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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 10 April 2026, with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 10 April 2026, with respect to claims 11 and 20 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Therefore, the objection to claim 11 has been withdrawn. However, the objection to claim 20 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 10 April 2026, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections to the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 10 April 2026, with respect to claims 2, 9-11, and 16-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the §112 rejections of claims 2, 9-11, and 16-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 713, filed 10 April 2026, with respect to claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-17, and 20 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections of claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-17, and 20 have been maintained, but have been changed from §102 to §103 rejections in light of the amendments.
On Page 9, Applicant argues that Wang does teach a Dyson spectrometer. However, the Examiner had referred to the secondary reference of Desserouer (for original claim 15) to teach a system (Fig. 1) comprising a Dyson spectrometer [0037]. Although Applicant has detailed the technical advantages of using a Dyson spectrometer in the claimed system, Applicant has not addressed any deficiency of Desserouer or of the modification of Wang with Desserouer. Therefore, the substance of the rejection is maintained, with the §102 rejection of original claim 1 now as a §103 rejection to incorporate the rejection of original claim 15.
Also on Page 9, Applicant argues that Wang does not teach a deflection element in the illumination beam path and/or the imaging beam path. However, the Examiner had referred to element 224 in Fig. 2 of Wang (for original claims 9 and 11) as the deflecting element in the imaging beam path. Although Applicant has stated that the claimed feature of this deflection element results in a particularly compact spectrometer, Applicant has not addressed any deficiency of Wang’s deflection element 224. Therefore, the substance of the rejection is maintained, with the rejections of original claim 9 and 11 now incorporated into the rejection of amended claim 1. The Examiner further notes that, given the construction of claim 1 with the second and third limitations optionally as alternatives (due to the presence of “and/or”), any arguments in regards to the second limitation are moot since Wang’s deflection element 224 clearly reads on the third limitation of amended claim 1.
The responses to the arguments again claim 1 also apply to amended claim 20 since the claims contain similar limitations. Additionally, beginning on Page 10, Applicant makes many arguments in regards to claim 20, but fails to specifically point out the limitations that are not met by Wang. The Examiner has made a best-faith effort to clarify how Wang, in a single embodiment (that shown in Fig. 2) reads on the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: In Line 12, the Examiner assumes that “the first area” should actually be --the first region--.
Claim 20: In Line 6, the Examiner assumes that “the measurement object” should actually be --a measurement object--.
Claim 20: In Lines 8-11, the Examiner assumes that “that a deflection element is arranged in the illumination beam path between the slit aperture and the measurement, that a deflection element is arranged in the illumination beam path between the slit aperture and the measurement lens and” should actually be --that a deflection element is arranged in the illumination beam path between the slit aperture and the measurement lens, and--.
Claim 20: In Line 13, the Examiner assumes that “the first area” should actually be --the first region--.
Claim 20: In Line 18, the Examiner assumes that “directing wherein illumination light” should actually be --directing illumination light--.
Claim 20: In Lines 19-22, the Examiner assumes that "a first region", "a confocal-chromatic measurement lens", "a measurement object", and "a second region" should instead be, respectively, --the first region--, --the confocal-chromatic measurement lens--, --the measurement object--, and --the second region--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the Applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 has been amended to put the claim in independent form, with the large portion of added text before the method steps assumed to be equivalent to the limitations of claim 1. However, the lack of indentation creates difficulty in parsing the text and it is unclear if this added text is indeed mimicking claim 1. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner has made a best-faith effort to indent the limitations of this added text and make a correspondence to the limitations of claim 1.
In Lines 9-12, it is unclear if the deflection element is intended to be in both the illumination beam path and the imaging beam path. The limitation reads as if the deflection element is in both paths simultaneously, but the disclosure fails to provide any support for such a configuration. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that the deflection element should be in one of the illumination and imaging beam paths.
In Lines 16-17, it is unclear if the “further deflection element” in the imaging beam path is distinct from the earlier deflection element (of Lines 9-12). The limitation reads as if the imaging beam path may contain both the deflection element and the further deflection element, but the disclosure fails to provide any support for such a configuration. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that there is one total deflection element in the system, located either in the illumination beam path or in the imaging beam path.
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 1-6, 8, 10, 12, and 16- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0087237), hereinafter Wang, in view of Desserouer (US 2011/0222061, disclosed in IDS 28 August 2024), hereinafter Desserouer.
Claim 1: Wang discloses a system (200, Fig. 2) for confocal chromatic line distance measurement [0003], having:
a line light source (211) (“The light source 211 may be… a line light source” [0048]),
a slit aperture (“light-incident hole 221” [0049]),
a confocal-chromatic measurement lens (“dispersive objective lens group 222” [0049]), and
a 2D spectrometer (240) [0052],
wherein an illumination beam path extends from the light source (211) via the slit aperture (221) and a first region (annular light beam A1) of the measurement lens (222) to the measurement object (S) (“the light beam from the light source enters the dispersive objective lens group 222 through the light-incident hole 221, and then reaches the measurement surface S” [0057]), and
wherein an imaging beam path extends from the measurement object (S) via a second region (C1) of the measurement lens (222) to the spectrometer (230) (“the reflected light from the measurement surface S passes through the central part of the dispersive objective lens group 222 along the path of C1, finally, the beam is reflected from the reflecting mirror 224 to the light-outgoing hole 223” [0057]),
characterized in
that a deflection element is arranged in the illumination beam path between the slit aperture and the measurement lens, that a directional aperture ensures that the illumination light only strikes the measurement lens in the first area, wherein one of (1) the deflection element serves as the directional aperture and (2) the directional aperture is realized as a component separate from the deflection element, whereby the solid angle ranges into which the light is emitted are defined by the directional aperture (alternative limitation is met), and/or
that a further deflection element (224) is arranged in the imaging beam path between the measurement lens (222) and the 2D spectrometer (230) (evident from Fig. 2) [0051].
Wang is silent with respect to a Dyson spectrometer.
Desserouer, however, in the same field of endeavor of imaging spectrometry, discloses a system (Fig. 1) comprising a spectrometer,
characterized in that the spectrometer is a Dyson spectrometer [0037] having a slit-shaped entrance aperture (inherent to Dyson spectrometer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang’s spectrometer to be a Dyson spectrometer for the purpose of creating an imaging system comprising a compact spectrometer with a high numerical aperture (Desserouer [0014]).
Claim 2: Wang further discloses wherein the slit aperture (221), the measurement lens (222), and the entrance aperture (223) of the spectrometer (230) lie on a common virtual optical axis (according to BRI, the common virtual optical axis is taken to be a common light path, which is evident from Fig. 2) [0051].
Claim 3: Wang further discloses wherein the measurement lens (222) has exactly one optical lens (evident from Fig. 2: “The dispersive objective lens group 222 is at least one lens involved in the spectral confocal sensor and configured to generate axial chromatic aberration” [0050]).
Claim 4: Wang further discloses wherein a single confocal-chromatic measurement lens (222) is arranged (evident from Fig. 2: “The dispersive objective lens group 222 is at least one lens involved in the spectral confocal sensor and configured to generate axial chromatic aberration” [0050]).
Claim 5: Wang further discloses wherein the optical axis (vertical in the plane of the page) of the measurement lens (222) coincides with the distance axis of the system (evident from Fig. 2) [0049].
Claim 6: Wang further discloses wherein the line light source (211) emits a continuous white light line (“the light source portion 210 is configured to emit a broad-spectrum light beam” [0047]; “the light source 211 is configured to emit continuous visible light beams” [0048]).
Claim 8: Wang further discloses wherein the line light source (211) is arranged on the entrance side in the focal point of the measurement lens (222) (evident from Fig. 6, which is an alternate embodiment of the system of Fig. 2).
Claim 10: Wang further discloses wherein the deflection element (224) is designed as a mirror or as a beam splitter (“a reflecting mirror 224” [0049]).
Claim 12: Wang further discloses wherein a converter optic (241) is arranged [0053], wherein
the converter optic (241) is arranged in the imaging beam path between the measurement lens (222) and the spectrometer (230) (evident from Fig. 2) or in the illumination beam path between the light source and the measurement lens, and wherein
the converter optic (241) has at least one optical lens, the at least one optical lens being arranged concentrically to the measurement lens in a basic optical model and/or lying with the measurement lens (222) on the common virtual optical axis (evident from Fig. 6, which is an alternate embodiment of the system of Fig. 2).
Claim 16: wherein the spectrometer (230) has an optical lens (241), in particular a Dyson lens (evident from modification of claim 1 above), a, in particular concave, line grid (inherent: “a CMOS line sensor or a CCD line sensor can be used” [0055]), and an area detector (250) [0053].
Claim 17: Wang further discloses wherein the line grid is provided with a blaze structure and/or has equidistant, parallel structures (inherent to a CMOS/CCD line sensor for spectral decomposition of the received signal).
Claim 18: Wang is silent with respect to the width of the entrance aperture.
However, Applicant has provided no criticality for the recited width, aside from disclosing that “an ideal spectral resolution is achieved in relation to the pixel resolution of the area detector” (Spec. [0032]); in another words, the system is optimized. “Determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang’s entrance aperture to have a desired width, such as no greater than 20 μm, for the purpose of allowing light to have the desired resolution for accurate analysis of the measurement light without creating artefacts.
Claim 19: Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the illumination beam path and the imaging beam path between the measurement lens and the measurement object each extend at an angle in the range from 45[Symbol font/0xB0] to 90° relative to one another.
However, from the annotated figure below, it is evident that this angle is in the range from 0 to 90[Symbol font/0xB0]. Furthermore, Applicant has provided no criticality for this angle range, aside from disclosing that “This has the advantage that the greatest possible spatial resolution is achieved” (Spec. [0033]); in another words, the system is optimized. “Determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the size and/or placement of Wang’s system components so that the illumination beam path and the imaging beam path extend in the desired angle range, such as from 45[Symbol font/0xB0] to 90[Symbol font/0xB0], for the purpose of allowing light to have the desired resolution for accurate analysis of the measurement light without creating artefacts.
PNG
media_image1.png
1037
963
media_image1.png
Greyscale
annotated Fig. 2 of Wang
Claim 20: Wang discloses a method for confocal-chromatic line distance measurement [0003], using a system (200, Fig. 2) having:
a line light source (211) (“The light source 211 may be… a line light source” [0048]),
a slit aperture (“light-incident hole 221” [0049]),
a confocal-chromatic measurement lens (“dispersive objective lens group 222” [0049]), and
a 2D spectrometer (240) [0052],
wherein an illumination beam path extends from the light source (211) via the slit aperture (221) and a first region (annular light beam A1) of the measurement lens (222) to the measurement object (S) (“the light beam from the light source enters the dispersive objective lens group 222 through the light-incident hole 221, and then reaches the measurement surface S” [0057]), and
wherein an imaging beam path extends from the measurement object (S) via a second region (C1) of the measurement lens (222) to the spectrometer (230) (“the reflected light from the measurement surface S passes through the central part of the dispersive objective lens group 222 along the path of C1, finally, the beam is reflected from the reflecting mirror 224 to the light-outgoing hole 223” [0057]),
characterized in
that a deflection element is arranged in the illumination beam path between the slit aperture and the measurement lens, and in the imaging beam path between the measurement lens and the 2D spectrometer (alternative limitation is met),
that a directional aperture ensures that the illumination light only strikes the measurement lens in the first area, wherein one of (1) the deflection element serves as the directional aperture and (2) the directional aperture is realized as a component separate from the deflection element, whereby the solid angle ranges into which the light is emitted are defined by the directional aperture (alternative limitation is met), and
that a further deflection element is arranged in the imaging beam path between the measurement lens and the 2D spectrometer (alternative limitation is met),
Wang is silent with respect to a Dyson spectrometer.
Desserouer, however, in the same field of endeavor of imaging spectrometry, discloses a system (Fig. 1) comprising a spectrometer,
characterized in that the spectrometer is a Dyson spectrometer [0037] having a slit-shaped entrance aperture (inherent to Dyson spectrometer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang’s spectrometer to be a Dyson spectrometer for the purpose of creating an imaging system comprising a compact spectrometer with a high numerical aperture (Desserouer [0014]).
Wang further discloses wherein the method including the steps of:
directing illumination light from the line light source (211) (“The light source 211 may be… a line light source” [0048]) via the slit aperture (“light-incident hole 221” [0049]) and the first region (annular light beam A1) of the confocal-chromatic measurement lens (“dispersive objective lens group 222” [0049]) as a color-coded illumination plane (evident since 222 is “configured to generate axial chromatic aberration” [0050]) onto the measurement object (S) (“the light beam from the light source enters the dispersive objective lens group 222 through the light-incident hole 221, and then reaches the measurement surface S” [0057]),
guiding spectrally coded measuring light from the measurement object (S) via the second region (C1) of the measurement lens (222) to the 2D spectrometer (230) (“the reflected light from the measurement surface S passes through the central part of the dispersive objective lens group 222 along the path of C1, finally, the beam is reflected from the reflecting mirror 224 to the light-outgoing hole 223” [0057]), and
performing a spectrometric analysis of the measuring light to determine a distance (“The spectral confocal measurement system… obtain[s] axial distance information of the surface of the object to be measured” [0003]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Desserouer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2016/0377412), hereinafter Li.
Claim 7: Wang is silent with respect to the line light source emitting two or more illumination lines, or two or more line light sources each emitting at least one illumination line.
Li, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical dimensional measurement, discloses a system comprising a line light source emitting two or more illumination lines (“a plurality of source lines… of the illumination light” [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang’s line light source to emit a plurality of illumination lines for the purpose of more accurately determining the distance by increasing the signal-to-noise ratio.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights