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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, “Δ. |Δ|” should perhaps read --Δ, wherein |Δ|--.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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 9, 12, 14, 18 and 20 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 9, the phrase “|Δ| is greater than about 0.1° and smaller than about 1°” employs “about” as a term of degree. The specification on p. 12 provides multiple alternative numerical meanings for “about,” specifically, 80%-120%, 90%-110%, and 95%-105% of the stated value. However, neither claim 9 nor the specification identifies which meaning governs the claimed limits of |Δ|. These alternatives produce different lower and upper boundaries for |Δ|, such that the metes and bounds of claim 9 are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “|Δ| is greater than about 0.1° and smaller than about 1°” to recite --|Δ| is greater than or equal to 0.1° and less than or equal to 1°--, in accordance with p. 16 of the Spec.
Claim 12 recites “the prism” however it is unclear whether “the prism” refers to the “optical element” of claim 1 or to another optical component. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “The method according to claim 1” to recite --The method according to claim 6--, in accordance with p. 3 of the Spec.
Claim 14 recites “the image sensor” however the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “The method according to claim 1” to recite --The method according to claim 13--, in accordance with p. 4 of the Spec.
Claim 18 recites “the consecutive projection” however the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “The method according to claim 1” to recite --The method according to claim 17--, in accordance with p. 4 of the Spec.
Claim 20 recites “the first surface of the sample and the second surface of the sample,” however claim 1 introduces only “an external and flat surface of the sample.” It is unclear whether “the first surface” is the previously recited external and flat surface and which other surface is intended by “the second surface.” Applicant may overcome the indefiniteness by amending “wherein the sample is a reflective waveguide, the first surface of the sample and the second surface of the sample correspond to major surfaces of the waveguide” to recite --wherein the sample is a reflective waveguide, and the external and flat surface of the sample and a second surface of the sample correspond to major surfaces of the waveguide--, in accordance with p. 13 of the Spec.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 13-14 and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11-14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,080 (the reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims recite the method of operating the claimed system of the reference patent.
Instant Application 18/770,084
(Application claims 1-2, 13-14 and 17-19)
U.S. Patent No. 12,061,080
(Reference claims 1, 11-14 and 16)
1. An optical-based method for validating parallelism of internal facets of a sample, the method comprising stages of:
1. “An optical-based system for metrology of a sample… being indicative of a deviation from parallelism between the internal facets”
providing a sample comprising a light transmissive substrate, which has a refractive index ns, and two or more internal facets, which are embedded in the substrate and nominally oriented at an acute nominal angle µnom relative to an external and flat surface of the sample;
“a sample having a substrate, with a refractive index ns, and two or more internal facets, which are embedded in the substrate and nominally oriented at an acute nominal angle μnom relative to an external and flat surface of the sample”
providing an optical element having a refractive index about equal to ns, the optical element comprising an external and flat first surface and an external and flat second surface which is opposite to the first surface of the optical element and inclined relative thereto at about the nominal angle µnom;
“the system comprising a light transmissive optical element...the optical element has a refractive index about equal to ns and comprises an external and flat first surface and an external and flat second surface, which are opposite to one another and define an angle therebetween about equal to the nominal angle μnom”
positioning the sample and the optical element, such that the second surface of the optical element is parallel and adjacent to the surface of the sample; projecting a plurality of incident light beams on the first surface of the optical element, about normally thereto;
“the optical setup is configured to enable positioning the sample and/or the optical element, such that (i) the second surface of the optical element is parallel and adjacent to the surface of the sample, and (ii) when so positioned, light beams, generated by the light source, are incident on the first surface of the optical element about normally thereto”
obtaining a plurality of returned light beams following passage of the incident light beams through the optical element, transmission thereof into the sample and reflection off the internal facets, repassage through the optical element, and exit out of the optical element via the first surface of the optical element;
“the returned light beams are obtained following passage of the incident light beams through the optical element, transmission thereof into the sample and reflection off the internal facets, repassage through the optical element, and exit out of the optical element via the first surface of the optical element”
sensing the returned light beams; and
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the light sensing component comprises an image sensor configured to sense the returned light beams.
based on the sensed data, computing at least one deviation from parallelism between at least some of the internal facets.
12. The system of claim 11, further comprising a computational module configured to compute the deviation from parallelism between the internal facets based on sensed data of the returned light beams obtained by the image sensor.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein computing the deviation from parallelism between the internal facets comprises computing angular deviation(s) between the returned light beams.
14. The system of claim 12, wherein the computational module is configured to, as part of computing the deviation from parallelism between the internal facets, compute angular deviations between the returned light beams.
10. The method according to claim 1, wherein the second surface of the optical element is inclined relative to the first surface of the optical element at the nominal angle µnom.
1. “…an external and flat first surface and an external and flat second surface, which are opposite to one another and define an angle therebetween about equal to the nominal angle μnom…”
13. The method according to claim 1, wherein the returned light beams are sensed using an image sensor.
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the light sensing component comprises an image sensor configured to sense the returned light beams.
14. The method according to claim 1, wherein the sensed data corresponding to each returned light beam comprises measured intensities of pixels making up a spot formed by the returned light beam on the image sensor.
13. The system of claim 12, wherein the sensed data pertaining to each returned light beam comprises measured intensities of pixels making up a respective spot formed by the returned light beam on the image sensor.
17. The method according to claim 1, wherein the incident light beams are consecutively projected on each of the internal facets, respectively.
18. The method according to claim 1, wherein the consecutive projection is implemented using a translatable slitted or apertured optical mask and/or a plurality of shutters.
19. The method according to claim 1, wherein the computing of deviation from parallelism, deviations from parallelism between pairs of internal facets, from the plurality of internal facets, are computed.
16. The system of claim 12, wherein the optical setup further comprises a translatable slitted or apertured optical mask, and/or a plurality of shutters, configured to enable inspecting the internal facets one at a time, and wherein the computational module is configured to compute deviations from parallelism between pairs of internal facets, from the plurality of internal facets.
Regarding application claim 1, the principal difference between application claim 1 and reference claim 12 is statutory form. Reference claim 12 incorporates the same mapped sample, optical element geometry, positioning, illumination, returned beam path, sensing, and computation. Although the reference claim does not expressly characterize the substrate as “light transmissive,” reference claim 1 requires “internal facets, which are embedded in the substrate” and “transmission [of the incident light beams] into the sample and reflection off the internal facets.” A substrate along this optical path therefore necessarily transmits the measurement light. Alternatively, using a light transmissive substrate would have been obvious because the expressly claimed propagation to and from facets embedded in the substrate could not otherwise occur. Operating the system of reference claim 12 according to its claimed configuration would perform the mapped method stages of application claim 1. Accordingly, application claim 1 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12 and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 2 depends from application claim 1 and further recites that “computing the deviation from parallelism between the internal facets comprises computing angular deviation(s) between the returned light beams.” Reference claim 14 recites that “the computational module is configured to, as part of computing the deviation from parallelism between the internal facets, compute angular deviations between the returned light beams.” Operating the module as configured would perform that computation, which reference claim 1 identifies as indicative of facet nonparallelism. Accordingly, application claim 2 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 14 and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 10 depends from application claim 1 and further recites that “the second surface of the optical element is inclined relative to the first surface of the optical element at the nominal angle µnom.” Reference claim 1, incorporated into reference claim 12 by dependency, teaches that the first and second surfaces of the optical element defines an angle “about equal to the nominal angle µnom.” Accordingly, application claim 10 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12, including the limitation of reference claim 1, and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 13 depends from application claim 1 and further recites that “the returned light beams are sensed using an image sensor.” Reference claim 11, incorporated into reference claim 12 by dependency, recites “an image sensor configured to sense the returned light beams.” Using the image sensor for that expressly claimed function would predictably supply the sensed returned beam data required by the computational module of reference claim 12. Accordingly, application claim 13 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12, including the limitation of reference claim 11, and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 14 depends from application claim 1 and further recites that “the sensed data corresponding to each returned light beam comprises measured intensities of pixels making up a spot formed by the returned light beam on the image sensor.” Reference claim 13 recites that “the sensed data pertaining to each returned light beam comprises measured intensities of pixels making up a respective spot formed by the returned light beam on the image sensor.” Measuring those pixel intensities and using them as the sensed data for the computation required by reference claim 12 constitute the direct and predictable operation of the system of reference claim 13. Accordingly, application claim 14 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 13 and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 17 depends from application claim 1 and further recites that “the incident light beams are consecutively projected on each of the internal facets, respectively.” Reference claim 16 recites a mask and/or shutters “configured to enable inspecting the internal facets one at a time” and a computational module “configured to compute deviations from parallelism between pairs of internal facets.” A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to translate the mask and/or actuate the shutters to illuminate the facets successively because doing so predictably provides the facet specific data required for the claimed pairwise comparisons. Accordingly, application claim 17 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 16 and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 18 depends from application claim 1 and further recites that “the consecutive projection is implemented using a translatable slitted or apertured optical mask and/or a plurality of shutters.” Reference claim 16 expressly recites those same components “configured to enable inspecting the internal facets one at a time.” Using the components to implement consecutive projection constitutes their expressly claimed and predictable operation. Accordingly, application claim 18 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 16 and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 19 depends from application claim 1 and further recites that “deviations from parallelism between pairs of internal facets, from the plurality of internal facets, are computed.” Reference claim 16 recites a computational module “configured to compute deviations from parallelism between pairs of internal facets, from the plurality of internal facets.” Operating the module according to that claimed configuration would perform the same pairwise computation. Accordingly, application claim 19 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 16 and is not patentably distinct.
Claims 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,080 (“reference claim 12”) in view of Kumar (“Simultaneous measurement of refractive index and wedge angle of optical windows using Fizeau interferometry and a cyclic path optical configuration,” 2009)1.
Application claim 3 depends from application claim 1 and further recites that “the incident light beams comprise complementary portions of an expanded light beam, which is collimated.” Reference claim 12 does not teach the incident beams to be formed in this manner. Kumar forms two laterally separated beams by transmitting respective portions of an expanded collimated beam through two rectangular aperture openings (pp. 4756-4757; Fig. 1). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have used this arrangement to form the plurality of incident beams of reference claim 12 because deriving the beams from a common collimated wavefront predictably provides mutually aligned beams for simultaneous optical comparison. Accordingly, application claim 3 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12 in view of Kumar and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 4 depends from application claim 3 and further recites that the expanded light beam is monochromatic. Reference claim 12 in view of Kumar further teaches an expanded and collimated He-Ne measurement beam having a monochromatic wavelength of 632.8 nm (Kumar, pp. 4757 and 4759). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the monochromatic illumination of Kumar and used it to obtain predictable and stable coherent optical measurement data. Accordingly, application claim 4 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12 in view of Kumar and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 5 depends from application claim 3 and further recites that the expanded light beam is an expanded laser beam. Reference claim 12 in view of Kumar further teaches an He-Ne laser beam expanded from 1.0 mm to 70 mm (Kumar, p. 4759). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have expanded the laser beam as taught by Kumar to provide sufficient beam area for forming the spatially separated incident beams while retaining the coherence and collimation used for optical comparison. Accordingly, application claim 5 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12 in view of Kumar and is not patentably distinct.
Claims 6-8 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,080 (“reference claim 12”) in view of Danziger (US 20190064518 A1).
Application claim 6 depends from application claim 1 and further recites that “the optical element comprises a prism,” which reference claim 12 does not teach. Danziger teaches an optical coupling arrangement comprising “a coupling prism integrally formed, or optically coupled, with waveguide 10,” with reflectors 18a and 18b formed by faces of coupling prism 91 and another face providing a coupling surface generally perpendicular to the optical input axis (¶ 87; Figs. 8A-9B, prism 91, reflectors 18a/18b, and waveguide 10). Danziger further teaches that prism 91 may be integral with or attached to the waveguide and that oblique prism surface 91a may establish the required propagation angle from a perpendicular input axis (¶¶ 92-93; Figs. 13A-13B, prism 91 and surface 91a). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the prism configuration of Danziger as the optical element of reference claim 12 in order to employ the planar optical faces of the prism to predictably direct normally incident light towards the required propagation angle. Accordingly, application claim 6 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12 in view of Danziger and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 7 depends from application claim 1 and further recites that “the sample is shaped as a thin slab or an elongated box,” which reference claim 12 does not teach. Danziger teaches waveguides 10 and 20, corresponding to the elongated box and thin slab geometries, respectively. Specifically, Danzinger teaches an elongated waveguide 10 having “first and second pairs of parallel faces 12a, 12b, 14a, 14b forming a rectangular cross section” and internal facets 40 (¶ 56; Fig. 1B, waveguide 10, faces 12a/12b and 14a/14b, and facets 40). Danziger further teaches waveguide 20 having parallel faces 22a and 22b “forming a slab type waveguide,” with its other two dimensions at least an order of magnitude greater than the separation between those faces and with internal facets 45 (¶ 57; Fig. 1A, waveguide 20, faces 22a/22b, and facets 45). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the sample geometry as taught by Danzinger in the metrology system of reference claim 12 because each contains internal facets of the type the system is configured to inspect. Accordingly, application claim 7 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12 in view of Danziger and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 8 depends from application claim 1 and further recites that “the sample comprises a one-dimensional reflective waveguide or a two-dimensional reflective waveguide,” which reference claim 12 does not teach. Danziger identifies waveguide 10 as a “2D waveguide” that guides light by reflection between two sets of parallel faces and waveguide 20 as a “1D waveguide” that guides light between one pair of parallel faces (¶ 59; Figs. 1A-1B, waveguides 10 and 20), further teaching the waveguides contain internal partially reflecting facets 40 and 45 through which guided light is transferred or directed outward (¶¶ 56-58, 61, and 63; Figs. 1A-1B, facets 40 and 45). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the reflective waveguide of Danziger as the sample in the metrology system of reference claim 12 because such a sample contains internal facets that the system is configured to inspect. Accordingly, application claim 8 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12 in view of Danziger and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 20 depends from application claim 1 and further recites that “the sample is a reflective waveguide” and that its first and second surfaces “correspond to major surfaces of the waveguide,” which reference claim 12 does not teach. Danziger teaches a slab type reflective waveguide 20 having parallel faces 22a and 22b, with its other two dimensions at least an order of magnitude greater than the separation between those faces (¶ 57; Fig. 1A, waveguide 20 and faces 22a/22b). Danziger further teaches that waveguide 20 guides light by reflection between those faces and contains internal facets 45 that reflect light outward (¶¶ 59 and 63; Fig. 1A, faces 22a/22b and facets 45). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the reflective waveguide of Danziger as the sample of reference claim 12 since the waveguide faces define the slab geometry and optical guiding relationship that the system is configured to inspect. Accordingly, application claim 20 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12 in view of Danziger and is not patentably distinct.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,080 (“reference claim 12”) in view of Day (US 20120262698 A1).
Application claim 9 depends from application claim 1 and further limits the first and second surfaces of the optical element to be μnom+Δ, where |Δ| is greater than about 0.1° and smaller than about 1°. Reference claim 12, through its dependency from reference claims 11 and 1, teaches the angle to be equal to about μnom (“…an external and flat first surface and an external and flat second surface, which are opposite to one another and define an angle therebetween about equal to the nominal angle μnom…”) however does not teach the claimed angular offset Δ. Day teaches an optical measurement path in which outgoing and returned light traverses glass beam splitters 3832 and 3834 (¶ 105; Fig. 21) and teaches employing “slight wedge angle[s] to minimize ghost beams,” specifically 0.16° and 0.13° (¶ 115; Fig. 23, elements 3832 and 3834). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the teachings of Day to the optical element of reference claim 12 by setting the angle to μnom+Δ, where Δ is 0.13° or 0.16°, in order to predictably reduce unwanted reflections in the returned beam measurement path. Accordingly, application claim 9 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12 in view of Day and is not patentably distinct.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,080 (“reference claim 12”) in view of Morant (US 20170285453 A1).
Application claim 11 depends from application claim 1 and further recites that “the first surface of the optical element is coated by an anti-reflective coating.” Reference claim 12, through its dependency from reference claims 11 and 1, requires incident light beams to enter the optical element normally through its first surface and returned light beams to exit through that surface, but does not require an anti-reflective coating. Morant teaches coating every non-base surface a, b, and c of input prism 1 with an anti-reflective optical coating to enhance transmission and reduce unwanted internal partial reflections (¶ 42; Fig. 1, prism 1 and surfaces a-c). Morant further teaches directing illumination light 12 substantially normally onto prism input surface a and tailoring the anti-reflective coating to the incidence angle at the coated surface (¶¶ 43, 47; Fig. 4, prism 1, surface a, source 10, and illumination light 12). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have coated the first surface of the optical element of reference claim 12 with the anti-reflective coating of Morant because the coating would predictably enhance transmission and reduce reflection losses and parasitic reflections for both the incident and returned beams. Accordingly, application claim 11 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12 in view of Morant and is not patentably distinct.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,080 (“reference claim 12”) in view of Aladag (WO 2019197959 A1).
Application claim 12 depends from application claim 1 and further recites “applying a liquid, which has the same refractive index as the substrate, such that the sample, the liquid, and the prism form a continuous medium.” Reference claim 12 does not recite an index matching liquid. Aladag teaches a transparent cylinder 100 having a receptacle 110 containing sample plate 102 and refractive index matching fluid 112, wherein cylinder 100 encompasses a prism and receptacle 110 may be formed in either a cylinder or a prism (p. 8, ll. 1-5). Aladag further teaches that fluid 112 has a refractive index matching that of cylinder 100 and that cylinder 100 and plate 102 are made of the same material (p. 9, ll. 5-10), thus fluid 112 matches the refractive index of sample plate 102. Aladag further teaches light beam 420C-420G passing successively through first side 100L, fluid 112, sample plate 102, fluid 112 on the opposite side of the sample, and second side 100R (Fig. 4; p. 12, ll. 15-30), thereby teaching the placement of an index matching liquid in optical contact with a sample and prism to provide a continuous, index matched optical path through those components. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the index matching liquid of Aladag between the sample and optical element of reference claim 12 in order to replace the intervening air interface with an index matched interface, thereby predictably reducing refraction and reflection losses and improving optical coupling along the beam path. Accordingly, application claim 12 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12 in view of Aladag and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,080 (“reference claim 12”) in view of MIL-HDBK-204 (“Inspection Equipment Design,” published 1962)2.
Application claim 15 further recites that “an autocollimator is used to generate the incident light beams and focus the returned light beams.” Reference claim 12 does not teach an autocollimator. MIL-HDBK-204 teaches combining a telescope and collimator into a single autocollimator that projects light toward a reflecting surface and receives the reflected light through the same instrument (§ 5.6.2). In the illustrated autocollimator, light source F and semi-reflector C introduce light into the optical system, and objective lens B renders the outgoing light into parallel rays and refocuses the reflected rays on reticle A (§§ 5.6.3.2-5.6.3.5; Fig. 31, elements A-C and F). MIL-HDBK-204 further teaches using an autocollimator to check parallelism, including parallelism involving internal reflecting surfaces of optical components (§§ 5.6.6.7, 5.6.7; Figs. 40 and 42). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the light projection and returned light-focusing functions of reference claim 12 with the autocollimator taught by MIL-HDBK-204 because it is an established instrument for projecting light, receiving and refocusing reflected light, and measuring parallelism involving internal reflecting surfaces. The autocollimator would predictably generate the incident light beams and focus the returned light beams while leaving the remaining sensing and computation unchanged. Accordingly, application claim 15 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 12 in view of MIL-HDBK-204 and is not patentably distinct.
Application claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,080 (“reference claim 13”) in view of MIL-HDBK-204.
Application claim 16 further recites “the stage of sensing the returned light beams comprises viewing the returned light beams through an eyepiece, said returned light beams being manifested as spots against a graduated reticle of the eyepiece.” Reference claim 13 depends from reference claim 12 and further teaches sensed data comprising measured pixel intensities for “a respective spot formed by the returned light beam on the image sensor,” thereby establishing a corresponding spot for each returned light beam. However, Reference claim 13 does not require those spots to be viewed through an eyepiece against a graduated reticle, as recited in application claim 16. MIL-HDBK-204 teaches viewing a reflected image through an eyepiece (§ 5.6.2), using a reticle having graduations indicating deviation (§ 5.6.3.1), and using eye lens D to magnify the reticle pattern and the real image formed by the reflected rays (§ 5.6.3.4; Fig. 31, elements A and D), further teaching the determination of angular deviation from the returned image’s position relative to the reticle graduations and describes the returned image as a sharply defined spot viewable against the reticle pattern (§§ 5.6.4, 5.6.5.3; Figs. 32 and 33(c)). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the sensing arrangement of reference claim 13 with the eyepiece and graduated reticle observation path taught by MIL-HDBK-204 in order to provide a conventional direct visual means for observing and measuring returned beam displacement. Applying the teachings of MIL-HDBK-204 to the plurality of returned beams of reference claim 13 would predictably present each returned beam as a corresponding spot against the graduated reticle. Accordingly, application claim 16 would have been an obvious variation of reference claim 13 in view of MIL-HDBK-204 and is not patentably distinct.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Lobachinsky (US 20200292417 A1) discloses a transparent lightguide containing oblique internal reflective facets using collimated light, camera sensing, and image metrics indicating facet nonparallelism. However, Lobachinsky does not teach the claimed refractive index matched optical element, its specific orientation beside the sample, or the double pass beam path used to compute deviations between internal facets.
Christmas (US 20210255459 A1) discloses a light transmissive slab waveguide, an adjacent optical wedge, collimated illumination, and internal reflection. However, Christmas does not teach using an index matched optical element to obtain return beams from embedded internal facets for sensing and computing deviations from parallelism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
1 Kumar et al., “Simultaneous measurement of refractive index and wedge angle of optical windows using Fizeau interferometry and a cyclic path optical configuration,” Applied Optics, vol. 48, no. 24, pp. 4756-4761 (2009).
2 MIL-HDBK-204, Military Standardization Handbook, “Inspection Equipment Design,” published 16 August 1962.
Prosecution Insights