and 9c' include… lithium niobate…”).
Regarding Claim 4: Nishioka discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 1, wherein the reflecting electrode includes a reflecting layer configured from a metal material ([202]: aluminum coated thin film 9a).
Regarding Claim 11: Nishioka discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 4, wherein the reflecting layer comes into contact with the first surface (Nishioka: Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 18: Nishioka discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 1, wherein the reflecting surface has a curvature at least in the predetermined direction (Fig. 4, 9).
Regarding Claim 19: Nishioka discloses an X-ray device comprising:
an X-ray optics including the deformable mirror according to claim1 (Fig. 4); and
an X-ray detector structured to detect an X-ray emitted from the X-ray optics (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 20: Nishioka discloses an X-ray device comprising:
an X-ray optics including the deformable mirror according to claim1 (Fig. 4); and
a sample holder structured to hold a sample to be irradiated with an X-ray emitted from the X-ray optics (Fig. 46).
Regarding Claim 21: Nishioka discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 1, wherein a grazing angle between an optical axis of the X-ray and the reflecting surface is approximately 1 to 10 mrad.
Please note that the limitation “a grazing angle between an optical axis of the X-ray and the reflecting surface is approximately 1 to 10 mrad” does not further limit the structure of the mirror. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 23: Nishioka discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 1, wherein the X-ray incident on the reflecting surface is hard X-ray of 2keV or more.
Please note that the limitation “the X-ray incident on the reflecting surface is hard X-ray of 2keV or more” does not further limit the structure of the mirror. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka in view of Lim (US 20210239959 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: Nishioka discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 4, but Nishioka fails to disclose wherein the reflecting layer includes at least one selected from a group consisting of nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), rhodium (Rh), platinum (Pt), and gold (Au).
However Lim (US 20210239959 A1) teaches an optical apparatus with a deformable mirror wherein the reflecting layer (Fig. 4, EL1) includes gold, nickel, chromium, or platinum [0078].
Nishioka and Lim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of deformable mirrors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nishioka to incorporate the teachings of Lim and provide a reflecting layer including at least one of nickel (Ni), chromium (Cr), rhodium (Rh), platinum (Pt), and gold (Au). One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of superior tarnish and corrosion resistance compared to the aluminum reflecting layer of Nishioka.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka in view of Fitzpatrick (US 20210041713 A1).
Regarding Claim 6: Nishioka discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 4, but Nishioka fails to teach wherein the reflecting layer has a thickness of 10 nm or more and 100 nm or less.
However, Fitzpatrick teaches a deformable mirror (Fig. 4b) wherein the reflecting layer (70) has a thickness of 10 nm or more and 100 nm or less ([0075]: “…the reflective layer (70) has a thickness of at least 40 nm…”).
Nishioka and Fitzpatrick are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of deformable mirrors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nishioka to incorporate the teachings of Fitzpatrick and provide a reflecting layer with a thickness of 10 nm or more and 100 nm or less. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of avoiding the increased stiffness and risk of cracking associated with a thicker layer while maintaining sufficient reflectivity.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka in view of Lippert (US 20210149310 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: Nishioka discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 1, but Nishioka fails to teach wherein the reflecting electrode includes a reflecting layer configured from a multilayer film in which a plurality of first layers configured from a first material and a plurality of second layers configured from a second material different from the first material are alternately laminated.
Lippert teaches a deformable mirror wherein the reflecting electrode (11) includes a reflecting layer (Fig. 1, 21) configured from a multilayer film in which a plurality of first layers configured from a first material and a plurality of second layers configured from a second material different from the first material are alternately laminated ([0092]: “…one suitable construction that is merely by way of example can comprise approximately 50 plies or layer packets of a layer system comprising molybdenum (Mo) layers having a layer thickness of in each case 2.4 nm and silicon (Si) layers having a layer thickness of in each case 3.3 nm.”).
Nishioka and Lippert are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of deformable mirrors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nishioka to incorporate the teachings of Lippert and provide a reflecting layer configured from a multilayer film. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of tunable reflectivity at a specific or target wavelength.
Regarding Claim 8: Nishioka in view of Lippert discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 7, wherein
the first material contains at least one selected from a group consisting of molybdenum (Mo), rhodium (Rh), tungsten (W), and platinum (Pt), and
the second material includes at least one selected from a group consisting of beryllium (Be), carbon (C), and silicon (Si) (Lippert: [0092]: “…one suitable construction that is merely by way of example can comprise approximately 50 plies or layer packets of a layer system comprising molybdenum (Mo) layers having a layer thickness of in each case 2.4 nm and silicon (Si) layers having a layer thickness of in each case 3.3 nm.”).
Regarding Claim 9: Nishioka in view of Lippert discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 7, wherein
each of the plurality of first layers has a thickness of 1 nm or more and 10 nm or less, and
each of the plurality of second layers has a thickness of 1 nm or more and 10 nm or less (Lippert: [0092]: “…one suitable construction that is merely by way of example can comprise approximately 50 plies or layer packets of a layer system comprising molybdenum (Mo) layers having a layer thickness of in each case 2.4 nm and silicon (Si) layers having a layer thickness of in each case 3.3 nm.”).
Regarding Claim 10: Nishioka in view of Lippert discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 7, wherein at least one of the thickness of each of the plurality of first layers and the thickness of each of the plurality of second layers varies depending on positions in a thickness direction (Lippert: [0092]: “…one suitable construction that is merely by way of example can comprise approximately 50 plies or layer packets of a layer system comprising molybdenum (Mo) layers having a layer thickness of in each case 2.4 nm and silicon (Si) layers having a layer thickness of in each case 3.3 nm.”).
Claim(s) 12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka in view of Ichii (WO 2020148911 A1).
Regarding Claim 12: Nishioka discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 4, but Nishioka fails to teach wherein the reflecting electrode further includes an adhesive layer provided between the first surface and the reflecting layer.
Nishioka is silent with respect to how the reflecting surface is attached to the first surface, thereby allowing for that which is known in the art.
Ichii teaches a method for manufacturing a deformable mirror wherein a chromium metallic binder (Fig. 4, 5) is used to bond a piezoelectric element (3) to a metal surface (2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have attached the reflecting surface to the first surface of Nishioka using the bonding method of Ichii. One would be motivated to do so on the basis of using a known method for predictable results (see MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 14: Nishioka in view of Ichii the deformable mirror according to claim 12, wherein conductivity of the reflecting layer is higher than conductivity of the adhesive layer (aluminum (Nishioka: [202]) has higher conductivity than chromium (Ichii).
Regarding Claim 15: Nishioka discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 1, but Nishioka fails to teach further comprising a second substrate having a third surface to be bonded to the plurality of control electrodes.
Ichii teaches two substrates (Fig. 4, 3) each connected to electrodes (4, 5, 6, 7).
Nishioka and Ichii are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of deformable mirrors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishioka to incorporate the teachings of Ichii and provide a substrate having a third surface to be bonded to the plurality of control electrodes. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of further suppressing the deformation of the reflecting surface due to temperature change.
Regarding Claim 16: Nishioka in view of Ichii discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 15, wherein the second substrate is made of a piezoelectric material identical to that of the first substrate (Ichii: Fig. 4, 3).
Regarding Claim 17: Nishioka in view of Ichii discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 16, wherein
the second substrate has a fourth surface opposite to the third surface (Ichii: Fig. 4),
the deformable mirror further comprises a backside electrode provided in the fourth surface (Ichii: Fig. 4, 7), and
the power source applies a voltage between the backside electrode and the plurality of control electrodes (Ichii: Fig. 4)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka in view of Ichii, in further view of Bittner (US 20170123118 A1).
Regarding Claim 13: Nishioka in view of Ichii discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 12, but both Nishioka and Ichii fail to teach wherein conductivity of the adhesive layer is higher than conductivity of the reflecting layer.
Bittner teaches a deformable mirror wherein the reflective coating comprising B4C ([0054: “The reflective coating 3b has a plurality of individual layers (not illustrated in FIG. 1), which typically consist of layer pairs of two materials having different refractive indices…material combinations such as for example molybdenum and beryllium, ruthenium and beryllium, or lanthanum and B4C are likewise possible”).
Nishioka, Ichii, and Bittner are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the field of deformable mirrors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Nishioka and Ichii to incorporate the teachings of Bittner and provide a reflective layer comprising B4C, such that the conductivity of the adhesive layer is higher than the reflecting layer ([0025] of the disclosed specification states chromium has higher conductivity than B4C). One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of simplifying charge routing through the more conductive chromium layer.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka in view of Yamauchi (US 9287016 B2).
Regarding Claim 22: Nishioka discloses the deformable mirror according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein a surface roughness (Rms) of the reflecting surface is 0.5 nm or less. Nishioka is silent with respect to the surface roughness, therefore allowing for that which is known in the art.
Yamauchi teaches a mirror device with a surface roughness of the reflecting surface is 0.2nm or less (Col. 7, lines 21-22: “a surface roughness (RMS) of 0.2 nm or less”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Nishioka to incorporate the teachings of Yamauchi and provide a reflecting surface with a surface roughness of 0.2 nm or less. One would be motivated to make such a modification on the basis of providing higher accuracy and precision.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, 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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights