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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, the limitation “the identification of one and the same point” should be “an identification of one and the same point” for antecedent purposes and removal of idiomatic language. 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: “positioning means”, “angular displacement means”, “digital processing means” and “displacement means” in claims 12, 14, 15 and 16.
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 1-11 and 14 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.
In regards to claim 1, in line 16, the limitation “an interface to be measured” is unclear with respect to line 2 of the claim. It is unclear if this is the same interface to be measured. Other parts of the claim have proper antecedent basis for elements, but this limitation does not. For examining purposes, the interface to be measured in line 16 will be the same as the interface to be measured in line 2. Please clarify.
In regards to claim 1, in line 22, “the measurement steps” is not clear. It is unclear if these are separate measurement steps from the previously mentioned first and second measurement steps. For examining purposes this limitation will be understood as the first and the second measurement steps. Please clarify.
In regards to claim 1, in line 23, the limitation “the at least two interference images” is unclear. According to the claim there is a first measurement step and a second measurement step, each step with one interference image associated. Now the claim states “at least two” which is unclear, because according to the claim there is only a first measurement step and a second measurement step, each with corresponding one interference image. For examining purposes the at least two interference images will be two interference images, one image associated with first step and another associated with second step. Please clarify.
Claims 2-11 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
In regards to claim 4, the limitation “characterized in that it further” is unclear. The limitation is unclear as to what “it” represents. Is “it” the method, the processing step, the first or second measurement steps? The claim should be clear and precise. For examining purposes, “it” will be the method. Please clarify.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 3.
In regards to claim 14, the limitation in line 2, “that it further comprises” is unclear. The limitation is unclear as to what “it” represents. Is “it” the device, the interferometric measurement means, the positioning means, the angular displacement means or the digital processing means? The claim should be clear and precise. For examining purposes, “it” will be the device. Please clarify.
Claim limitation “14” 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. The “displacement means” in claim 14 does not have a structure associated with the function in the specification. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couteville et al. (WO 2020245511 using US publication 20220357236 as a translation) in view of Ge et al. (US 20100097619).
Re claims 1 and 12: Couteville teaches a measurement method and measurement device, for determining an item of geometric information of an interface to be measured of an optical element (1000) with respect to a measurement axis (104), the optical element (1000) comprising at least two interfaces (103), the method being implemented by a measurement device (6000) and comprising interferometric measurement means (6000) with at least one optical sensor (601/602) and at least one low-coherence light source (612), configured for directing a measurement beam (606) along the measurement axis towards the optical element (1000) so as to pass through at least one of the at least two interfaces (103) and to be reflected by the interface to be measured and generate a reflected measurement beam (606) (paragraph 98-107, fig. 3, 4 and 5), and for selectively detecting an interference signal resulting from interferences between the reflected measurement beam (606) and a reference beam (616) (paragraph 11, 12, 22 and 45, fig. 3), the device further comprising positioning means (611/608/6) and digital processing means (7) (fig. 1, 3, 4 and 5), the method comprising the following steps: relative positioning, by the positioning means (611/608/6), of a coherence area of the light source at the level of an interface to be measured (abstract, paragraph 81); at least a first step of measurement and a second step of measurement of the interface, by the interferometric measurement means, so as to produce one interference image per measurement step from respective interference signals (paragraph 42, 94, 121-125 and 151, claim 10, the interface is moved in an X-Y direction to different positions and an interference image is captured at each position); and processing, by the digital processing means (7), of the at least two interference images, so as to obtain an item of information relating to the interface (paragraph 42, 94, 121-125 and 151, claim 10, the interface is moved in an X-Y direction to different positions and an interference image is captured at each position, fig. 1-5), but does not specifically teach the measurement device having a reference axis and rotation of the optical element about the reference axis between the measurement steps. Ge teaches a method for determining an item of geometric information of an interface (80) to be measured of an optical element (8) with respect to a measurement axis (L) (see fig. 1) and being implemented by a measuring device (1/6) having a reference axis (E) and comprising interferometric measuring means (1), comprising the following steps: relative positioning, by a positioning means (28/29), of a coherence area of a light source (20) at the level of the interface (80) to be measured (see fig. 1, paragraph 33, 60, 62, 65, 68 and 85); at least a first step of measurement and a second step of measurement of the interface, by the interferometric measurement means (1), so as to produce one interference image per measurement step from respective interference signals (fig. 1, paragraph 52-72); an angular displacement means (6) for allowing rotation of the optical element (8) about the reference axis (E) between the measurement steps (paragraphs 52-72); and processing, by a digital processing means (57), of the at least two interference images, so as to obtain an item of information relating to the interface (80) (paragraph 72-76, fig. 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a reference axis and rotate the element about the reference axis while capturing interference images similar to Ge with Couteville in order to measure an optical element with a complicated shape providing for a more versatile measurement method, for determining an item of geometric information of an interface to be measured of an optical element with respect to a measurement axis.
Re claim 3: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the method, characterized in that the processing step comprises a step of determining an item of decentring information of the interface (Couteville, paragraph 215, Ge, paragraphs 53-58).
Re claim 4: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the method, characterized in that it further comprises a step of correcting the decentring of the interface (Ge, paragraph 55-58, claim 3, see fig. 1).
Re claim 5: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the method, characterized in that the correction step is performed by a displacement of the optical element relative to the measurement beam in a plane perpendicular to the reference axis (Ge, paragraph 53-58, see fig. 1).
Re claim 6: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the method, characterized in that the correction step is performed by a rotation of the optical element in a plane containing the reference axis (Ge, paragraph 53-58, see fig. 1).
Re claim 8: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the method, characterized in that the processing step further comprises a step of obtaining an item of geometric information of the interface to be measured (Couteville, paragraphs 25-28, 62and 63, Ge, abstract).
Re claim 10: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the method, characterized in that at least the step of positioning of the coherence area, the measurement steps and the at least one rotation step are implemented sequentially in order to determine the item of information relating to different interfaces to be measured (Ge, paragraph 33, 52-72 and 85, fig. 1 and 2, Couteville, paragraph 42, 94, 121-125 and 151, claim 10, the interface is moved in an X-Y direction to different positions and an interference image is captured at each position).
Re claim 11: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the method characterized in that the interference image comprises one out of a phase image, an amplitude image and a topography image (Couteville, paragraph 56 and 57, Ge, paragraph 42).
Re claim 13: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the device, characterized in that the interferometric measurement means comprise a full-field interferometric sensor, configured for detecting a full-field interference signal in the field of view (Couteville, paragraph 23, 34 and 38).
Re claim 14: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the device, characterized in that it further comprises displacement means (Couteville, paragraph 125) configured for displacing the optical element relative to the measurement beam in a plane perpendicular to the reference axis (Couteville, paragraph 42, 94, 121-125 and 151, claim 10, the interface is moved in an X-Y direction to different positions and an interference image is captured at each position, Ge, see fig. 1).
Re claim 15: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the device, characterized in that the angular displacement means (Ge, 6) are further configured for allowing a rotation of the optical element in a plane containing the reference axis (Ge, paragraphs 52-72).
Re claim 16: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the device, characterized in that the positioning means (Couteville, 611/608/6, Ge, 28/29) are configured for positioning the coherence area successively at the level of different interfaces of the optical element (Couteville, abstract, paragraph 81, Ge, see fig. 1, paragraph 33, 60, 62, 65, 68 and 85).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couteville et al. (WO 2020245511 using US publication 20220357236 as a translation) as modified by Ge et al. (US 20100097619) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colonna de Lega et al. (US 20160047712).
Re claim 2: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the method, characterized in that the processing step comprises the identification of a feature in each interference image (Couteville, paragraph 208-216, Ge, paragraphs 53-58 and 72-76), but does not specifically teach the identification of one and the same point of interest in each interference image. Colonna de Lega teaches a process step comprising an identification of one and the same point of interest in each interference image (fig. 18, paragraphs 177-183, step 1805/1815 interference images each with identified feature XY step 1810/1820). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to identify one of a same point of interest in the interference images of Couteville as modified by Ge similar to Colonna de Lega in order to reduce errors in determination of shape of optical element providing for higher quality measurements.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couteville et al. (WO 2020245511 using US publication 20220357236 as a translation) as modified by Ge et al. (US 20100097619) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Amstel et al. (US 20070247639).
Re claim 7: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the method, characterized in that it further comprises a step of correcting the decentring of the interface (Ge, paragraph 55-58, claim 3, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach characterized in that the processing step further comprises a step of digital correction of the decentring of the interface. Amstel teaches characterized in that the processing step further comprises a step of digital correction of the decentring of the interface (paragraphs 55-60 and 92). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use digital correction of the decentring similar to Amstel with the correction step in Couteville as modified by Ge in order to immediate correct the data with the decentring providing for more efficient corrections of decentring of the interface.
Re claim 9: Couteville as modified by Ge teaches the method, characterized in that the processing step comprises a step of determining an item of decentring information of the interface (Couteville, paragraph 215, Ge, paragraphs 53-58) and characterized in that it further comprises a step of correcting the decentring of the interface (Ge, paragraph 55-58, claim 3, see fig. 1), but does not specifically teach characterized in that the step of determining an item of decentring information further comprises a propagation correction step taking into account optical propagation effects undergone by the measurement beam while passing through the interfaces of the optical. Amstel teaches a step of determining an item of decentring information further comprises a propagation correction step taking into account optical propagation effects undergone by a measurement beam while passing through the interfaces of an optical element (paragraphs 55-60 and 92). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use correction of propagation similar to Amstel with the step of determining an item in Couteville as modified by Ge in order to more accurately determine the item of decentring providing for more efficient corrections of decentring of the interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3419. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/JENNIFER D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2878