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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/18/26.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190304851 A1 (SMITH; Nigel P. et al.) in view of US 20090284835 A1 (Meshulach; Doron et al.)
PNG
media_image1.png
468
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
674
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
260
242
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
270
196
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Per claim 1, Smith teaches a polarized light microscope [100] comprising: a light source [110] configured to illuminate a specimen [140]; an imaging sensor configured to capture an image of the specimen [158]; a first circular polarizer positioned between the light source and the specimen [116, see paragraph 0029: “a polarizer 116, which may be, e.g., a linear polarizer, but in some embodiments may be a circular polarizer”]; a birefringent mosaic mask positioned between the specimen and the imaging sensor [156, see paragraph 0029: “The use of polarized light is required if the phase mask 156 relies on polarization to produce the phase shift, as is the case with a wire polarizer grid, but in other embodiments of the phase mask 156, e.g. where different materials or material thicknesses are used to introduce the phase shift in one of the signal or reference paths, unpolarized light may be used.”].
Smith lacks the second polarizer positioned between the mask and the imaging sensor. However, Meshulach, drawn to microscope, discloses, a polarizer [110] positioned between the mask [112] and the imaging sensor [104]. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a polarizer positioned between the mask and the imaging sensor of Meshulach with the second polarizer of Smith, to improve resolution [see Meshulach’s, paragraph 0012: “This causes the signal produced from the surface to be typically significantly different from that produced for homogeneously polarized beams, and the differences may be used to improve inspection of the surface”].
Per claim 2, Smith et al. teach the microscope of claim 1, but lack the birefringent mosaic mask (156) is attached to the imaging sensor. However, official notice is taken that it would have been a matter of common knowledge to attach the image sensor and birefringent to improve resolution. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 3, Smith et al. teach the microscope of claim 1, wherein the second polarizer and the birefringent mosaic mask are positioned in a plane that is conjugated with the image sensor [Smith teaches the second polarizer, 154, and the birefringent mosaic, 156, mask are positioned in a plane that is conjugated with the image sensor, 158; see figure 1 and paragraph 0039: “The camera 150 includes a phase mask 156 with an array of pixels that produce multiple phase shifts before a detector array 158, such as a CCD array that is aligned pixel-to-pixel with the array of pixels in the phase mask 156, and which are located in substantially the same image planes; para [0043]- The output polarizer 154, e.g., the quarter wave plate, converts the linearly polarized test beam 135 and reference beam 139 to left and right hand circular polarizations, which interfere after passing through the phase mask 156.”]
Per claim 4, Smith et al. teach the microscope of claim 1, further comprising an objective lens positioned between the specimen and the birefringent mosaic mask [134].
Per claim 5, Smith et al. teach the microscope of claim 1, wherein the second polarizer comprises a circular polarizer [154].
Per claim 6, Smith et al. teach the microscope of claim 1, wherein the second polarizer comprises a right circular polarizer, and the first polarizer comprises a left circular polarizer [154, see paragraph 0038: “A circular polarizer 154, for example, a quarter wave plate, converts the orthogonally polarized beams into opposite direction circularly polarized light, e.g., the p-polarized test beam from the sample 140 is converted into right-hand circular polarization and the s-polarized reference beam from the reference mirror 138 is converted into left hand circular polarization.”]
Per claim 7, Smith et al. teach the microscope of claim 1, wherein a superpixel of the birefringent mosaic mask includes a first square, a second square, a third square, and a fourth square [see figure 3C-3D] but lacks a retardation range from 0 to 0.25 lambda. However, official notice is taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to use a retardation range from 0-0.25 lambda in order to improve resolution. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 8, Smith et al. teach the microscope of claim 7, comprising the first square is not birefringent [see figure 3C and paragraph 0040: “polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 orientations at 0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and 135 degrees enable interference with phase shifts of 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, and 270 degrees, respectively”]. Smith lacks the second square, the third square, and the fourth square have the same retardation, which lies in a range from 0.01 lambda to 0.25 lambda, and wherein the second square has slow axis orientation of 0 degree, the third square has slow axis orientation of 60 degree, and the fourth square has slow axis orientation of 120 degree.
However, official notice is taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to provide the second square, the third square, and the fourth square have the same retardation, which lies in a range from 0.01 lambda to 0.25 lambda, and wherein the second square has slow axis orientation of 0 degree, the third square has slow axis orientation of 60 degree, and the fourth square has slow axis orientation of 120 degree, based on routine experimentation, since Smith discloses different depths and slow axes for pixels (note: the orientation of a pixel is slow axis orientation, since retardation is on that orientation. See paragraph 0040: “FIG. 3C illustrates a unit portion of the phase mask 156 that includes a 2x2 array of polarizer pixels, 202, 204, 206, and 208 with four discrete polarizer orientations (0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 135 degrees). The polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 orientations at 0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and 135 degrees enable interference with phase shifts of 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, and 270 degrees, respectively.” Improved resolution would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 9, Smith et al. teach the microscope of claim 7, comprising the first square [202] is not birefringent [see paragraph 0040: “a unit portion of the phase mask 156 that includes a 2x2 array of polarizer pixels, 202, 204, 206, and 208 with four discrete polarizer orientations (0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 135 degrees). The polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 orientations at 0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and 135 degrees enable interference with phase shifts of 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, and 270 degrees, respectively]. Smith lacks the second square, the third square, and the fourth square have the same retardation, which lies in a range from 0.01 lambda to 0.25 lambda, and wherein the second square has slow axis orientation of 0 degree, the third square has slow axis orientation of 45 degree, and the fourth square has slow axis orientation of 90 degree.
However, official notice is taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to provide the second square, the third square, and the fourth square have the same retardation, which lies in a range from 0.01 lambda to 0.25 lambda, and wherein the second square has slow axis orientation of 0 degree, the third square has slow axis orientation of 45 degree, and the fourth square has slow axis orientation of 90 degree. Smith discloses different depths and slow axes for pixels [see figure 3C]. The polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 orientations at 0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and 135 degrees enable interference with phase shifts of 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, and 270 degrees, respectively; para [0041]- a phase mask may use an array of phase delay pixels. FIG. 3D, for example, illustrates a side perspective view of a unit portion 157 of phase delay pixels that may be used in a phase mask and repeated over the entire phase mask. Improved resolution would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 10, Smith et al. teach the microscope of claim 7, wherein the first square [202] has slow axis orientation of 0 degree, the second square [204] has slow axis orientation of 45 degree, the third square [206] has slow axis orientation of 90 degree, and the fourth square [208] has slow axis orientation of 135 degree [see paragraph 0040: a unit portion of the phase mask 156 that includes a 2x2 array of polarizer pixels, 202, 204, 206, and 208 with four discrete polarizer orientations (0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 135 degrees). The polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 orientations at 0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and 135 degrees enable interference with phase shifts of 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, and 270 degrees, respectively.]
Smith lacks wherein the first square, the second square, the third square, and the fourth square have the same retardation, which lies in a range from 0.01 lambda to 0.25 lambda, However, official notice is taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to provide the second square, the third square, and the fourth square have the same retardation, which lies in a range from 0.01 lambda to 0.25 lambda, and wherein the second square has slow axis orientation of 0 degree, the third square has slow axis orientation of 60 degree, and the fourth square has slow axis orientation of 120 degree, based on routine experimentation, since Smith discloses different depths and slow axes for pixels (note: the orientation of a pixel is slow axis orientation, since retardation is on that orientation. See paragraph 0040: “FIG. 3C illustrates a unit portion of the phase mask 156 that includes a 2x2 array of polarizer pixels, 202, 204, 206, and 208 with four discrete polarizer orientations (0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 135 degrees). The polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 orientations at 0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, and 135 degrees enable interference with phase shifts of 0 degrees, 90 degrees, 180 degrees, and 270 degrees, respectively.” Improved resolution would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 11, Smith et al. teach the microscope of claim 1, wherein the birefringent mosaic mask includes two sets of superpixels [see paragraph 0040: a unit portion of the phase mask 156 that includes a 2x2 array of polarizer pixels, 202, 204, 206, and 208 with four discrete polarizer orientations (0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 135 degrees), with the unit portion repeated over the entire phase mask 156)].
Per claim 12, Smith et al. the microscope of claim 1. Smith lacks the birefringent mosaic mask is fabricated by way of laser pulses directed inside a quartz substrate. However, official notice is taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to provide the birefringent mosaic mask is fabricated by way of laser pulses directed inside a quartz substrate, based on routine experimentation, since Smith discloses different depth of pixels [see paragraph 0041: a side perspective view of a unit portion 157 of phase delay pixels that may be used in a phase mask and repeated over the entire phase mask. Such a phase mask, for example, may be a birefringent quartz mask etched to different depths in an array of pixels)]. Improved resolution would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 13, Smith et al. teach the microscope of claim 1, wherein the birefringent mosaic mask is formed by a nanostructured surface [see paragraph 0057: “Using a pixel size of 750 nm sets the effective tool resolution to 1.5 micro m (because measurement uses a 2x2 pixel kernel) while providing the largest possible acquisition area from each camera image, and hence the best sample acquisition rate)”].
Per claim 14, Smith et al. teach the microscope of claim 1, wherein the birefringent mosaic mask is constructed from micro tiles [see paragraph 0057: Using a pixel size of 750 nm sets the effective tool resolution to 1.5 micro m (because measurement uses a 2x2 pixel kernel); para [0041]- FIG. 3D, for example, illustrates a side perspective view of a unit portion 157 of phase delay pixels that may be used in a phase mask and repeated over the entire phase mask)]. Smith lacks a birefringent film. However, official notice is taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to incorporate a birefringent film in order to improve optical quality and reduce costs. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/JAMES A DUDEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights