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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Group I. Claims 1-11, in G016T7/0004.
Group II. Claims 12-20, classified in G01J4/04.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions Group II and Group I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process such as: Group II claiming the first radiation is diffracted from the target to form second radiation; creating a first polarization component and a second polarization component of the second radiation using a geometric phase lens and Group I do not share the same or corresponding technical feature.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
The examiner has required restriction between product and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product, and the product claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of the allowable product claim will be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101,102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04(b). Additionally, in order to retain the right to rejoinder in accordance with the above policy, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product claims. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with Colin Finnegan on 04/20/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I: claims 1-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Group II: Claims 12-20 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz et al. (CN 112368566 B) (herein after Franz) in view of ACHER et al. (US 20220155607 A1) (herein after ACHER).
As to claim(s) 1, Franz discloses a detection apparatus comprising:
a lens [102@page19] comprising a first focal length for a first polarization component [147] of an incoming beam of unpolarized radiation and a second focal length for a second polarization component [148] of the incoming beam of unpolarized radiation [figs. 1a, 1b and 2] [page 20] [radiation may be unpolarized, or it may be linearly polarized…page 19]; and
a detector [142 and 144] operable to separately detect the first polarization component and the second polarization component to obtain a pair of images of a target [Thus, by comparing the first and second polarization dependent intensity measurements, the presence of gas can be determined. This may be done by the controller 120, which controller 120 receives radiation detection data from the first detector 142 and the second detector 144 relating to the first polarization dependent intensity measurement I 0 and the second polarization dependent intensity measurement I 90. The controller 120 may include a data acquisition circuit for receiving radiation detection data and a processing circuit for processing the received radiation detection data (e.g., by executing stored computer program instructions to cause it to process the received radiation detection data) …page 21].
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
Franz discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “geometric phase lens”.
However, ACHER from the same field of endeavor discloses a geometric phase lens comprising a first focal length for a first polarization [FIG. 8 represented another embodiment of the polarization separation device 1 in accordance with the invention. According to this other embodiment, the device 1 comprises two pairs of geometric-phase lenses: on the one hand, the first geometric-phase lens…¶0098].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Franz such that the geometric phase lens comprising the first focal length for the first polarization; as taught by ACHER, for the advantages such as: to allow adjusting the separation angle of the polarizations at the output of the device.
As of claim 2, Franz discloses the detection apparatus wherein:
the first polarization component comprises a first circular polarization [retardation that converts the polarization state of radiation received at different frequencies into a polarization state having a linearly polarized component (and thus a polarization spectral modulation profile) at linear polarization angles of 0 ° and 90 ° and a component circularly polarized by the left and right…page 20];
the second polarization component comprises a second circular polarization [at linear polarization angles of 0 ° and 90 ° and a component circularly polarized by the left and right…page 20]; and
the detection apparatus comprises a quarter wave plate configured to, prior to detection by the detector, convert the first circular polarization to a first linear polarization and to convert the second circular polarization to a second linear polarization [the quarter wave plate 110 is omitted and the radiation output by the retarder plate 109 with spectrally modulated polarization is detected by the first detector 142 and the second detector 144…page 20], the second linear polarization being orthogonal to the first linear polarization [each receiving radiation having multiple linear polarization components from one or more retarders, and providing polarized radiation to a respective detector at a different predefined (e.g., orthogonal) linear polarization at a separate output…page 31].
As of claim 3, Franz discloses the detection apparatus wherein: the detector comprises a micro polarizer array having a micro polarizer per pixel of the detector [A micro-polarizer array may be provided over the detector array such that there is a 1:1 correspondence between linear polarizer 512n and the detectors of the array…page 27], each micro polarizer having one of two polarization directions arranged such that alternate pixels respectively detect the first linear polarization and the second linear polarization [As shown in fig. 5b, the plurality of detectors may comprise a plurality of groups 152, 153 of radiation detectors, and as shown in both fig. 5a and 5b, the plurality of micropolarizers may comprise a plurality of groups of linear polarizers. 502 and 504 show examples of groups of micro polarizers of the micro polarizer array in fig. 5a, but the micro polarizer array is not limited to two groups comprising only linear polarizers, and may alternatively comprise one group or more than two groups. Each of the plurality of groups may include a first linear polarizer 522, a second linear polarizer 52…page 27]
As of claim 4, Franz discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The detection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the geometric phase lens comprises a liquid crystal polymer film”.
However, ACHER from the same field of endeavor discloses a geometric phase lens comprises a liquid crystal polymer film [¶0035-0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Franz such that the geometric phase lens comprises the liquid crystal polymer film; as taught by ACHER, for the advantages such as: to allow adjusting the separation angle of the polarizations at the output of the device.
As of claim 5, Franz discloses the detection apparatus further comprising: an illumination beam configured to illuminate a target, wherein radiation from the illumination beam diffracts from the target to form the incoming beam of unpolarized radiation [fig. 1a, 1b and 2. Fig. 1a schematically shows an apparatus 100 for detecting the presence of a gas. The apparatus 100 may comprise a telecentric objective 102 for capturing and converging incident electromagnetic radiation 101 (which may be from a broadband radiation source) that has passed through a gas detection volume 103, which gas detection volume 103 may comprise a gas to be detected…page 18] [An apparatus and method for determining the presence of a gas is provided. The apparatus and method may be used to determine the presence of a target gas within a volume of unknown gas composition. The apparatus and method may further be used to determine the radiation absorption or emission intensity of the gas…page 18].
As of claim 7, Franz discloses the detection apparatus further comprising a processor [120] configured to determine a phase of the target from the pair of images [The apparatus (e.g., controller) may be configured to output the two-dimensional image to a user interface such as a display…page 16] [The controller 120 may include a data acquisition circuit for receiving radiation detection data and a processing circuit for processing the received radiation detection data…page 21].
As of claim 6, Franz discloses the detection apparatus further comprising an objective lens between the target and the lens [page 30].
Franz discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “geometric phase lens”.
However, ACHER from the same field of endeavor discloses a geometric phase lens comprising a first focal length for a first polarization [FIG. 8 represented another embodiment of the polarization separation device 1 in accordance with the invention. According to this other embodiment, the device 1 comprises two pairs of geometric-phase lenses: on the one hand, the first geometric-phase lens…¶0098].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Franz such that the geometric phase lens comprising the first focal length for the first polarization; as taught by ACHER, for the advantages such as: to allow adjusting the separation angle of the polarizations at the output of the device.
As of claim 8, Franz discloses detection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the lens is positioned out of focus, such that the first polarization component and the second polarization component are captured by the detector out of focus [page 20].
Franz discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “geometric phase lens”.
However, ACHER from the same field of endeavor discloses a geometric phase lens comprising a first focal length for a first polarization [FIG. 8 represented another embodiment of the polarization separation device 1 in accordance with the invention. According to this other embodiment, the device 1 comprises two pairs of geometric-phase lenses: on the one hand, the first geometric-phase lens…¶0098].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Franz such that the geometric phase lens comprising the first focal length for the first polarization; as taught by ACHER, for the advantages such as: to allow adjusting the separation angle of the polarizations at the output of the device.
As of claim 9, Franz discloses the detection apparatus [142/144] wherein the detector is configured to obtain the pair of images simultaneously [page 20].
As of claim 10, Franz discloses the detection apparatus wherein the detector is configured to capture the pair of images at first and second defocus levels [page 20].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franz et al. in view of ACHER et al. further in view of Werkman et al. (US 20070233305 A1) (herein after Werkman).
As of claim 11, Franz when modified by ACHER discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The detection apparatus of claim 1, wherein the target is an alignment feature on a substrate patterned using a lithographic apparatus”.
However, Werkman from the same field of endeavor discloses a target is an alignment feature on a substrate patterned using a lithographic apparatus [FIG. 2 @¶0040-0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of Franz when modified by ACHER such that the target is the alignment feature on the substrate patterned using the lithographic apparatus; as taught by Werkman, for the advantages such as: in order to improve the signal to noise ratio.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights