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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the depolarization element of claim 34 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification fails to include any headers to separate one section of the specification from another. A suggested arrangement for the specification can be found below.
Additionally, on page 3, lines 14-15, the specification refers to claims by number. The specification should not refer to claims by number, as in this case, there is currently no claim 1 or claim 15. Additionally, the final form of the claims may not lead to a case where claim 15 is a method claim. As a result, any amendments or renumbering of the claims would result in an amendment to the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract includes the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, as evidenced by the repeated use of the word “wherein”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). For further details, please see the following.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claim 16, in line 2 of the claim, the phrase “by means of interferometric measuring methods” should be deleted to remove any potential ambiguity as to whether the claim is an apparatus claim or a method claim. Additionally, in line 16 of the claim, there is an empty square after the phrase “non-zero angle” that should be replaced by the Greek letter β.
As for claim 38, in line 3 of the claim, “an object” should be amended to read “the object”, as “an object” is already set forth in line 1 of the claim. Additionally, in line 17 of the claim, the phrase “the interferometric superposition” should be amended to read “interferometric superposition of the two partial beams” in order to address an antecedent basis issue.
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.
Claims 16-37 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, lines 13-14 of the claim recite “wherein the light beam passes the camera lens in front of the camera in beam direction (S)”. However, lines 6-7 of the claim recite that the full mirror is arranged behind the partially transparent mirror “in the direction of radiation (S)”. While MPEP 608.01(m) states that “generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters do not affect the scope of the claim”, the phrasing used here would indicate that “in the direction of radiation (S)” and “in beam direction (S)” are claiming the same direction of light in the system. However, in light of the specification, it is not clear how these limitations can be the same direction.
Fig. 1 shows that the direction of radiation (S) corresponds to the input direction of light beam 100 into the interferometer. Beams 110 and 120 that exit the interferometer travel in different directions than beam direction (S) as is clearly shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, it is not clear how “in beam direction (S)” can be the same as “in the direction of radiation (S)”, particularly when the mirrors of the interferometer would not allow for output light to travel in the same direction as input light. This renders the claim indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the examiner will treat “in beam direction (S)” to be the direction the output beams of light travel when reflecting off of the mirrors in the interferometer.
The above rejection applies directly to claim 29 as well, which recites “in beam direction (S)”; it is unclear how “beam direction (S)” as set forth in claim 16 can be the same as “in the direction of radiation (S)”, when “the camera lens is arranged in front of the diaphragm in beam direction (S)” would be equivalent to “in the direction of radiation (S)” from claim 16.
Claims 17-28 and 30-37 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on at least claim 16, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend.
Further regarding claim 22, the claim recites that the distance x is “less than seven times the aperture of the diaphragm” in line 6 of the claim. It is unclear what aspect of the aperture of the diaphragm is being referred to by this limitation. Is it the width of the aperture of the diaphragm as is disclosed by “greater than or equal to 70% of the width of the aperture of the diaphragm”? Or does this refer to a different aspect of the diaphragm? Clarification is required.
For purposes of examination below, the examiner will interpret “the aperture of the diaphragm” to be the width of the aperture of the diaphragm.
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.
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.
Claims 16, 23-32, and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (6,606,160) in view of Yang et al (2016/0265900).
Regarding claim 16, Hung (Fig. 1) discloses a measuring arrangement for non-destructive measurement of the surface of an object 1 by means of interferometric measuring methods, wherein the light strikes the measuring arrangement as a light beam 7 reflected from the surface, comprising a mirror arrangement with two mirrors M1, M2 each having a mirror surface, one of which is a partially transparent partial mirror (M1, see Col. 3, lines 51-54), and one of which is a full mirror which is arranged behind the partially transparent partial mirror in the direction of radiation (M2, see Col. 3, line 54); a camera lens 11 and a camera 13; wherein the incoming light beam hits the mirror arrangement and is split and deflected therein into two partial beams (one beam is R1 in Fig. 1; the other is the beam that transmits mirror M1 to mirror M2, after reflection off M2, the light that transmits mirror M1 becomes ray R2; see Col. 3, lines 51-59), which subsequently reach the camera and interfere in the camera (see Col. 3, lines 60-65); wherein the light beam passes the camera lens in front of the camera in an outgoing beam direction (see Fig. 1 and the direction of beams R1, R2); and wherein one of the mirrors of the mirror arrangement is rotatable relative to the other mirror such that the two mirrors include a non-zero angle β in a plane normal to the mirror surfaces (see Col. 6, lines 4-16, which discuss that one can vary the amount of shearing by varying the angle of the mirrors relative to each other); and wherein the camera comprises a camera chip (CCD) having a local sampling frequency (see Col. 3, lines 62-63 and Col 7, lines 42-44).
Hung fails to disclose a diaphragm with an aperture, that the incoming light beam passes the diaphragm and is diffracted in the process before it hits the mirror arrangement, and that the diaphragm is designed in such a way that the incoming light beam is diffracted as it passes through the diaphragm such that its spatial frequency corresponds at most to the maximum local sampling frequency of the camera chip during detection on the camera chip.
Yang (Fig. 1A) discloses an interferometer for spatial phase-shift shearography for nondestructive testing of an object 50. After light reflects off of the object, it passes through a diaphragm including an aperture 140, and the aperture inherently diffracts the light before it reaches interferometer 60. Yang goes on to teach that the diaphragm is designed in such a way that the incoming light beam is diffracted as it passes through the diaphragm such that its spatial frequency corresponds at most to the maximum local sampling frequency of the camera chip during detection on the camera chip (see paragraphs 0056-0058, for instance, which discuss that certain variables about the system may be relatively fixed and/or constrained, such as the maximum local sampling frequency of the CCD camera, and the configuration of the aperture may be adjusted to act as a spatial frequency filter which may limit a maximum spatial frequency that can be captured, e.g. the size of the aperture may correspond to a cutoff spatial frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a diaphragm with an aperture to the device of Hung as per Yang, this aperture being positioned so that the incoming light beam passes the diaphragm and is diffracted before it reaches the mirror arrangement, wherein that the diaphragm is designed in such a way that the incoming light beam is diffracted as it passes through the diaphragm such that its spatial frequency corresponds at most to the maximum local sampling frequency of the camera chip during detection on the camera chip, the motivation being that the addition of an aperture to the interferometer allows for additional control over the optical measurement device to attain certain desired system effects such as separating various portions of the spectrum from each other in the frequency domain (see paragraph 0059) or providing a greater signal to noise ratio (see paragraph 0066).
As for claims 23-27, Hung discloses in Col. 6, lines 12-16, that the amount of tilt needed to adjust the amount of shearing is generally only about 1-2 degrees; this meets the claimed ranges for angle β found in the claims.
As for claim 28, as Hung discloses that one can vary the amount of shearing by varying the angle of the mirrors by tilting one mirror slightly in Col. 6, lines 4-16, it follows that Hung discloses that the full mirror of the mirror arrangement is rotatable relative to the partial mirror, as the full mirror would be rotatable relative to the partial mirror whether its tilt is adjusted or the tilt of the partial mirror is adjusted.
As for claim 29, Hung discloses that the camera lens is between the mirror arrangement and the camera (see Fig. 1).
As for claim 30, Yang discloses that the diaphragm comprises a slit with a slit with b, the maximum slit width b being less than or equal to the product of the wavelength of the light beam, the focal length of the camera lens, and the maximum local sampling frequency of the camera chip (see equations 11 and 12 found in paragraphs 0057-0059).
As for claim 31, the combination of Hung and Yang discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 16, but while Yang discloses that the diaphragm has a circular aperture with a diameter d (see paragraph 0058), Yang does not disclose that the maximum diameter is less than or equal to the product of 1.22 times the wavelength of the light beam, the focal length of the camera lens, and the maximum local sampling frequency of the camera chip.
Yang, however, does disclose in equations 11 and 12 in paragraphs 0057-0059 a relationship between the size of the aperture and the cutoff frequency. Additionally, the examiner takes Official notice that the factor of 1.22 arises from Airy diffraction or the Rayleigh criterion for an aperture.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the maximum diameter of the aperture of Hung and Yang be is less than or equal to the product of 1.22 times the wavelength of the light beam, the focal length of the camera lens, and the maximum local sampling frequency of the camera chip, the motivation being that such an aperture size is ideal to produce the best focus of light using that aperture. Additionally, it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As for claim 32, Yang discloses that the diaphragm comprises a frequency filter (see paragraph 0057, which claims that the side of the aperture may be configured to act as a spatial frequency filter).
As for claim 35, Hung discloses that the partial mirror has a reflectance which is different from the transmittance, the transmittance being greater than the reflectance (see Col. 4, lines 32-34, showing the transmission at 62% and the reflectance at 38%).
As for claim 36, Hung discloses a control and evaluation unit (“computer memory” as per Col. 4, line 11; see also computer 26 in Fig. 2) that receives and processes measurement signals generated by the camera so that a measurement variable characteristic of the surface of the object to be measured is determined from the measurement signals of the interfering partial beams, which measurement variable permits a statement to be made about properties of the surface (see Col. 4, lines 10-19).
As for claim 37, the combination of Hung and Yang discloses a measuring system with a measuring arrangement according to claim 16 and with an evaluation unit (“computer memory” as per Col. 4, line 11 of Hung; see also computer 26 in Fig. 2) that receives and processes measuring signals generated by the camera, so that a measured variable characteristic of the surface of the object to be measured is determined from the measuring signals of the interfering partial beams, which allows a statement to be made about properties of the surface (see Col. 4, lines 10-19).
Regarding claim 38, Hung (Fig. 1) discloses a method for non-destructive measurement of the surface of an object 1 by interferometric measurement techniques and determining a property of a surface of the object (see the abstract, where Hung discloses testing the object for defects), comprising providing a measuring arrangement with a mirror arrangement with two mirrors M1, M2 each with a mirror surface, one of which is a partially transparent partial mirror (M1, see Col. 3, lines 51-54), and one of which is a full mirror which is arranged behind the partially transparent partial mirror in the direction of radiation (M2, see Col. 3, line 54); a camera lens 11 and a camera 13 with a camera chip (CCD) having a local sampling frequency (see Col. 3, lines 62-63 and Col 7, lines 42-44); generating a light beam 3, 5 from a light source and irradiating the surface of the object to be measured (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 43-47); guiding the light beam 7 reflected from the surface and directly onto the mirror arrangement (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 47-49); adjusting a desired angle β such between the partial mirror and the full mirror by rotating one of the mirrors (see Col. 6, lines 4-16, which discuss that one can vary the amount of shearing by varying the angle of the mirrors relative to each other) in such a manner that the light beam is split into two partial beams R1, R2 (one beam is R1 in Fig. 1; the other is the beam that transmits mirror M1 to mirror M2, after reflection off M2, the light that transmits mirror M1 becomes ray R2; see Col. 3, lines 51-59), both of which are directed to the camera (see Col. 3, lines 60-65); recording of the two partial beams by means of the camera and generating a measurement signal of the interferometric superposition (see Col. 3, line 66 – Col. 4, line 9); and evaluating the measurement signal and determining a measured variable characteristic of the surface of the object to be measured, which allows a statement to be made about the properties of the surface (see Col. 4, lines 10-19).
Hung fails to disclose providing a diaphragm in the measuring arrangement, with the mirror arrangement arranged behind the diaphragm, guiding the light beam reflected from the surface of the object through the diaphragm and directly onto the mirror arrangement; and adjusting the diaphragm in such a manner that the incoming light beam is diffracted as it passes through the diaphragm in such a way that its spatial frequency corresponds at most to the maximum local sampling frequency of the camera chip during detection on the camera chip.
Yang (Fig. 1A) discloses an interferometer for spatial phase-shift shearography for nondestructive testing of an object 50. After light reflects off of the object, it passes through a diaphragm including an aperture 140, and the aperture inherently diffracts the light before it reaches interferometer 60. As Hung discloses no optics between the object and the interferometer, the insertion of the aperture of Yang into Hung will meet the limitation that the light beam reflected from the surface of the object and passing through the diaphragm will be guided directly onto the mirror arrangement behind it. Yang goes on to teach that the diaphragm is designed in such a way that the incoming light beam is inherently diffracted as it passes through the diaphragm such that its spatial frequency corresponds at most to the maximum local sampling frequency of the camera chip during detection on the camera chip (see paragraphs 0056-0058, for instance, which discuss that certain variables about the system may be relatively fixed and/or constrained, such as the maximum local sampling frequency of the CCD camera, and the configuration of the aperture may be adjusted to act as a spatial frequency filter which may limit a maximum spatial frequency that can be captured, e.g. the size of the aperture may correspond to a cutoff spatial frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to providing the measuring of Hung with an adjustable diaphragm as per Yang so that light reflected off the object passes through the diaphragm before reaching the mirror arrangement, wherein that the diaphragm is designed in such a way that the incoming light beam is diffracted as it passes through the diaphragm such that its spatial frequency corresponds at most to the maximum local sampling frequency of the camera chip during detection on the camera chip, the motivation being that the addition of an aperture to the interferometer allows for additional control over the optical measurement device to attain certain desired system effects such as separating various portions of the spectrum from each other in the frequency domain (see paragraph 0059) or providing a greater signal to noise ratio (see paragraph 0066).
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.
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.
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (6,606,160) in view of Yang et al (2016/0265900) and in further view of Schuth et al (WO 2020/164667).
As for claim 33, the combination of Hung and Yang discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 16, but fails to disclose that the partial mirror is designed to be polarizing, so that a first partial beam is reflected and an orthogonally polarized second partial beam is transmitted, the second partial beam being reflected at the full mirror before it reaches the camera.
Schuth, in an interferometer for measuring a surface of an object, teaches a dual mirror arrangement (Fig. 1) where partial mirror 16 is polarizing so that a first partial beam is reflected and an orthogonally polarized second partial beam is transmitted, the second partial beam being reflected at the full mirror before it reaches the camera (see paragraph 0031 of the English translation provided with the reference by applicant).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the partial mirror in the combination of Hung and Yang be polarizing as taught by Schuth, the motivation being to enable the detection of the contours of an object particularly efficiency (see paragraph 0009).
As for claim 34, the combination of Hung, Yang, and Schuth disclose the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 33, but fail to disclose a depolarization element that is arranged between the mirror arrangement and the camera in order to render the two orthogonally polarized partial beams of the light capable of interference for the camera.
However, the examiner takes Official notice of the well known use of depolarizers to output depolarized light. The examiner also takes Official notice that it is well known in interferometry that light having orthogonal polarizations cannot interfere with each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a depolarizer between the mirror arrangement and the camera of the combined device to ensure that the camera detects interference between the two partial beams of light as needed for proper interferometric measurement of the object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
As to claim 17, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 16, wherein one of the mirrors of the mirror arrangement is aligned in such a manner that the light beam incident on the mirror arrangement is reflected by an angle α in the direction of the camera and impinges on the camera, the angle being at least 70°, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claim, Hung teaches that the rays reflected by the mirrors define an angle sufficiently small to make a spatial frequency of the interference pattern resolvable by the image sensor (see claim 4). This is done because Hung wants the rays to be collinear, or nearly collinear, so that the recording of the interference fringe pattern is done using an image sensor having low resolution (see Col. 4, lines 46-51). As a result, there would be no suggestion to modify Hung with another teaching to have one of the mirrors of the mirror arrangement aligned in such a manner that the light beam incident on the mirror arrangement is reflected by at least 70°, as such an angle would prevent the partial beams of light from being collinear as required by Hung.
As to claim 22, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 16, wherein the two mirror surfaces of the mirrors of the mirror arrangement have a distance x between them, wherein the distance x is the distance between the two mirror surfaces of the two mirrors directed towards the incident light beam orthogonal to the mirror surface, and the distance x is greater than or equal to 70% of the width of the aperture of the diaphragm and less than seven times the aperture of the diaphragm, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
While Hung discloses that the two mirror surfaces of the mirrors of the mirror arrangement have a distance x between them (see Fig. 1), wherein the distance x is the distance between the two mirror surfaces of the two mirrors directed towards the incident light beam orthogonal to the mirror surface (see Fig. 1), Hung does not disclose the specifics of the distance x as set forth in the claim, and Yang fails to disclose any association between the diameter D of the aperture and the distance between the mirror of his interferometer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0065617 to Goodwin et al. discloses a shearing interferometer 112 for measuring changes in the shape of a surface 104 (see Fig. 1); US 2022/0049952 to Schuth et al. is a United States publication of WO 2020/164667; and US 2020/0049493 to Heideman discloses a lateral shearing interferometer for beam steering.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 21, 2026