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 .
Specification
2. The amendment filed on April 30, 2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: ‘the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference’ of lines 3-4 of the paragraph following CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS on page 1 of the specification. The preliminary amendment filed on April 30, 2024 was not filed on the international filing date of this application: October 20, 2022.
See MPEP 714.01(e) sixth paragraph: A preliminary amendment filed with a submission to enter the national stage of an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371 is not part of the original disclosure under 37 CFR 1.115(a) because it was not present on the international filing date accorded to the application under PCT Article 11.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
3. 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 -illumination mask consists of transparent regions and non-transparent regions arranged in a checkerboard pattern- of claim 1 due to claim 9 referring to ‘device for carrying out the method according to claim 1’; beam-splitting coating of claim 9; and ‘a lamda-quarter retardation plate being located between the beam splitter and the sample’ of claim 9 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.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that on line 8 ‘the pattern’ should read -the checkerboard pattern-. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-9 are objected to by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
5. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that on line 3 ‘a beam splitter’ should read -the beam splitter-.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As for claim 8 and ‘the calculation of the Z-position of the intensity maxima being carried out using parallelized algorithms (lines 5-6),’ there does not appear to be any description of what constitutes parallelized algorithms. The disclosure only appears to reiterate the phrase the calculation of the Z-position of the intensity maxima being carried out using parallelized algorithms (paragraph [0029]). There does not appear to be any description of how to perform or accomplish one or more parallelized algorithms. There does not appear to be any description of how to perform or accomplish the calculation of the Z-position of the intensity maxima ‘using parallelized algorithms.’
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-9 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.
Claims 1-9 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
In addition, claim 1 recites the limitation "the pitch" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pixel pitch" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In addition, on line 9 of claim 1 ‘matrix (15). The illumination mask’ is indefinite, for it is unclear if there are typographical errors at ‘. The’ and claim 1 should be a single sentence or claim 1 should end at the period before ‘The’ and a new claim should begin indented below claim 1 and have the rest of the claims be renumbered.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pixels" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sample" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the acquisition" in line 4, “the position” in line 5, “the respective focus position” in line 5, “the determination” in line 6, “the z-positions” in line 6, and “the intensity maxima” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the camera sensor" in line 4, “the intensity values” in line 4, “the “dark” pixels” in lines 4-5, “the Z-position” in line 6, “the intensity maxima” in lines 6-7; “the height values” in line 7; “the height values” in line 8 and “the neighboring pixels” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the camera sensor" in line 4, “the “bright” pixels” in line 4, “the green pixels” in lines 5-6, “the z-position” in line 6, and “the intensity maximum” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the height values" in line 4, “the red and blue pixels” in line 4, “the height levels” in line 5, and “the neighboring green pixels” in line 5 There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the colored intensity image" in line 4, “the color information” in line 4, “the red pixels and blue pixels” in lines 4-5, “the intensity values” in line 5, and “the focus” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The term “just outside (of ‘the intensity values just outside the focus (lines 5-6)’)” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “just outside” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. ‘Just outside’ renders the location or the degree of defocus of the intensity values indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the calculation" in line 4, “the Z-position” in line 4, “the intensity maxima” in line 4, and “the measurement data acquisition” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the beam-splitting coating" in line 5, “the polarization direction” in lines 7-8, and “the reflected light” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 3-4 and 6-7 appear to 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.
Claim 8 appears to 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 if the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is overcome and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Due to the indefinite nature of claims 1, 2, 5, and 9, the examiner has not made a rejection of these claims under 35 USC 102/103, but they appear to be at the minimum obvious over WO 2021/019136 A1 to Gastaldo (see machine translation).
As for claim 1, Gastaldo discloses a device for inspecting a surface that can be construed as a confocal sensor by virtue of using confocal masks (abstract) having a light source (Fig. 1: 20, 22, 21) and an optical system having an illumination mask (Fig. 1: 6a), a sensor matrix (Fig. 1: 5 with 6b; Fig. 4: demonstrates the checkerboard pattern of pixels of the sensor matrix (the squares), a beam splitter (3b), and imaging optics (Fig. 1: 3a); wherein the illumination mask consists of round transparent regions and non-transparent regions arranged in a checkerboard pattern wherein the pitch of the checkerboard pattern of the illumination mask corresponds to the pixel pitch of the sensor matrix (Fig. 4: the circles demonstrate the transparent regions; wherein the empty squares demonstrate that the illumination mask has non-transparent regions; Fig. 4: demonstrates that the pitch of the checkerboard pattern of the illumination mask corresponds to the pixel pitch of the sensor matrix; see machine translation: page 8: third paragraph); and note the relative placement of the components for focusing (sharpness) (machine translation: page 3: last 3 bullet points; page 6: fourth paragraph). As for claim 2, see Gastaldo: Fig. 1: 6a relative to 3b; 5 and 6b relative to 3b). As for claim 5, refer to Gastaldo: Fig. 4 with page 9 of machine translation: paragraphs 5-7). And as for claim 9, Gastaldo appears to disclose a beam-splitting coating having a polarization-neutral splitting ratio (Gastaldo appears silent concerning anything related to polarization; see Fig. 1: 3b: beam-splitting coating bisects the cube).
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892.
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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, Kara Geisel, can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877