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, as found in claim 28, the measured turbulent medium, beam splitter unit configured to split the first light into two first lights and two second lights, an additional first transmission filter element, an additional first measuring element, an additional second transmission filter element, and an additional second measuring element, along with all the y-axis lights, angles, intensities, and measuring planes 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
Claims 15, 24, 26, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claim 15, in line 16, the phrase “and by a” should be deleted from the claim; there is no need for “and by a” to link the wherein statement and the following limitation in the claim, particularly as there are additional limitations after clause (c), and in line 17, the phrase “a spatial contrast” should be amended to read “a spatial contrast K” to provide antecedent basis for the limitation in claim 17.
As for claim 24, in lines 2-3, the phrase “at least one Fabry-Perot etalon as transmission filter element” should be amended to read “ at least one Fabry-Perot etalon as a transmission filter element”. Additionally, in line 3 of the claim, the phrase “and by a” should be amended to read “and”.
As for claim 26, in line 16, the phrase “and by a” should be deleted from the claim. The word “and” should be added after the semicolon in the previous limitation, and the next limitation should be indented as required by 37 CFR 1.75(i) and start with “a computing unit”.
As for claim 28, in line 2, the phrase “comprising a sensor device” should be amended to read “comprising the sensor device”, and in line 25, the phrase “and in that” should be amended to read “and” while the phrase “a spatial contrast” should be amended to read “a spatial contrast K” to provide antecedent basis for the limitation in claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“A first measuring element” in claims 26-28.
“A second measuring element” in claims 26-28.
“A computing unit which is configured to calculate a spatial contrast . . .” in claims 26-28.
“An additional first measuring element” in claim 28.
“An additional second measuring element” in claim 28.
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 § 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 15-28 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 15, the claim appears to recite what are intended to be steps of a method using nouns to describe the method rather than using verbs to actively perform the method. Nonlimiting examples include “first irradiation of a transmission filter unit with light” and “first measurement of a first intensity of the light transmitted through the transmission filter unit”. It is unclear if these steps are positively recited steps that must be performed as part of the claimed method as a result.
As for claims 15, 17-22 and 25, each claim recites various steps in past tense. Nonlimiting examples include “wherein one of the two angles between the light and the main transmission direction is assigned” in claim 15, “wherein the spatial contrast K is calculated” in claim 17, “wherein reconstruction of the wavefront of the light is carried out” in claim 18, and “wherein the intensities are measured and the spatial contrast is calculated” in claim 22. It is unclear if these steps are positively recited steps that must be performed as part of the claimed method as a result. The examiner suggests amending each claim to recite active steps of calculating and reconstructing the wavefront to overcome this rejection.
For the above two issues, the examiner recommends using a claiming format similar to what is found in the method claims of US 2002/0027661.
Further regarding claim 15, the claim recites “wherein one of the two angles between the light and the main transmission direction is assigned to a rising edge of a transmission filter function assigned to the transmission filter unit and the other of the two angles between the light and the main transmission direction is assigned to a falling edge of the transmission filter function assigned to the transmission filter unit”. However, it is unclear how the angles between the light and the main transmission function are “assigned” to either a rising edge of a transmission filter function or the failing edge of the transmission filter function of that is “assigned” to the transmission filter unit. While Fig. 2 of the specification shows a pair of transmission functions that are a function of angle α of each filter element 4a, 4b of the transmission filter unit, it is not clear which specific transmission filter function the angles are assigned to. Are the angles “assigned” to the individual transmission filter functions of the individual filter elements of the filter unit? And if so, how are they “assigned”? Clarification is required.
As for claim 17, the narrative nature of the claim makes it difficult to understand the calculation of spatial contrast that is being performed by the claim. How is the difference between the two intensities and a sum of the two intensities being used to calculate the spatial contrast? When using both the difference and the sum of the intensities, the specification only provides support for the equation found in claim 25, where the spatial contrast is found by dividing the difference of the intensities by the sum of the intensities; (I1-I2)/(I1+I2). While breadth is not indefiniteness, claim 17 fails to provide specifics of how the spatial contrast is calculated in order to render the claim definite.
The term “large” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” 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.
The limitation at issue here is “for a large number of pixels”. The examiner turns to the specification to ascertain the requisite degree as to what number of pixels would be a “large number”, but the specification does not appear to provide any guidance as to what number is a large number of pixels. The specification, on page 7, only states that “the spatial contrast is calculated pixel by pixel for a large number of pixels”, thereby using identical language as to what is found in the claim. This does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree for “a large number of pixels”, and the claim is rejected as indefinite.
As for claim 24, the claim recites, “selection and setting of the angular value of the first and second angle as a function of respective edge slopes of a transmission function of the Fabry-Perot etalon in the region of the secondary main transmission directions in such a way that a measurement range of the measurement determined by the edge slope is adapted to a measurement range specified by a user”. First, is “a transmission function” of the Fabry-Perot etalon that makes up part of the transmission filter unit the same as the transmission filter function set forth in claim 15 for the transmission filter unit, or are these different functions (i.e. is the transmission function of an individual Fabry-Perot etalon in the transmission filter unit different from the overall transmission filter function)? Next, which slope of “respective edge slopes of a transmission function” is referred to by “the edge slope” that is adapted to a measurement range specified by a user? There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the edge slope” from “respective edge slopes”, as one having ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain which of the respective edge slopes “the edge slope” refers back to.
Claims 16 and 23 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on at least claim 15, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the transmission filter unit" in lines 18-19 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What transmission filter unit is being referred to here? Claim 26 sets forth a first transmission filter element and a second transmission filter element, but not a transmission filter unit in order to provide antecedent basis for “the transmission filter unit”. Is the unit the combination of the two claimed transmission filter elements? Is it one of the two claimed transmission filter elements? Is it a different transmission filter? Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the transmission filter unit the combination of the first and second transmission filter elements as suggested by page 12, line 7 of the specification and element 4 in Fig. 1.
Claim limitation “a computing unit which is configured to calculate a spatial contrast . . .” as found in claims 26 and 28 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As “a computing unit” is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth above, the examiner turns to the specification to ascertain what the corresponding structure is for that detection unit. However, no explicitly structure appears to be set forth in the specification for that unit. Instead, the specification only appears to describe the unit using the language by which it is claimed – a computing unit (see page 12, line 28, for example)). As a result, it is unclear what structure corresponds to this unit. Is it a computer? A processor? A calculator? Circuitry? Some other structure that is able to calculate a spatial contrast from a difference between the first and second intensities and determine a local wavefront? Without an answer to these questions, the structure for the claimed unit is not clear, and the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be ascertained.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
To overcome the above rejection, given support for such an amendment in the originally filed foreign application, the examiner recommends amending the limitation to either recite positively claimed structure (such as “computer” or “processor”) or to use the term “computing device”, which is a known term for structure via ISO standard 19770.
As for claim 28, the language used in the claim makes it unclear whether or not certain phrases are listed as “definitions” for claim limitations, or if they are additional claim limitations of themselves. For instance, in the phrase “split the light into two first lights, the first light (2a), first x-light (2a), and an additional first light, first y-light, and into two second lights, the second light, second x-light, and an additional second light, second y-light”, it is unclear if there is supposed to be two first lights or four, and if there is supposed to be two second lights or four. These issues also exist for “an additional first transmission filter element, a first y-transmission filter element”; “an additional first angle; a first y-angle”; “an additional first measuring element, a first y-measuring element”; “an additional first intensity, a first y-intensity I1-y”; “an additional second transmission filter element, a second y-transmission filter element”; “an additional second angle; a second y-angle”; “an additional second measuring element; a second y-measuring element”; “an additional second intensity, a second y-intensity I2-y”; and “a common- measuring plane, a y-measuring plane”. Are the quoted limitations identical elements or measured values rephrased, or are these two different elements? Clarification is required.
Furthermore regarding claim 28, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “tilted by an additional first angle” and “tilted by an additional second angle”, as it is not clear whether the first angle (from claim 26) and additional first angle and the second angle (from claim 26) and the additional second angle are added together to create the tilt of the measuring element, or if the additional first and second measuring elements are completely separate elements from the first and second measuring elements of claim 26.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the x-measuring plane " in line 25 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What x-measuring plane is being referred to here? Claim 26, the claim on which claim 28 depends, only recites “a common measuring plane”, and claim 28, in line 21 of the claim, states “a common measuring plane, a y-measuring plane” which, while likely different from the common measuring plane of claim 26 via the “a y-measuring plane” further limitation, would not provide antecedent basis for an x-measuring plane.
Finally regarding claim 28, the narrative nature of the function of the computing unit the narrative nature makes it difficult to understand the calculation of spatial contrast that is being performed by the claim. How is the difference between the two intensities and a sum of the two intensities being used to calculate the spatial contrast? When using both the difference and the sum of the intensities, the specification only provides support for the equation found in claim 25, where the spatial contrast is found by dividing the difference of the intensities by the sum of the intensities; (I1-I2)/(I1+I2). While breadth is not indefiniteness, claim 28 fails to provide specifics of how the spatial contrast is calculated in order to render the limitation definite.
Claim 27 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 26, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which it depends.
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.
Claims 26-28 are 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.
Regarding claims 26 and 28, the claims are rejected for a lack of written description for the reasons set forth above regarding 35 USC 112(b) and indefiniteness. The rejection is made because an indefinite, unbounded limitation would cover all structure that can perform the claimed function. Because the specification has not clearly defined structure for the claimed computing unit, this indicates that applicant has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention.
Claim 27 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 26, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which it depends.
Further regarding claim 28, to begin, the examiner notes that “There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976).” However, as discussed in Wertheim, “issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.” See MPEP 2163 I.A. That is the case here.
Claim 28 is drawn to a device for measuring a wavefront slope for a turbulent medium comprising a sensor device according to claim 26, along with a beam splitter that splits the first light into four different lights, a first y-transmission filter element arranged in a beam path of the first y-light, a first y-measuring element to measure a first y-intensity; a second y-transmission filter element arranged in a beam path of the second y-light, a second y-measuring element to measure a second y-intensity, where the angles between the respective y-lights and the main transmission directions and in a common measuring plane, with substantially the same angular value but different signs; the y-measuring plane is transverse to the measuring plane of the angles of the x-lights, and the computing unit calculates multiple spatial contrasts in the x and y directions.
While the specification describes this claim on page 9, line 17 – page 11, line 6, this description is essentially a narrative restatement of the limitations found in claim 28. The description fails to go into sufficient particularity to describe this device for measuring a wavefront slope for a turbulent medium comprising a sensor device according to claim 26, as while the specification provides support for claim 26 in Figures 1 and 4 and the corresponding text in the specification, there is no corresponding Figure for claim 28. There is no figure that integrates the single axis sensor device of Figures 1 and 4 (and thereby claim 26) into a dual axis device for measuring wavefront slope of a turbulent medium featuring light in an x-axis direction and a y-axis direction. There is no description of the arrangement of the beam splitter to produce four lights as claimed, the location and arrangement of the additional pair of filter elements in addition to the two filter elements 4a, 4b in Figure 1, the location and arrangement of the additional detectors that serve as the measuring elements in the y-axis, and no details of the algorithm as to how the computing unit calculates the spatial contrast K as claimed. Additionally, while page 13, lines 5-7 states “the determination of a two-dimensional wavefront slope S-xy results analogously from the combination of the determination for one spatial direction”, this statement does not provide sufficient particularity for support of the claimed invention given the issues raised above.
As per In re Wertheim, for written description support to exist for an original claim, the claimed invention must be described “with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing”. As discussed above, the specification fails to meet this burden. Without a specific description, and corresponding figures, showing the claimed device for measuring a wavefront slope for a turbulent medium comprising the device according to claim 26, where this device operates in both an x-axis and a y-axis, written description is lacking, and the claim is therefore rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claims 26-27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(a), set forth in this Office action.
While claim 28 includes the sensor device of claim 26 and for prior art reasons would be allowable for the same reason, the examiner cannot ascertain how the device for measuring a wavefront slope for a turbulent medium incorporates the sensor device of claim 26 as claimed. As it is unclear what amendments would bring claim 28 into allowable form at this time, including claim 28 in the statement of allowability is precluded at this time.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 15, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for determining a wavefront slope, the method comprising, among other essential steps, irradiating a transmission filter unit with light, with a first angle between the light and a main transmission direction of the transmission filter unit; again irradiating the transmission filter unit with light, with a second angle between the light and the main transmission direction of the transmission filter unit, wherein one of the two angles between the light and the main transmission direction corresponds to a rising edge of a transmission filter function for the transmission filter unit and the other angle corresponds to a falling edge of the transmission filter function; and determining a local wavefront slope from the calculated spatial contrast and a calibration factor of the transmission filter unit, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 26, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a sensor device for determining a wavefront slope, the device comprising, among other essential features, a first transmission filter element, which is arranged in a beam path of the first light with a main transmission direction tilted by a first angle relative to the beam path; a second transmission filter element, which is arranged in a beam path of the second light with a main transmission direction tilted by a second angle relative to the beam path; wherein the two angles between the respective lights and main transmission directions lie in a common measuring plane and have substantially the same angular value but different signs, and a computing device which determines a local wavefront slope from the calculated spatial contrast and a predetermined calibration factor of the transmission filter unit, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claims, “Wavefront sensor based on varying transmission filters: theory and expected performance” by Henault discloses a wavefront sensor that allows for evaluating the slope of wavefront errors by sending light from a light source through a pinhole to generate an input wavefront, passing the light through an optical system under test, and then having this tested wavefront pass through a varying density filter located at the image plane of the optical system under test prior to being detected (see the abstract, Fig. 1, and the description of the system in section 2 found on pages 1919-1921). However, Henault fails to disclose the specific features of the claimed invention set forth above, as a single varying density filter is different from the claimed transmission filter unit and the angles of that filter with regards to the beam path of the light passing through it.
Additionally, DE 102011076946 to Fuetterer discloses a method for propagating a wavefront onto an optical element that is dependent on the local incident angle. The optical element can be an interference filter (see abstract). The filter are mechanically tilted at respective axes during measurement of the wavefront using a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor (see abstract). However, the function set forth for the filter is constant (see abstract), and multiple tilts of the angle-selective element are introduced (see paragraph 0009), so Fuetterer does not appear to disclose or render obvious the specific features of the claimed invention set forth above, as a single tiltable interference filter with a constant transmission function is different from the claimed transmission filter unit and the angles of that filter with regards to the beam path of the light passing through it.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. 5,689,314 to Mercer discloses a common path interferometer that passes light through dyed liquid crystals to form an interferogram which is imaged to determine a wavefront of the object beam (see Fig. 2, tilted liquid crystal 10, along with the abstract); US 2012/0074294 to Streuber et al. also teaches wavefront sampling where, similar to Henault, a single variable transmission filter 28 is used for the measurement; US 2002/0027661 to Arieli et al. teaches a wavefront analysis system using a single phase manipulator 154 to generate phase changes to the wavefront (see Fig. 1B and paragraph 0199); US 2005/0147134 to McDonald teaches a wavelength filter including a pair of tilted etalons 202, 204 at angles with plane 206 (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0018-0022); and US 2020/0183195 to Morrison discloses a wavelength monitor where tilted etalons 501, 503 provide reference wavelengths and discriminate between different wavelengths (see Fig. 5A and paragraph 0098).
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 February 5, 2026