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 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: “reflective elements configured to …”, in claim 1.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-5, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2003/0133121 A1), hereafter Davis in view of Wilcken et al. (US 2016/0054221 A1), hereafter, Wilcken.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Davis teaches a system and method (Figs. 5 and 9, [0037]) for measuring a bidirectional reflectance distribution function, [abstract, 0010] the system comprising:
a light source (Fig. 5 element 20) configured to generate light beams, [0037];
a two-axis mirror (Fig. 5 element 22, “gimbal mirror”) configured to direct the light beams from the light source , (a gimbal mirror is a two-axis mirror mechanism that direct the , [0037])
a beam splitter (Fig. 5 and 9 element “beam splitter”) configured to receive the light beams from the two-axis mirror (Fig. 9 “gimbal mirror”) and allow a first portion of the light beams to pass through the beam splitter, [0047];
an ellipsoidal mirror (Figs. 5 and 9, element 10) configured to receive the first portion of light beams from the beam splitter (Fig. 5 element 16, beam splitter in Fig. 9) at a plurality of predetermined locations on the ellipsoidal mirror (10) as directed by the two-axis mirror (22), [0035, 0047] with the two-axis mirror (22) being located at a second focal point (Fig. 5 element 14, [0035]) of the ellipsoidal mirror, (as shown in Figs. 5 and 9) and the ellipsoidal mirror (10) is configured to direct the first portion of light beams through a first focal point of the ellipsoidal mirror to reflect off a sample (Fig. 5 element 12) at the first focal point (Fig. 5 element 12) to generate reflected light beams, [0035-0037], wherein the reflected light beams are directed from the ellipsoidal mirror (10) to the beam splitter (16) with a portion of the reflected light beams configured to reflect off the beam splitter and pass through a third focal point, (as shown in fig. 5 element 32 is located in the third focal point of element 10, [0039, 0047]; and
a first detector (Fig. 5 elements 32 + 28 + 26) configured to receive the reflected light beams from the third focal point (location of element 32) for each of the plurality of predetermined locations, [0039] for measuring the bidirectional reflectance distribution function, [0010, 0042].
Davis is silent about a series of reflective elements configured to direct the light beams; a two-axis mirror configured to direct the light beams from the series of reflective elements.
However, Wilcken related to bi-directional reflectance distribution function instrument and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches a series of reflective elements (Fig. 1C, element 125 + 160, [0031]) configured to direct the light beams, [0034]; a two-axis mirror (Fig. 1C element 160) configured to direct the light beams from the series of reflective elements, (Fig. 1C element 125, [0034, 0048]. Additionally, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.04.
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Davis by including a series of reflective elements configured to direct the light beams; a two-axis mirror configured to direct the light beams from the series of reflective elements, (as taught by Wilcken) for several advantages such as: the reflective elements allows to direct radiation to a specific location thus permit to characterize the sample at a variety of incident angles, ([0034], Wilcken).
Regarding claim 2, Davis in the combination outlined above teaches the system of claim 1.
Even though Davis teaches wherein a location of the light source (Fig. 5 element 120) relative to a location of the first detector (Fig. 5 element 26) the two-axis mirror (Fig. 5 element 22) directs the light beams to each of the plurality of predetermined locations on the ellipsoidal mirror (Fig. 5 element 10), Davis is silent about the wherein a location of the light source is fixed relative to a location of the first detector when the two-axis mirror directs the light beams to each of the plurality of predetermined locations on the ellipsoidal mirror.
However, Davis teaches (“our reflectometer provides: the ability to measure at incident angles of up to 85.degree. or greater off normal, and (2) the ability to determine both an integrated total hemispherical reflectance with greater throughput than measurements using integrating spheres and an image of the scattered intensity over a hemisphere (some of our designs under consideration require an internal or external rotation of 180.degree. to collect full hemispherical information for non-isotropic samples”, [0034].
Therefore, since the rotation required in some of the design internal or external rotation and element 20 and 26 are external elements. Consequently as the internal element rotate elements 20 and 26 would be in a fixed location related to each other. Additionally, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the light source relative the first detector (as taught by Davis) with a specific fixed location between the light source and the detector as result of routine optimization, thus allowing to collect full hemispherical information for non-isotropic samples, ([0034], Davis) and in order to allow for consistent, precise, and repeatable measurements of light intensity, scattering, or absorption by establishing a stable geometric relationship, (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Davis in the combination outlined above teaches the system of claim 1.
Davis further teaches wherein the first focal point (Fig. 5 element 12) of the ellipsoidal mirror (Fig. 5 element 10) and the second focal point (Fig. 5 element 14) are located along an optical axis (Fig. 5 element 18) of the ellipsoidal mirror (10), [0035]. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Davis in the combination outlined above teaches the system of claim 3.
Davis fail to teach wherein the first detector is located along an optical axis of the ellipsoidal mirror.
However, Wilcken further teaches wherein the first detector (Fig. 1C element 145 +15) is located along an optical axis of the ellipsoidal mirror (Fig. 1C element 105), [0033]. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Davis by including wherein the first detector is located along an optical axis of the ellipsoidal mirror (as taught by Wilcken) for several advantages such as: the device allows to improve optical efficiency, and enable measurement of samples with extremely low BRDF at reasonable signal integration times, thus increase device efficiency, ([0039], Wilcken).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Davis in the combination outlined above teaches the system and method.
Davis further teaches:
(claim 5) including a lens (Fig. 5 element 28) located one focal length away from the third focal point (as shown in Fig. 5 in element 32)
Davis fail to teach (claims 5 and 13) wherein a lens is aligned along an optical axis of the ellipsoidal mirror. However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of a lens (as taught by the combination of Redmond and BLANK) with a specific location such as the lens is aligned along an optical axis of the ellipsoidal mirror for the purpose of routine optimization in order to maximize image sharpness, ensure accurate focusing between the two focal points, and minimize aberrations since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 19 the claim is drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable memory medium having the instructions stored for performing the corresponding method steps claimed in Claim 12, However, the modified device of Davis disclose that the processor of the system and method of measuring a bidirectional reflectance distribution function contains the necessary software and hardware to perform and control its operation ([0010, 0041], Davis), Therefore, claim 19 corresponds to method claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation following the same rationale discussed above by the modified devices/method. (as applied to Claim 12).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Wilcken and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 102539122 A), hereafter Zhao.
Regarding claims 8-9, Davis in the combination outlined above teaches the system of claim 1.
The modified device of Davis fail to teach:
(claim 8) a second detector located on an opposite side of the ellipsoidal mirror from the first focal point of the ellipsoidal mirror.
(claim 9) a collimating lens located between the first focal point of the ellipsoidal mirror and the second detector.
However, Zhao related to optical measuring system with an ellipsoidal reflecting element and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 8) a second detector (Fig. 2 element 7) located on an opposite side of the ellipsoidal mirror (Fig. 2 element 6) from the first focal point (Fig. 2 element 4) of the ellipsoidal mirror (6), ( As show fig. 2 the device comprise 2 detectors “element 7 and 8. The “second detector” is located in the oppositive side of element 6 from the focal point at element 4, [0019]).
(claim 9) a collimating lens (Fig. 2 element 10) located between the first focal point (Fig. 2 element 4) of the ellipsoidal mirror (Fig. 2 element 6) and the second detector, (Fig. 2 element 7), [0019-0020].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Davis by including a second detector located on an opposite side of the ellipsoidal mirror from the first focal point of the ellipsoidal mirror, a collimating lens located between the first focal point of the ellipsoidal mirror and the second detector (as taught by Zhao) for several advantages such as: the reflected light intensity by the light power detectors for measuring light intensity value allows to obtain the measuring grating diffraction efficiency, thus increase the device versatility, ([0019], Zhao).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Wilcken and further in view of Fauconier et al. (US 11,002,666 B2), hereafter Fauconier.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Davis in the combination outlined above teaches the system and method.
The modified device of Davis fail to teach wherein the series of reflective elements include a galvanometer for selectively directing the light beams through one of a first polarizer or a second polarizer.
However, Fauconier related to surface measurement devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the series of reflective elements include a galvanometer (Fig. 2 element 36) for selectively directing the light beams through one of a first polarizer or a second polarizer, ( Fig. 2 elements 31, 35 and 34, [Col. 4, lines 20-24], [Col. 7, lines 57-66]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Davis by including wherein the series of reflective elements include a galvanometer for selectively directing the light beams through one of a first polarizer or a second polarizer (as taught by Fauconier) for several advantages such as: the galvanometer enables fast, precise switching between polarization states, significantly reducing the time required to acquire a full, polarization-dependent BRDF dataset. Also, It allows for automated, high-precision measurement of polarization-dependent scattering, reducing human error in the measurement process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 14, 16-18 and 20 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.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “including a reflector located along the optical axis for directing the reflected light beams from the lens in a direction transverse to the optical axis”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 7 is directly/indirectly dependent on claim 6 and are allowable based on their dependencies.
Regarding Claims 14, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “including directing the light beams from the lens at the third focal point in a direction transverse to the optical axis of with a reflector to the first detector”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claims 16 and 20, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “including collecting the reflected light beams with a second detector when an angle of incidence between the light beams and the ellipsoidal mirror is below a predetermined threshold angle”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claims 17-18 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 16 and are allowable based on their dependencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yan et al. (CN 116754519 A1), discloses a device and method for measuring characteristic of polarization BRDF aiming at the problems of slow measuring speed and low measuring efficiency of the existing BRDF or polarization BRDF.
Kawate et al. (US 2016/0252451 A1), discloses a highly sensitive optical measuring device that emits light from a measurement object such as a sample and that can measure the intensity and spatial distribution of scattered light from the sample. Also, the total hemispherical reflectance can be obtained by measuring the BRDF (bidirectional reflectance distribution function) of the sample in the entire space by a gonio-reflectometer.
Davis et al. (US 6483590 B1), discloses a reflectometer for characterizing reflectance properties of a test material, comprising: a radiation subsystem that generates and directs radiation onto a test material at a plurality of incident angles; an elliptical reflector assembly having a first reflector with a first and second foci; a holder that positions said test material at said first focus of said first reflector; and a first lens that is located within a first focal length of said second focus of said first reflector and that receives a first angular image that is reflected by said first reflector. The device determine BRDF that is generated by completely characterizes the reflectance properties of the sample.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877