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
Claims 19-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 19-21 are written as depending on claim 15; however, claim 15 is an apparatus claim, whereas claim 16 is a method claim. The subject matter recited in claims 19-21 is already included in the apparatus claims (see claims 4-6), rendering the dependency improper.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 16-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Korner (US 2020/0378743 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Korner teaches an interferometric optical probe (Abstract)system comprising:
a plurality of reflective optical elements having rotational symmetry and optical power and which are substantially centered on an optical axis (fig. 3, [0109], [00132], [0145] Schwarzschild objective 5 is known for having rotational symmetry, has convex mirror 6 and concave mirror 9 which both have optical power); a reference arm comprising at least two of the reflective optical elements (mirrors 6 and 88) ([0107], fig. 1); and a measurement arm comprising at least two of the reflective optical elements (mirrors 6 and 9) ([0111] , fig. 1);
wherein at least one of the reflective optical elements (6) for the reference arm and the measurement arm is the same (fig. 1, both the reference arm and the measurement arm share the mirror 6).
Regarding claim 2, Korner teaches the system as set forth in claim 1 further comprising: at least one of a housing or a spacer coupled to at least one of the reflective optical elements ([0147], figs. 1 and 8a: the housing for the Schwarzchild objective 5).
Regarding claim 5 and 6, Korner teaches the system as set forth in claim 1, wherein at least one of the reflective optical elements of the reference arm have a spherical, elliptical, parabolic, or hyperbolic prescription, wherein at least one of the reflective optical elements of the measurement arm have a spherical, elliptical, parabolic, or hyperbolic prescription ([0107] convex primary mirror 6 is spherical).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 incorporates all the limitations of claims 1 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejections of claim 1 apply to claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 incorporates all the limitations of claims 2 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejections of claim 2 apply to claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, claims 20-21 incorporate all the limitations of claims 5-6 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejections of claims 5 and 6 apply to claims 21-22. Therefore, claims 21-22 are rejected under the same rationale.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korner (US 2020/0378743 A1) in view of Kalkowski (US 2013/0048214 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Korner teaches the system as set forth in claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a bonding mixture comprising one of at least sodium hydroxide or sodium silicate that couples the at least one of the reflective optical elements to the at least one of a housing or spacer.
However, the use of sodium hydroxide or sodium silicate to bond optical devices is well known in the art as disclosed by Kalkowski ([0004], [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Korner by incorporating further comprising a bonding mixture comprising one of at least sodium hydroxide or sodium silicate that couples the at least one of the reflective optical elements to the at least one of a housing or spacer for a high stability of the system ([0041]).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 incorporates all the limitations of claims 3 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejections of claim 3 apply to claim 18. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korner (US 2020/0378743 A1) in view of Munro (WO 2021/163143 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Korner teaches the system as set forth in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least two reflective optical elements of the reference arm are composed of a material having a CTE of less than 10 PPB / degree C.
However, the use of reflective optical elements composed of a material having a CTE of less than 10 PPB / degree C. is well known in the field as disclosed by Munro ([00539], [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Korner by incorporating wherein the at least two reflective optical elements of the reference arm are composed of a material having a CTE of less than 10 PPB / degree C in order to provide the predictable results of reducing a mirror's deformation as the temperature changes.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 incorporates all the limitations of claim 4 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejections of claim 4 apply to claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US-20210172722-A1) in view of Comstock (US 20120026581 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Liu teaches an interferometric optical probe system (Abstract) comprising: a plurality of reflective optical elements (110, 120 , 200, 400) having rotational symmetry and optical power and which are substantially centered on an optical axis ([0018] a first concave surface portion 110 and at least a second concave surface portion 120 which are oppositely located on two sides of the central axis C, [0020] convex mirror 200, reflecting element 400) ; a reference arm comprising at least two of the reflective optical elements ([0029]-[0030] the reference arm includes reflecting elements 300 and 400. [0036], fig. 2: before the splitter, the incident light B1 forming the reference arm is first reflected by convex mirror 200 and then by second portion 120, so the reference arm includes at least the convex mirror 200 and the concave mirror 120 ); and a measurement arm (detection light BD) comprising at least two of the reflective optical elements ([0027]-[0028] the detection light BD includes 300. the incident light B1 forming measurement arm is first reflected by convex mirror 200 and then by first portion 110 , so the measurement arm includes at least the convex mirror 200 and the concave mirror 110); wherein at least one of the reflective optical elements for the reference arm and the measurement arm is the same (figs. 2A-2C: 200), further comprising: at least one of a housing or a spacer coupled to at least one of the reflective optical elements (the system inherently requires a housing and/or spacers for optical alignment), but fails to disclose at least one spider support structure coupled to the housing, wherein one of the reflective optical elements is coupled to the at least one spider support structure.
However, Comstock (US 20120026581 A1), from the same field of endeavor teaches at least one spider support structure coupled to the housing (20), wherein one of the reflective optical elements is coupled to the at least one spider support structure (A mount 24 in the form of a spider support) ([0039] A mount 24 in the form of a spider support has a number of leg sections 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu by incorporating at least one spider support structure coupled to the housing, wherein one of the reflective optical elements is coupled to the at least one spider support structure to provide predictable results of stable and precise positioning.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 incorporates all the limitations of claims 7 with minor variations in the claimed language, in method form, rather than apparatus form. The reasons for the rejections of claim 7 apply to claim 22. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-15 and 23-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Regarding claims 8 and 23:
The prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach “a plurality of light detecting elements positioned on a lower edge of vanes of the at least one spider support structure to capture light to detect a tilt of a test surface with respect to the optical axis”
Claims 9-12 would be allowable due to dependency on claim 8, and claims 24-27 would be allowable due to dependency on claim 23
Regarding claims 13 and 28:
The prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach “a plurality of light detecting elements positioned on a lower surface of one of the reflective optical elements to capture light to detect a tilt of a test surface with respect to the optical axis”
Claims 14-15 would be allowable due to dependency on claim 13, and claims 29-30 would be allowable due to dependency to claim 28.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Prater (US-20210164894-A1), Niehues (DE 102011000213 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM ET.
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.
/MOHAMED DOUMBIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877