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: a tracking mechanism 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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-15, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Potsaid (US20140104618A1).
Regarding claim 1, Potsaid teaches an illumination system for an interferometer (Fig. 1A depicts the optical system being used with an interferometer, 110) comprising:
(a) a source of system light ('emission source' - 705, Fig. 7);
(b) a steering-mirror assembly ('beam projection module' - 720, Fig. 7) to receive and reflect the system-light in at least two orthogonal directions (paragraph [0097] discloses the beam projection module operates with four or more axes of motion. It is the position of the examiner that at least two of these would be orthogonal. For example, paragraph [0103] discloses the assembly may move rotationally and translationally);
(c) a tracking mechanism to track an angular orientation of the steering-mirror assembly in the two orthogonal directions and provide electronic signals representative of the angular orientation (paragraph [0104] discloses a feedback control system which tracks and measured the position of the angle of the mirror);
(d) a focus lens assembly ('sample delivery optics' - 730, Fig. 7) to focus the system light reflected off the steering mirror assembly onto a focused spot on a 2-dimensional plane corresponding to a source plane of the interferometer (paragraph [0106] disclose the sample delivery optics focus the reflected light on the desired position, where this position can change based on the desired convergence or divergence of the beam, or the desired numerical aperture, or other desired parameters. For example, Fig. 33 depicts the light reflecting from a mirror, to a lens which focuses the light. The examiner is interpreting this to be the source plane, as the light diverges after this point); and
(e) an electronic controller (725, Fig. 7) operatively coupled to the steering-mirror assembly and configured to cause the focused spot on the source plane to follow a predetermined motion trajectory (paragraph [0105] discloses the controller controls the trajectory of the beam to scan a surface in various trajectories).
Regarding claim 2, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the steering-mirror assembly comprises at least one mirror and transducer elements (paragraph [0102] discloses the beam projection module is made up of mirrors and actuators. An actuator is a transducer), and wherein the electronic controller is configured to operatively control the orientation of the at least one mirror with the transducer elements (paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claim 4, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 2, and further teaches the at least one mirror comprises two one-dimensional mirrors configured to steer the beam in two orthogonal directions (paragraph [0088] discloses the scanning elements may be two single axis mirrors that scan in the x and y directions; paragraph [0102] also discloses two orthogonal scanning mirrors).
Regarding claim 6, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1 and further teaches the tracking mechanism comprises electromechanical sensors or photoelectric sensors directly coupled with the steering-mirror assembly to provide the electronic signals representative of the angular orientation (paragraph [0148] discloses it would be advantageous to include a sensor which determines the angular orientation of the beam projection module. It is also disclosed this sensor may be a CCD array, which is a photoelectric sensor).
Regarding claim 7, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the tracking mechanism comprises a position-sensitive detector to provide the electronic signals representative of the angular orientation (paragraph [0148] discloses it would be advantageous to include a sensor which determines the angular orientation of the beam projection module. It is also disclosed this sensor may be a position-sensitive detector (PSD), as depicted in Fig. 35).
Regarding claim 9, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 7, and further teaches the tracking mechanism comprises an optic to pick-off a portion of the system-light reflected by the steering-mirror assembly and direct it to the position-sensitive detector to provide the electronic signals representative of the angular orientation (paragraph [0148] discloses an optic (mirror) which directs a portion of the light towards the alignment detector).
Regarding claim 10, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the electronic controller is further operatively coupled to the tracking mechanism (paragraph [0105] discloses the controller may comprise the feedback control system as well), and wherein during operation the electronic controller corrects the angular orientation of the steering-mirror assembly based on a difference between a desired mirror orientation and the measured electronic signals of the mirror orientation provided by the tracking mechanism (paragraph [0104]).
Regarding claim 11, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the electronic controller stores calibration information for mapping the angular orientation of the steering-mirror assembly to the location of the focus spot in the source plane of the interferometer (paragraph [0110] discloses the controller stores mirror angle trajectories).
Regarding claim 12, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the electronic controller comprises a user interface for receiving information defining the predetermined motion trajectory (paragraph [0110] discloses the controller runs on a PC computer, which inherently has a user interface).
Regarding claim 13, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the electronic controller comprises a memory for storing information defining the redetermined motion trajectory (paragraph [0010] discloses a PC computer, which has computer memory).
Regarding claim 14, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the predetermined motion trajectory comprises multiple arcs having different radii from an optical axis of the interferometer (Fig. 17F or 17D).
Regarding claim 15, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the predetermined motion trajectory comprises multiple circles of different radii about an optical axis of the interferometer (Fig. 17D).
Regarding claim 17, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the source of system light comprises a laser (paragraph [0099] discloses the emission source, 705 - Fig. 7, may be a laser).
Regarding claim 21, Potsaid teaches an interferometric optical system comprising an interferometer (110, Fig. 1A) and an illumination optical system (115, 135, 140, Fig. 1A), wherein the illumination optical system comprises:
(a) a source of system light (705, Fig. 7);
(b) a steering-mirror assembly (720, Fig. 7) to receive and reflect the system-light in at least two orthogonal directions (paragraph [0097] discloses the beam projection module operates with four or more axes of motion. It is the position of the examiner that at least two of these would be orthogonal. For example, paragraph [0103] discloses the assembly may move rotationally and translationally. Further, paragraph [0125] discloses the beam projection module may replace the steering mirror, 135 - Fig. 1A);
(c) a tracking mechanism to track an angular orientation of the steering-mirror assembly in the two orthogonal directions and provide electronic signals representative of the angular orientation (paragraph [0104] discloses a feedback control system which tracks and measured the position of the angle of the mirror);
(d) a focus lens assembly ( 730, Fig. 7) to focus the system light reflected off the steering mirror assembly onto a focused spot on a 2-dimensional plane corresponding to a source plane of the interferometer (paragraph [0106] disclose the sample delivery optics focus the reflected light on the desired position, where this position can change based on the desired convergence or divergence of the beam, or the desired numerical aperture, or other desired parameters. For example, Fig. 33 depicts the light reflecting from a mirror, to a lens which focuses the light. The examiner is interpreting this to be the source plane, as the light diverges after this point); and
(e) an electronic controller (725, Fig. 7) operatively coupled to the steering-mirror assembly and configured to cause the focused spot on the source plane to follow a predetermined motion trajectory (paragraph [0105] discloses the controller controls the trajectory of the beam to scan a surface in various trajectories).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potsaid (US20140104618A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Trenholm (US20180017501A1).
Regarding claim 3, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 2, but fails to teach the at least one mirror comprises a single two-dimensional steering mirror.
Potsaid instead discloses the use of two 2D steering mirrors (paragraph [0103 discloses two fast steering mirrors; paragraph [0088] discloses fast steering mirrors have two degrees of freedom), not a single 2D steering mirror.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical systems intended for use with interferometers Trenholm teaches the use of a single 2D steering mirror (paragraph [0060]).
The use of a single 2D scanning mirror rather than two 2D scanning mirrors would allow a device to be more compact, while keeping the advantages of a 2D mirror, such as the simplification of other optical setups in the system (Potsaid: paragraph [0088] discloses the use of fast steering mirrors enables only one additional 4f relay to be used). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the steering optical system of Potsaid with the single 2D mirror taught in Trenholm as a way to keep the system compact while also keeping the advantages of a 2D mirror.
Regarding claim 5, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the focus lens assembly is telecentric.
However, Trenholm teaches the use of a telecentric lens (paragraph [0058]).
Trenholm discloses the use of a telecentric lens reduce the need for corrective software (paragraph [0058]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the focus lens assembly of Potsaid with the telecentric lens of Trenholm in order to reduce the need for corrective software.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potsaid (US20140104618A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hill (US6313918B1).
Regarding claim 8, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 7, but fails to teach the tracking mechanism further comprises a control beam source to illuminate at least one mirror in the steering-mirror assembly with a control beam and subsequently detect the control beam with the position-sensitive detector to provide the electronic signals representative of the angular orientation.
Potsaid does discloses detecting the angle of the steering mirror with a position sensitive detector (paragraph [0148]), but fails to disclose this is done by a control beam (the examiner is interpreting this to be a second light beam separate and independent of the system light beam).
However, in the same field of endeavor of tracking a steering assembly, Hill discloses a tracking mechanism with an additional light beam directed towards the steering mirror to measure the angular orientation (column 16, lines 19-24).
Hill discloses that the use of a second, separate light source enables the absolute or relative angle to be measured (column 16, lines (23-24). Using a second beam to measure the angle would prevent interference with the measurement taken. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Potsaid with the second beam to measure the steering mirror angle taught in Hill as it enables the absolute or relative angle to be measured without interfering with the actual measurement.
Claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potsaid (US20140104618A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmoll (US20210007601).
Regarding claim 16, Potsaid teaches the invention as disclosed above in claim 1, but fails to teach the predetermined motion trajectory comprises at least one spiral about an optical axis of the interferometer.
However, in the same field of endeavor of interferometers, Schmoll teaches a spiral scanning pattern (Fig. 8A).
Schmoll discloses that a spiral scan pattern slows the scan down, which is optical in wide field scans (paragraph [0178]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Potsaid with the spiral scanning pattern taught in Schmoll as a way to optimize scan speed for wide field scans.
Regarding claim 18, Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the interferometer is a Michelson interferometer, a Twyman-Green interferometer or a Fizeau interferometer.
However, Schmoll teaches the interferometer may be a Michelson interferometer (paragraph [0103]).
A Michelson interferometer is a well-known and widely used type of interferometer (Schmoll: paragraph [0103]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonable substitute the interferometer taught in Potsaid with the Michelson interferometer taught in Schmoll and still have a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Potsaid with the Michelson interferometer of Schmoll as Michelson interferometers are well-known and widely used in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Potsaid as modified by Schmoll teach the invention as explained above in claim 18, and further teaches the interferometer is configured to illuminate a sample over an interferometer aperture (Potsaid: paragraph [0106] discloses sample delivery optics, 730 - Fig. 7, generate appropriate aperture) with a wave front defined by the location of the focused spot in the source plane of the interferometer (Potsaid: paragraph [0043] discloses adaptive optics, 715 - Fig. 7) which control the wavefront location).
Regarding claim 20, Potsaid as modified by Schmoll teach the invention as explained above in claim 19, and further teaches the focus lens assembly defines a numerical aperture (NA) providing a divergence of the focused spot sufficient to cover the aperture of the interferometer (Potsaid: paragraph [0106] discloses adjusting the numerical aperture to achieve a desired resolution).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877