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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the alignment of the aperture, the measurement lens, and the entrance aperture of the spectrometer along a common virtual optical axis, as recited in claim 2, must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: In Lines 2-3, the Examiner assumes that “a deflection element” should instead be --the deflection element--.
Claim 20: In Lines 3-6, the Examiner assumes that “a line light source”, “an aperture”, “a first region”, “a confocal-chromatic measurement lens”, “a measurement object”, and “a second region” should instead be, respectively, --the line light source--, --the aperture--, --the first region--, --the confocal-chromatic measurement lens--, --the measurement object--, and --the second region--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification discloses that “Figures 1 to 3 clearly show that the aperture 3, the measurement lens 6, the converter optics 12, and the entrance aperture 13 are located on a common virtual (imaginary) optical axis 26a” [0048]. However, none of these figures show a configuration with all four of the dislcosed elements in alignment. Fig. 1 shows elements 6, 12, and 13 aligned along virtual axis 27, with element 3 located off of axis 27. Fig. 2 also shows elements 6, 12, and 13 to be aligned along the Z-axis, with element 3 located off of the Z-axis in the Y-direction. Fig. 3, while showing elements 12 and 13 to be aligned with each other along an optical axis, does not show elements 3 or 6 to also be in this alignment.
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.
Claims 2, 9-11, and 16-20 are 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 2 recites wherein “the aperture, the measurement lens, and an entrance aperture of the spectrometer lie on a common virtual optical axis”. The specification discloses that “Figures 1 to 3 clearly show that the aperture 3, the measurement lens 6, the converter optics 12, and the entrance aperture 13 are located on a common virtual (imaginary) optical axis 26a” [0048]. However, none of these figures show a configuration with all three of the claimed elements in alignment. Fig. 1 shows elements 6 and 13 aligned along virtual axis 27, with element 3 located off of axis 27. Fig. 2 also shows elements 6 and 13 to be aligned along the Z-axis, with element 3 located off of the Z-axis in the Y-direction. Fig. 3 shows none of elements 3, 6, or 13 to be aligned with one another.
Therefore, the Examiner does not understand the configuration used to create the alignment of the aperture with the measurement lens and the entrance aperture of the spectrometer. The Examiner is thus taking the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “the aperture, the measurement lens, and an entrance aperture of the spectrometer lie on a common virtual optical axis” to mean that all three elements are on a common light path.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are a necessary part of the claimed invention. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that claim 9 requires only that “a deflection element is arranged in the illumination beam path and/or in the imaging beam path”.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are a necessary part of the claimed invention. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that claim 16 does not require the entrance aperture to have a certain shape, does not require the optical lens to be of a certain type, and places no requirements on the line grid.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are a necessary part of the claimed invention. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that claim 18 requires only that the width of the entrance aperture is less than or equal to 20 μm.
Regarding claim 19, the phrases “in particular” and "preferably" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are a necessary part of the claimed invention. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that claim 19 requires only that the angle be in the range from 45[Symbol font/0xB0] to 90[Symbol font/0xB0].
Regarding claim 20, “Method for confocal-chromatic line distance measurement, preferably using a system according to claim 1” renders the claim indefinite because it merely recites a use (confocal-chromatic line distance measurement) without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. The “wherein” clauses are all passively-recited steps, which make it unclear what active method steps are allowing for the “wherein” clauses to be carried out. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting claim 20 as inherently performing the method if the recited configuration of claim 1 is present.
Also regarding claim 20, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are a necessary part of the claimed invention. It is unclear if the method of claim 20 requires the system of claim 1 or if claim 20 should be treated as an independent claim. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that claim 20 requires the system of claim 1.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2023/0087237), hereinafter Wang.
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]),
an aperture (“light-incident hole 221” [0049]),
a confocal-chromatic measurement lens (“dispersive objective lens group 222” [0049]), and
a spectrometer (240) [0052],
wherein the illumination beam path extends from the light source (211) via the 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 the 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]).
Claim 2: Wang further discloses wherein the aperture (221), the measurement lens (222), and an 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 9: Wang further discloses wherein a deflection element (224) is arranged in the illumination beam path and/or in the imaging beam path (evident from Fig. 2) [0051].
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 11: Wang further discloses wherein the deflection element (224) is arranged in the illumination beam path between the aperture (221) and the measurement lens (222) and/or wherein the deflection element (224) is arranged in the imaging beam path between the measurement lens (222) and the spectrometer (230) (evident from Fig. 2) [0051].
Claim 12: Wang further discloses wherein a converter optic (241) is arranged [0053].
Claim 13: Wang further discloses 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.
Claim 14: Wang further discloses 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 entrance aperture (223) [0051], an optical lens (241), a 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 20: Wang discloses a method for confocal-chromatic line distance measurement, using a system according to claim 1,
wherein illumination light is directed from the line light source (211) (“The light source 211 may be… a line light source” [0048]) via the 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]),
wherein spectrally coded measuring light is guided from the measurement object (S) via the second region (C1) of the measurement lens (222) to a 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
wherein a spectrometric analysis of the measuring light is performed to determine the distance (“The spectral confocal measurement system… obtain[s] axial distance information of the surface of the object to be measured” [0003]).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Desserouer (US 2011/0222061, disclosed in IDS 28 August 2024), hereinafter Desserouer.
Claim 15: 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,
wherein the spectrometer is a Dyson spectrometer [0037].
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]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
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
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Xie (US 9,829,312) discloses a system (100, Fig. 1) for confocal chromatic line distance measurement, having:
a line light source (164) (Col. 9, Lines 29-32),
an aperture (195) (Col. 3, Lines 46-49),
a confocal-chromatic measurement lens (106) (Col. 3, Lines 50-52), and
a spectrometer (162) (“the wavelength detector 162 includes a spectrometer or spectrograph arrangement”, Col. 4, Lines 59-64),
wherein the illumination beam path extends from the light source (164) via the aperture (165) and a first region (108A) of the measurement lens (106) to a measurement object (190) (Col. 4, Lines 47-51), and
wherein the imaging beam path extends from the measurement object (190) via a second region (108B) of the measurement lens (106) to the spectrometer (162) (Col. 4, Lines 51-55).
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