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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, last line recites “said wavefront analyzer of the measurement analysis means” which lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “said wavefront analyzer of the wavefront analysis means”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ignatovich et al. (US 20150204756 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ignatovich discloses a method for analyzing the surface quality of a substrate with parallel faces, comprising:
emitting, by at least one first light source of emission means (103, 108 – low-coherence interferometer/LCI includes a low-coherence light source), at least one first light beam (107) with low temporal coherence, said at least one first light beam being incident on a first face (116, 118) of said substrate (101), said substrate being at least partially transparent to at least one wavelength of said first light beam (Fig. 1; [0036]-[0039]);
receiving, by at least one first wavefront analyzer of wavefront analysis means (108 – low-coherence interferometer/LCI, 120 – Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor/SHWFS), at least one first reflected beam and a second reflected beam, said first reflected beam resulting from reflection of said at least one first light beam by said first face (118) of the substrate and said second reflected beam resulting from a first transmission through the substrate of said first light beam and then a reflection by a second face (116) of the substrate, followed by a second transmission through the substrate, in order to generate at least one first measurement signal characteristic of a combination of the wavefronts of said first and second reflected beams (Fig. 1; [0038]-[0039]; [0046]);
receiving, by said wavefront analysis means, at least one first transmitted beam resulting from at least one first transmission through the substrate of a second light beam (104) emitted by said emission means, in order to generate a second measurement signal characteristic of the wavefront of said transmitted beam (Fig. 1; [0040]; [0041], lines 1-5);
calculating, from said at least one first measurement signal and said second measurement signal, at least one first signal representative of a deformation of said first face of the substrate relative to a first reference surface and at least one second signal representative of a deformation of the second face of the substrate relative to a second reference surface ([0036]; [0041]; [0060]).
Regarding Claim 6, Ignatovich discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein:
said second light beam is emitted by a second light source of the emission means (103), separate from the first light source (108 – low-coherence interferometer/LCI includes a low-coherence light source), and is incident on said second face of the substrate (Fig. 1; [0040] – incidence onto the second face of the substrate is implied in the transmission of light through the substrate) (Fig. 1; [0040]);
said first transmitted beam results from a first transmission through the substrate of said second light beam (Fig. 1; [0041]; [0059], lines 8-16); and
said first transmitted beam is received by said first wavefront analyzer of the wavefront analysis means (108 – low-coherence interferometer/LCI, 120 – Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor/SHWFS) (Fig. 1; [0041]; [0059], lines 8-16).
Regarding Claim 8, Ignatovich discloses a system for analyzing the surface quality of a substrate with parallel faces, the system comprising:
at least one first support (102) configured to receive the substrate (101) to be analyzed (Fig. 1; [0059], lines 1-2);
emission means comprising at least one first light source (103, 108 – low-coherence interferometer/LCI includes a low-coherence light source) for emitting at least one first light beam (107) with low temporal coherence, and having at least one wavelength to which said substrate is at least partially transparent, said emission means being configured so that, in operation, said at least one first light beam is incident on said substrate (Fig. 1; [0036]-[0039]);
wavefront analysis means (108 – low-coherence interferometer/LCI, 120 – Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor/SHWFS) comprising at least one first wavefront analyzer and configured, in operation, for:
receiving, on an analysis surface of said first wavefront analyzer, at least one first reflected beam and a second reflected beam, said first reflected beam resulting from the reflection of said at least one first light beam by a first face (118) of the substrate and said second reflected beam resulting from a first transmission through the substrate of said first light beam and then a reflection by a second face (116) of the substrate, followed by a second transmission through the substrate, in order to generate a first measurement signal characteristic of a combination of the wavefronts of said first and second reflected beams (Fig. 1; [0038]-[0039]; [0046]);
receiving, by said wavefront analysis means, at least one first transmitted beam resulting from at least one first transmission through the substrate of a second light beam (104) emitted by said emission means, in order to generate a second measurement signal characteristic of the wavefront of said transmitted beam (Fig. 1; [0040]; [0041], lines 1-5);
a processing unit (112) configured for calculating, from said first measurement signal and said second measurement signal, at least one first signal representative of a deformation of said first face of the substrate relative to a first reference surface and at least one second signal representative of a deformation of the second face of the substrate relative to a second reference surface ([0036]; [0041]; [0060]).
Regarding Claim 10, Ignatovich discloses the system as claimed in claim 8, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein said analysis surface of said first wavefront analyzer is substantially optically conjugate with the substrate to be analyzed (see Fig. 1; [0040]; [0055]; [0056], lines 1-7).
Regarding Claim 13, Ignatovich discloses the system as claimed in claim 8, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein said at least one first wavefront analyzer is chosen from among a Hartmann and Shack- Hartmann wavefront analyzer, a lateral shift interferometer, a moir6 deflectometer, and a device based on the Schlieren method ([0040]; [0056]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatovich et al. (US 2015/0204756 A1) in view of Devie et al. (US 2003/0112426 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Ignatovich discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses that
said second light beam is incident on said first face of the substrate (Fig. 1; [0040] – incidence onto the second face of the substrate is implied in the transmission of light through the substrate) (Fig. 1; [0040]);
said first transmitted beam results from a first transmission through the substrate of said second light beam (Fig. 1; [0041]; [0059], lines 8-16).
Ignatovich does not disclose that said first transmitted beam is received by a second wavefront analyzer of the wavefront analysis means, separate from said first wavefront analyzer.
However, Devie, in the same field of endeavor of systems and methods for measuring optical components, discloses a system where a first transmitted beam (90) is received by a second wavefront analyzer (88) of wavefront analysis means, separate from a first wavefront analyzer (80) (Fig. 5; [0069]-[0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ignatovich with a plurality of wavefront sensors for receiving light beams transmitted through an optical element, where measurements using separate sensor configurations allows for the characterization of the surfaces and thickness of the optical element independently from the position of the optical component in the frame of reference of the measurement system assembly, simplifying the measurement process (Devie: [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ignatovich discloses the system as claimed in claim 8, as outlined above, and further discloses that
said emission means are configured so that, in operation, said second light beam is incident on said first face of the substrate, said first transmitted beam resulting from a first transmission through the substrate of said second light beam (Fig. 1; [0040]-[0041]; [0059], lines 8-16);
Ignatovich does not disclose
wherein the wavefront analysis means comprise a second wavefront analyzer, separate from the first wavefront analyzer, and
said wavefront analysis means are configured so that, in operation, said first transmitted beam is received by said second wavefront analyzer of the wavefront analysis means.
However, Devie, in the same field of endeavor of systems and methods for measuring optical components, discloses wherein a wavefront analysis means comprises a second wavefront analyzer (88), separate from a first wavefront analyzer (80) (Fig. 5; [0069]-[0074]), and
said wavefront analysis means are configured so that, in operation, a first transmitted beam (90) is received by said second wavefront analyzer of the wavefront analysis means (Fig. 5; [0069]-[0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ignatovich with a plurality of wavefront sensors for receiving light beams transmitted through an optical element, where measurements using separate sensor configurations allows for the characterization of the surfaces and thickness of the optical element independently from the position of the optical component in the frame of reference of the measurement system assembly, simplifying the measurement process (Devie: [0075]-[0076]).
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatovich et al. (US 2015/0204756 A1) in view of Freimann et al. (US 2005/0225774 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Ignatovich discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein said at least one first light beam is incident on said substrate in a manner substantially perpendicular to said substrate.
However, Freimann, in the same field of endeavor of interferometric systems and methods for testing optical elements, discloses wherein at least one first light beam (15) is incident on a substrate (17) in a manner substantially perpendicular to said substrate (Fig. 5; Abstract; [0056], last 9 lines; [0057], lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ignatovich with a system and method which is less complex and less dependent on the shape of wavefronts incident on the target sample, improving the precision of measurements, compared to other conventional measurement systems (Freimann: [0013]-[0014], [0020]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ignatovich discloses the system as claimed in claim 8, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein said emission means are configured so that, in operation, said at least one first light beam is incident on said substrate in a manner substantially perpendicular to said substrate.
However, Freimann, in the same field of endeavor of interferometric systems and methods for testing optical elements, discloses emission means that are configured so that, in operation, at least one first light beam (15) is incident on a substrate (17) in a manner substantially perpendicular to said substrate (Fig. 5; Abstract; [0056], last 9 lines; [0057], lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ignatovich with a system and method which is less complex and less dependent on the shape of wavefronts incident on the target sample, improving the precision of measurements, compared to other conventional measurement systems (Freimann: [0013]-[0014], [0020]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7 and 11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
said second light beam is incident on said first face of the substrate and the method further comprises, for the generation of the second measurement signal:
positioning a reference mirror, arranged in a manner substantially perpendicular to said second light beam; and wherein
said first transmitted beam results from a first transmission through the substrate of said second light beam, a reflection by the reference mirror and a second transmission through the substrate of the beam reflected by the reference mirror; and
said first and second reflected beams and said first transmitted beam are received by said first wavefront analyzer of the wavefront analysis means.
Rosakis (WO-2004/068088 A2) discloses a full-field optical shearing interferometer system used to characterize properties of substrates such as surface flatness, surface curvature, surface slopes, plate thickness and spatial variations of surface and plate parameters. Rosakis discloses a first and second shearing interferometer (450A-B) configured to receive optical transmission and reflection light of an input probe beam transmitted through and reflected from the sample, respectively. A processor is configured to process output signals from the interferometers to produce measurements of the sample. Specifically, the interferometers are able to obtain maps of wavefront slopes corresponding to the reflective surface and/or wavefront slopes indicative of variations in an optical path across the substrate (Fig. 3-4; [0006]-[0008]; [0032]-[0035]). Rosakis does not disclose emitting, by at least one first light source of emission means, at least one first light beam with low temporal coherence; receiving, by at least one first wavefront analyzer of wavefront analysis means at least one first reflected beam and a second reflected beam reflected from a first and second face of the substrate, respectively; calculating, from said at least one first measurement signal and said second measurement signal, at least one first signal representative of a deformation of said first face of the substrate relative to a first reference surface and at least one second signal representative of a deformation of the second face of the substrate relative to a second reference surface or that said first and second reflected beams and a first transmitted beam are received by said first wavefront analyzer of the wavefront analysis means.
Ignatovich (US 20150204756 A1) discloses an apparatus (100) for measuring the optical performance characteristics and dimensions of an optical element (101). The apparatus comprises a low coherence interferometer (108 - LCI), a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor (120 - SHWFS), a light source (103), a plurality of lenslets (115) and an analyzer (112). Low-coherence light (107) incident on the optical element is reflected off of each optical interface (116 and 118) of the optical element (Fig. 1, 1A; [0036]-[0041]) while another beam (104) is transmitted through the optical element. The analyzer is configured to determine the physical dimensions and optical performance parameters of the optical element from transmitted and reflected light received by the SHWFS and LCI ([0071], lines 1-4). Ignatovich does not appear to disclose that the first and second reflected beams and said first transmitted beam are received by said first wavefront analyzer of the wavefront analysis means.
Similarly, Gillis (US 12305983 B2) discloses an apparatus comprising a coherent illumination source (121), at least one wavefront sensor (501), and a detector (131) configured to detect light transmitted through a target location of a glass-based substrate, generating a signal based on the detected light which is used to characterize features of the substrate where the apparatus includes an array of lenses (701) which focus light onto the a detector (Fig. 1-3; Col. 7, lines 49-53; Col. 9, lines 8-55). However, Gillis does appear to disclose the limitations emphasized in bold wording above.
Lastly, Pepper (2023/0175893 A1), Devie (US 2003/0112426 A1), Solpietro (US 9506837 B2), Biegen (US 4732483) all disclose optical measurement systems comprising wavefront analyzers which are able to characterize transparent optical elements by analyzing reflected or transmitted light, but none appear to disclose the limitations emphasized in bold wording above. Claim 4 would be allowable due to its dependence on claim 3.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein:
said first light beam emitted by said first light source and said second light beam emitted by said second light source have a different wavelength and/or polarization, the method further comprising:
receiving, by a second wavefront analyzer of the wavefront analysis means, separate from said first wavefront analyzer, a second transmitted beam resulting from a first transmission through the substrate of said first incident beam, in order to generate a third measurement signal characteristic of the wavefront of said second transmitted beam; and
comparing said second measurement signal characteristic of the wavefront of said first transmitted beam and said third measurement signal characteristic of the wavefront of said second transmitted beam, in order to generate a signal characteristic of the variations of the refractive index within the substrate.
Ignatovich (US 20150204756 A1) disclose the measurement system outlined above for claim 3 and further discloses determining variations in the index of refraction of the optical element (101) by constructing a physical model of the element using a combination of LCI (108) and SHWFS (120) (Fig. 1; [0057]-[0058]) but does not explicitly disclose comparing said second measurement signal characteristic of the wavefront of said first transmitted beam and said third measurement signal characteristic of the wavefront of said second transmitted beam, in order to generate a signal characteristic of the variations of the refractive index within the substrate. Rosakis (WO-2004/068088 A2), Gillis (US 12305983 B2), Pepper (2023/0175893 A1), Devie (US 2003/0112426 A1), Solpietro (US 9506837 B2), Biegen (US 4732483) all disclose optical measurement systems comprising wavefront analyzers which are able to characterize transparent optical elements by analyzing reflected or transmitted light, but none appear to disclose the limitations emphasized in bold wording above. Claim 4 would be allowable due to its dependence on claim 3.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the system as claimed in claim 8, further comprising:
a second support configured for receiving a reference mirror, the reference mirror being arranged, in operation, in a manner substantially perpendicular to said second light beam; and wherein, in operation:
said first transmitted beam results from a first transmission of said at least one first incident beam through the substrate, a reflection by the reference mirror and a second transmission through the substrate of the beam reflected by the reference mirror; and
said first and second reflected beams and said first transmitted beam are received by said first wavefront analyzer of the wavefront analysis means.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER YAZBACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/MAHER YAZBACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877