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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
1. The drawings filed on 06/25/24. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 15-16, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (Pub. No. 2024/0319082 in view of Wilkens (U.S. Pat. No. 2003/0090228). Hereafter “Yamada” and “Wilkens”.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 9, 16, Yamada teaches a system/method/medium comprising:
an interferometer configured to emit a laser beam ([0088], lines 3-7; figure 1, first light source 51, second light source 41 emit a laser beam. Interference optical system is not different from an interferometer);
a first object coupled to a non-moving portion, the first object configured to reflect a first portion of the laser beam (figure 1, fixed mirror 34 or light reflector 442, is not different from a first object coupled to a non-moving portion, reflecting a first portion of the laser beam L1b, L2a);
a second object coupled to a moving portion, the second object configured to reflect a second portion of the laser beam (figure 1, moving mirror 33 is not different from a second object coupled to a moving portion, reflecting a second portion of the laser beam L1a, L2b); and
a processor to perform operations (figure 1, calculation device 7 is not different from a processor) comprising:
receiving a first image comprising a plurality of first linear interference fringes corresponding to the first portion of the laser beam (figure 1, first image from fixed mirror 34, receiving element 36 receives first linear interference fringes of the laser beam L1b; [0112-0113]);
determining a first characteristic of the plurality of first linear interference fringes ([0113]. A temporal change in intensity is not different from a first characteristic);
receiving a second image comprising a plurality of second linear interference fringes corresponding to the second portion of the laser beam (figure 1, second image from moving mirror 33, receiving element 45 receives second linear interference fringes of laser beam L2b; [0123, 0126]);
determining a second characteristic of the plurality of second linear interference fringes ([0126]. A temporal change in intensity is not different from a second characteristic); and
determining, based at least in part on the first characteristic and the second characteristic, an off-axis motion of the second object in at least one direction ([0138, 0141]. “The interferogram F(x) is represented by a function of an optical path difference between reflected light from the moving mirror 33 and reflected light from the fixed mirror 34, and the optical path difference in the analysis optical system 3 is a difference between an optical path length between the beam splitter 32 and the moving mirror 33 and an optical path length between the beam splitter 32 and the fixed mirror 34”, this limitation is not different from an off-axis motion of the mirror 33 in at least one direction).
However, Yamada does not teach a portion of a linear actuator. Wilkens a portion of a linear actuator ([0022, 0023]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Yamada by having a portion of a linear actuator in order to monitor the movement direction of a portion of the linear actuator.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Yamada teaches at least one of a piezo linear actuator, electromagnetic linear actuator, stepper motor, servo motor, or a linear motor ([0059, 0060]).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, 15, 20, Yamada teaches at least one of fitting a reference signal corresponding to the first characteristic with an objective signal corresponding to the second characteristic or applying Fourier transform to the reference signal and the objective signal ([0006, 0008, 0025, 0032, 0041, 0047, 0158, 0176, 0221, 0226, 0232, 0359, 0408, 0412, 0416, 0421, 0427]).
4. Claim(s) 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (Pub. No. 2024/0319082) in view of Wilkens (U.S. Pat. No. 2003/0090228), further in view of Tiemann et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,578,494). Hereafter “Yamada”, “Wilkens”, “Tiemann”.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, 18, Yamada teaches determining a phase of the plurality of first linear interference fringes ([0108, 0121, 0260, 0332, 0350]); determining an average period of a plurality of first interference fringes ([0130, 0291, 0319, 0320, 0368, 0369, 0370, 0373, 0388]); determining a clock angle of the first interference fringe with respect to a horizontal axis (Abstract, lines 15; [0002, 0020, 0024, 0028, 0035, 0037, 0038, 0040, 0041, 0043, 0046, 0050, 0062, 0063, 0065, 0084, 0085, 0093, 0095, 0097]); and determining a tilt or twist in the second object ([0307]).
However, Yamada and Wilkens do not teach average fringe period. Tiemann teaches average fringe period (column 15, lines 26-33, 40-52). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Yamada and Wilkens by having average fringe period in order to calculate a coarse wavelength with an associated uncertainty in wavelength, (column 15, lines 26-33, 40-52).
5. Claim(s) 7, 14, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (Pub. No. 2024/0319082 in view of Wilkens (U.S. Pat. No. 2003/0090228), further in view of Fitts (U.S. Pat. No. 5,175,601). Hereafter “Yamada”, “Wilkens”, “Fitts”.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, 14, 19, Yamada and Wilkens teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for at least one of vertical interference fringes, horizontal interference fringes, or angular interference fringes. Fitts teaches Fitts, (column 12, lines 51-65; Column 13, lines 17-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Yamada and Wilkens by having at least one of vertical interference fringes, horizontal interference fringes, or angular interference fringes in order to implement suitable fringe patterns for inspection, (column 12, lines 51-65; Column 13, lines 17-33).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 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.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there was no prior art found by the examiner that suggested modification or combination with the cited art so as to satisfy the combination of all the limitations in claims 4, 6.
8. As claims 4, 11, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a system/method comprising a first object coupled to a non-moving portion of a linear actuator, to reflect a first portion of the laser beam; a second object coupled to a moving portion of the linear actuator, to reflect a second portion of the laser beam; receiving a first image of first linear interference fringes corresponding to the first portion; determining a first characteristic of first linear interference fringes; receiving a second image of second linear interference fringes corresponding to the second portion; determining a second characteristic of the plurality of second linear interference fringes; based on the first characteristic and the second characteristic, an off-axis motion of the second object in at least one direction; wherein determining comprises determining a phase of linear interference fringes; an average period of interference fringes; a clock angle of the first interference fringe with respect to a horizontal axis; and determining a tilt in the second object based on the average period and the clock angle;
wherein the tilt is determined using a formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 and 4, or 9 and 10 and 11.
9. As claims 6, 13, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a system/method comprising a first object coupled to a non-moving portion of a linear actuator, to reflect a first portion of the laser beam; a second object coupled to a moving portion of the linear actuator, to reflect a second portion of the laser beam; receiving a first image of first linear interference fringes corresponding to the first portion; determining a first characteristic of first linear interference fringes; receiving a second image of second linear interference fringes corresponding to the second portion; determining a second characteristic of the plurality of second linear interference fringes; based on the first characteristic and the second characteristic, an off-axis motion of the second object in at least one direction; wherein determining comprises determining a phase of linear interference fringes; an average period of interference fringes; a clock angle of the first interference fringe with respect to a horizontal axis; and determining a twist in the second object based on the average period and the clock angle;
wherein the twist is determined using a formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
52
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
66
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 5 and 6, or 9 and 12 and 13.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (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 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.