DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments have changed the scope of the invention, especially for the dependent claims, and overcome the rejection as written in the previous office action mailed 3/05/2026.
3- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings from the same references used in the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
4- Here is a brief response to the Arguments presented by the Applicants to explain further the rationale behind the new rejections and the Examiner’s interpretations.
Applicants argue that Lindlein fails to teach “the measurement virtual patterns partially overlap each other in a case where the plurality of phase patterns overlap over time” (pp. 5-6).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants and submits that Lindlein clearly teaches in Fig. 5 for ex., that top/bottom 3x3 squares/phase patterns, i.e. dark squares, overlap and the measurement patterns, i.e. dots, do overlap partially in some areas over time. This is to say that a juxtaposition of the patterns, obtained at different times, does show partial overlapping between some of the created patterns. Since, Asundi teaches using SLM as virtual microlens arrays, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to use Asundi’s approach instead of Lindlein’s physical lenses to obtain the partially overlapping measurement patterns that vary over time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5- 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.
6- Claim 4 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 4, dependent on claim 1, and which reads “ .. the pattern generator generates each phase pattern such that the measurement virtual patterns do not overlap each other in a case where the plurality of phase patterns overlap over time…”, the underlined clauses appear to contradict independent claim 1 wherein “the pattern generator generates each phase pattern such that the measurement virtual patterns partially overlap each other in a case where the plurality of phase patterns overlap over time.
For examination purposes, both options will be considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7- 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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
8- Claims 1-4, 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindlein et al. (“Algorithm for expanding the dynamic range of a Shack-Hartmann sensor by using a spatial light modulator array”, Optical Engineering; May 2001, 40, pp. 837-840) in view of Asundi et al. (US 20070070327)
As to claim 1, Lindlein teaches a wavefront measurement device, and its method of use (Shack-Hartmann sensor and its use; Abstract, Introduction and Fig. 1-5), comprising: a phase modulator having a spatial light modulator that modulates incident light; a pattern generator configured to generate a phase pattern to be inputted to the spatial light modulator (Figs. 1-5 and p. 839 Right Col. 1st parag.; SLM, with its inherent pattern generator/controller, in addition to microlenses that selectively and spatially/locally phase modulates the wavefront via the lenses); an imager (p. 638, p. 639 left Col. 1st parag.; CCD used to image the result of the light modulation) having an imaging region for imaging an image of at least a portion of the incident light modulated by the spatial light modulator as measurement light (Figs. 3-5); and an analyzer configured to analyze a wavefront of the incident light based on an imaging result by the imager, wherein the pattern generator generates a plurality of phase patterns for which a measurement virtual pattern is shifted to positions different from each other such that a focused spot of the measurement light modulated by the spatial light modulator shifts over time to different positions in the imaging region (Figs. 1, 3-5 and Parag. 2 Sects. 1-4; the algorithm shift patterns on the SLM to select which microlenses are illuminated and allowed to phase modulate the incident light, transmitting light that focuses in spot patterns that change/shift over time depending on the SLM controlling),
the pattern generator generates each phase pattern such that the measurement virtual patterns partially overlap each other in a case where the plurality of phase patterns overlap over time (since it is claimed the plurality of patterns overlap over time, Fig. 5 top/bottom 3x3 squares; phase patterns, i.e. dark squares, overlap and the measurement patterns, i.e. dots, do overlap partially in some areas).
Lindlein does not teach expressly the measurement virtual pattern includes a virtual microlens like pattern.
However, and in a similar field of endeavor, Asundi teaches an optical detector (Abstract and Figs. 1-9) using physical microlens array (19) or its virtual microlens array (32) that may be produced by an SLM (31); ¶16, 59, Figs. 3, 7. This presents the physical and virtual microlens arrays as mere suitable alternatives (See MPEP § 2144.07 for ex.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the device/method of Lindlein in view of Asundi’s suggestions so that the measurement virtual pattern includes a virtual microlens like pattern, with the advantage, as taught by Asundi, of effectively providing more flexibility in the number of points which can be analyzed during the strain measurements, the sensitivity, strain range and accuracy of the system (¶ 59).
Moreover, Lindlein discloses:
(claim 2) wherein the pattern generator forms a plurality of measurement virtual patterns in each of the plurality of phase patterns (by changing the transmission of the SLM, the generator generates different plurality local and global measurement patterns in all the possibility of phase modulations allowed by the microlenses).
(claim 3) wherein the pattern generator forms a single measurement virtual pattern in each of the plurality of phase patterns (in a fixed SLM pattern fixed by the algorithm, a single measurement pattern of dots is formed with the plurality of phase patterns from the different microlenses).
(claim 4) wherein the pattern generator generates each phase pattern such that the measurement virtual patterns do not overlap each other in a case where the plurality of phase patterns overlap over time (Fig. 5 bottom 3x3 squares; phase patterns, i.e. dark squares, overlap but the measurement patterns, dots, do not in some areas).
(claim 6) wherein the pattern generator generates each phase pattern such that the measurement virtual patterns included in each of the plurality of phase patterns occupy only a part of a modulatable region in the spatial light modulator (Figs. 1, 3-5; the dots are provided by optical waves emanating from phase patterns generated from the activated cells of the SLM, i.e. modulatable regions).
(claim 7) wherein the pattern generator generates each phase pattern such that the measurement virtual patterns overlap an entire incident region of the incident light in the spatial light modulator when the plurality of phase patterns overlap over time (in Fig. 3 for ex., measuring dots do overlap when the transmitting squares, and their corresponding phase modulating lenses, overlap, over time, in different areas across the entire illuminated surface of the SLM).
(claim 8) wherein the pattern generator generates and updates a wavefront modulation pattern for the incident light based on an analysis result by the analyzer (p. 839 left Col. 1st parag; a calibration by generating patterns with and without SLM and the analysis thereof is performed).
(claim 9) wherein in the incident light, a focal length of the measurement light modulated by the measurement virtual pattern and a focal length of light modulated by a portion other than the measurement virtual pattern are different from each other (Figs. 1, 3-5; p. 839 left Col. 1st parag; because of the aberration introduced by the SLM, and inherently by the different microlenses, lights passing by different microlenses at different locations of the SLM will present different focal distances).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights