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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 04/20/2026 is acknowledged and has been accepted by the examiner. Claims 2-18 and 20-21 are pending. Claims 1 and 19 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9 of Remarks, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of at least claim 21 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Deck (US20030043380A1).
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: tracking mechanism in claim 21.
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
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 21, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck (US20030043380A1) in view of Potsaid (US20140104618A1).
Regarding claim 1, Deck teaches an interferometric optical system (abstract) comprising an interferometer and an illumination optical system (paragraphs [0014]-[0016] discloses an illumination system being used as a source for an interferometer) wherein the illumination optical system comprises:
a source of system light (Fig. 7A depicts an embodiment with an incoming light beam 203. It is the position of the examiner this would come from some sort of source);
(d) a focus lens assembly (208, Fig. 7A) 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 (210, Fig. 7A; paragraph [0065]); and
(e) an electronic controller (216, Fig. 7A) operatively coupled to the steering-mirror assembly and configured to cause the focused spot on the source plane to follow a predetermined motion trajectory (paragraphs [0064], [0065]),
wherein the interferometer is configured to illuminate a sample over an interferometer aperture with a wave front having an illumination angle defined by the location of the focused spot in the source plane of the interferometer (paragraphs [0039]-[0048] describe how the illumination angle is defined by the focus spot on the source plane; paragraph [0065] discloses the focused spot is used to illuminate the interferometer focal plane).
Deck fails to teach:
(b) a steering-mirror assembly to receive and reflect the system-light in at least two orthogonal directions;
(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.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical scanning systems, Potsaid teaches a beam projecting module (paragraph [0103]) intended to steer an input beam through the use of a steering-mirror assembly which receives and reflects the system-light in at least two orthogonal directions (paragraph [0158] discloses beam steering elements that create at least four axes of motion that affect the angle/position of the light path propagation). Potsaid also teaches an associated angle tracking mechanism (paragraph [0104] discloses a feedback control system that measures and controls the angle of the steering mirrors).
Deck discloses steering mirrors may be used as needed in place of the wedges shown to manipulate and direct the light beam in Fig. 7A (204, 206; paragraph [0088]). Steering mirrors, such as the ones taught in Potsaid to direct light, are well-known and widely used in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably use the steering mirrors taught in Potsaid in place of the wedges taught in Deck depending on the needs, as suggested by Deck, and achieve the predictable result of directing the incoming light beam. Further, Potsaid discloses it is desirable to track and control the angle to generate the desired beam projection (paragraph [0104]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the optical system taught in Deck with the beam steering-mirror assembly and tracking mechanism taught in Potsaid as steering mirrors are well-known and widely used in the art to direct light beams and a tracking mechanism makes it possible to generate the desired beam projection.
Regarding claim 2, Deck as modified by Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches the steering-mirror assembly comprises at least one mirror and transducer elements (Potsaid: 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 (Potsaid: paragraph [0105]).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the optical system taught in Deck as modified by Potsaid with the beam steering-mirror assembly and tracking mechanism taught in Potsaid as steering mirrors are well-known and widely used in the art to direct light beams.
Regarding claim 4, Deck as modified by 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 (Potsaid: paragraph [0088] discloses the scanning elements may be two single axis mirrors that scan in the x and y directions; paragraph [0102] discloses two orthogonal scanning mirrors).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the optical system taught in Deck as modified by Potsaid with the beam steering-mirror assembly and tracking mechanism taught in Potsaid as steering mirrors are well-known and widely used in the art to direct light beams.
Regarding claim 6, Deck as modified by Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21 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 (Potsaid: paragraph [0148] discloses an embodiment which includes 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).
Potsaid discloses it is advantageous to use a sensor to track the beam in order to monitor the accuracy of the beam position and the quality of alignment (paragraph [0148]). 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 Deck as modified by Potsaid with the tracking mechanism embodiment comprising a sensor taught in Potsaid in order to monitor the accuracy of the beam position.
Regarding claim 7, Deck as modified by Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches the tracking mechanism comprises a position-sensitive detector to provide the electronic signals representative of the angular orientation (Potsaid: paragraph [0148] a sensor which determines the angular orientation of the beam projection module, and that this sensor may be a position-sensitive detector (PSD), as depicted in Fig. 35).
Potsaid discloses it is advantageous to use a sensor to track the beam in order to monitor the accuracy of the beam position and the quality of alignment (paragraph [0148]). 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 Deck as modified by Potsaid with the tracking mechanism embodiment comprising a sensor taught in Potsaid in order to monitor the accuracy of the beam position.
Regarding claim 9, Deck as modified by 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 (Potsaid: paragraph [0148] discloses an optic (mirror) which directs a portion of the light towards the alignment detector).
Potsaid discloses the mirror ensures the light is sent to the alignment detector (paragraph [0148]), therefore ensuring proper alignment. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Deck as modified by Potsaid with the mirror directing light to the sensor to ensure proper alignment.
Regarding claim 10, Deck as modified by Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches the electronic controller is further operatively coupled to the tracking mechanism (Potsaid: paragraph [0105] discloses an embodiment where a 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]).
Potsaid discloses using a controller with the tracking mechanisms allows a position error to be determine which allows a corrective action to be taken (paragraph [0104]), ensuring proper beam steering. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the controller taught in Deck as modified by Potsaid with the controller and tracking system taught in Potsaid in order to ensure proper beam steering.
Regarding claim 11, Deck as modified by Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, 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 (Potsaid: paragraph [0110] discloses the controller stores mirror angle trajectories; paragraph [0112] discloses some of the trajectories are used for calibration).
Calibration of systems is necessary to ensure the system is performing accurately. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably apply the calibration system taught in Potsaid to the optical system taught in Deck as modified by Potsaid and achieve the predictable outcome of ensuring precise measurements. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill to combine the calibration system taught in Potsaid with the device of Deck as modified by Potsaid in order to ensure precise measurements.
Regarding claim 12, Deck as modified by Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches the electronic controller comprises a user interface for receiving information defining the predetermined motion trajectory (Deck: paragraph [0064] discloses a computer, which inherently has a user interface, controls the wedges which control the trajectory ).
Regarding claim 13, Deck as modified by Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches the electronic controller comprises a memory for storing information defining the predetermined motion trajectory (Potsaid: paragraph [0010] discloses a PC computer, which has computer memory; paragraph [0110] disclose the computer stores trajectory paths).
Deck discloses a computer which controls the motion trajectory (paragraph [0064]). Storing predetermined motion trajectories saves time and computational power. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the computer taught in Deck as modified by Potsaid with the computer storing predetermined motion trajectories taught in Potsaid in order to save time and computational power.
Regarding claim 14, Deck as modified by Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches the predetermined motion trajectory comprises multiple arcs having different radii from an optical axis of the interferometer (Potsaid: Fig. 17F or 17D).
Potsaid discloses this pattern is optimal to the beam steering mechanism acceleration and velocity constraints (paragraph [0111]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Deck as modified by Potsaid with motion trajectory taught in Potsaid as it is optimal to the beam steering assembly constraints.
Regarding claim 15, Deck as modified by Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches the predetermined motion trajectory comprises multiple circles of different radii about an optical axis of the interferometer (Deck: paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 17, Deck as modified by Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the source of system light comprises a laser (Deck: paragraph [0050] discloses an embodiment where the light source may be a laser. Lasers are very common light sources used with interferometers, as discussed in paragraph [0003]. Thus, it would be obvious for a person or ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Deck as modified by Potsaid with the embodiment of Deck which uses a laser as a light source as lasers are commonly used in interferometric systems).
Regarding claim 18, Deck as modified by Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, and further teaches the interferometer is a Michelson interferometer, a Twyman-Green interferometer or a Fizeau interferometer (Deck: paragraph [0011] discloses the system is to be used with Twyman-Green or Fizeau interferometers).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Deck (US20030043380A1) in view of Potsaid (US20140104618A1) as applied to claims 21 and 2 above, and further in view of Trenholm (US20180017501A1).
Regarding claim 3, Deck as modified by 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.
Deck as modified by Potsaid instead discloses the use of two 2D steering mirrors (Potsaid: paragraph [0103] discloses two fast steering mirrors; paragraph [0088] discloses fast steering mirrors have two degrees of freedom; paragraph [0164] discloses “at least one”, but not only one, fast steering mirror with two axis of rotation), 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 Deck as modified by 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, Deck as modified by Potsaid teaches the invention as explained above in claim 21, 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 Deck as modified by 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 Deck (US20030043380A1) in view of Potsaid (US20140104618A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hill (US6313918B1).
Regarding claim 8, Deck as modified by 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.
Deck as modified by Potsaid does discloses detecting the angle of the steering mirror with a position sensitive detector (Potsaid: 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 Deck as modified by 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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Deck (US20030043380A1) in view of Potsaid (US20140104618A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Schmoll (US20210007601).
Regarding claim 16, Deck as modified by Potsaid teaches the invention as disclosed above in claim 21, 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 optimal 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 Deck as modified by Potsaid with the spiral scanning pattern taught in Schmoll as a way to optimize scan speed for wide field scans.
Regarding claim 20, Deck as modified by Potsaid and 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 an embodiment where a numerical aperture is manipulated with sample delivery optics. Optics with an adjustable aperture would be capable of matching the aperture of the interferometer taught by Deck).
Potsaid discloses that adjusting the numerical aperture allows the beam to be delivered and conditioned properly (paragraph [0106]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the optics with adjustable aperture taught in Potsaid with the system of Deck as modified by Potsaid to ensure the light beam is delivered properly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 11:00-8:00 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, 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
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights