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 .
This action is responsive to the initial filing of 9/3/2024.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 20 recites the term “phase object”. Paragraph 36 of the specification appears to define a phase object as an “object that has a small absorption rate but has a refractive index distribution”. As Applicant may act as their own lexicographer, the term “phase object” is interpreted to be defined by the quoted phrase from paragraph 36 of the specification.
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:
the material supply part in claim 4, interpreted in light of paragraph 75 as corresponding to the gas supply part, which is interpreted in light of paragraph 28 as including a hollow member.
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 § 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 5, 11-12, 15, 20, and 29 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 5 is ambiguous as to whether the refractive index of the material should be less than a refractive index smaller than the subject by 0.1 (e.g., if the user decides to use water as the subject with a refractive index of 1.33, then the refractive index of the material would need to be less than 1.23 (= 1.33-0.1)) or if the refractive index of the material should be smaller than that of the subject and that the difference should be less than 0.1 (in the previous example, 1.23<nmaterial<1.33). As was known to those of ordinary skill in the art well before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Fresnel reflections from an interface increase with increasing difference in refractive indices (see, for example, equation 2 of Butler (non-patent literature “Local determination of thin liquid film profiles using colour interferometry”), and also pointed out by Applicant’s disclosure (paragraph 36, for example)), so the claim is interpreted as requiring that the refractive index of the material be less than the value from the subject minus 0.1, the former interpretation described above. Note that paragraph 28 of the present disclosure appears to be the most similar statement to this limitation and uses the word “more” rather than “less”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the wavelength" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is interpreted as “a wavelength”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the wavelength" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is interpreted as “a wavelength width”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the illumination numerical aperture" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is interpreted as “an illumination numerical aperture”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "on the basis of " in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is interpreted as “on a basis of”.
The term “phase object” in claim 15 is interpreted as defined by Applicant to mean “object that has a small absorption rate but has a refractive index distribution”, as described above. “Small absorption” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small absorption” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term is interpreted broadly to encompass a variety of materials and objects that are not especially absorbent of light of the relevant wavelength(s) over the relevant length scales. The phrase “has a refractive index distribution” is regarded as broad rather than indefinite.
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) 1-9, 13, 16-17, 20-23, 25, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butler (non-patent literature “Local determination of thin liquid film profiles using colour interferometry”).
Regarding claim 1, Butler teaches an imaging device comprising:
a substrate (FIG. 4, the glass plate labeled as a reflecting surface) on which a subject is disposed (Butler uses a thin film of water, denoted in the upper-left inset of FIG. 4 as having refractive index n2, but also see MPEP 2115 and note that an apparatus claim is not typically limited by recitations of the article or material worked upon by the apparatus, such as what type of subject the user chooses to dispose on the substrate);
a first optical system configured to irradiate the subject with first emitted light (FIG. 4, light source); and
an imaging part configured to image an interference image between first reflected light and second reflect light (FIG. 4, the color camera, which captures the image of the light from the sample), the first reflected light being the first emitted light reflected at a first interface conforming to an outer surface of the subject (FIG. 4, upper-left inset, downward pointed beam labeled iii) and the second reflected light being the first emitted light reflected at a second interface between the subject and the substrate (FIG. 4, upper-left inset, downward pointed beam labeled ii).
Regarding claim 2, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the substrate has a refractive index difference of 0.1 or more with the subject (section 2.2, third paragraph, the substrate used for the water film experiments was a borosilicate glass slide. Section 2.3, first paragraph characterizes borosilicate glass as having a refractive index of 1.525, which is more than .1 different from the value of about 1.33 for water, which has long been known by those of ordinary skill in the art, but also see the note above regarding MPEP 2115.).
Regarding claim 3, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the substrate is able to hold liquid and the subject disposed in the liquid (page 5, first paragraph describes the circular reservoir for the water in which the thin film is disposed).
Regarding claim 4, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 3 (as described above), wherein at least a part of the first interface is formed between the liquid and a material having a refractive index different from that of the liquid (as seen in FIG. 6a, an interface exists between the air and the thin film of water under the air. Note that air has a refractive index only slightly than 1, while water has a substantially higher refractive index closer to 1.33), and
a material supply part configured to supply the material is further provided such that the first interface has a shape conforming to the outer surface of the subject (section 2.2, third paragraph, blunt-tipped capillary, also seen in FIG. 6a).
Regarding claim 5, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 4 (as described above), wherein the material has a refractive index smaller than that of the subject by 0.1 or less (the specific material used in the experiments by Butler was air, which has a refractive index less than a value 0.1 smaller than that of water (~1 < 1.23 = 1.33 - 0.1)).
Regarding claim 6, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 4 (as described above), wherein the material is a gas (air, as shown in FIG. 6a), and
the material supply part is a gas supply part (see the caption for FIG. 6a. Also see the claim interpretation section above.).
Regarding claim 7, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 6 (as described above), wherein the gas supply part includes a hollow member having a tip portion disposed in the liquid (FIG. 6a shows the air coming from the glass capillary), and forms the first interface by air bubbles formed and maintained on the tip portion in the liquid using the gas supplied through a flow path in the hollow member (see the caption to FIG. 6a, which describes that air is blown through the glass capillary).
Regarding claim 8, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein a wavelength of the first emitted light includes a near infrared region (while not the most intense portion of the spectrum shown in FIG. 1b, the white LED source used in the experiments does emit some light with wavelength greater than 700 nm, which may be reasonably interpreted as including infrared radiation).
Regarding claim 9, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 8 (as described above), wherein the wavelength of the first emitted light includes 650 nm or more (more of the spectrum shown in FIG. 1b has wavelengths of 650 nm or more).
Regarding claim 13, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the first emitted light radiated from the first optical system includes a plurality of wavelength components having a wavelength difference of 20 nm or less (FIG. 1b, the white LED light source emits light at a plurality of wavelengths, including 600 nm and 601 nm, which differ in wavelength by less than 20 nm. Note that, as currently written, this claim does not require that the wavelength band of the emitter have a width of 20 nm or less (nor prohibit sources with wider bands), but merely that it contain a plurality of wavelengths that are close to each other.).
Regarding claim 16, Butler teaches the (as described above), wherein the imaging part includes:
a detector (FIG. 4, colour camera) configured to image the interference image (FIG. 6b); and
an information processor configured to acquire viscoelasticity information of the subject from a change in pressure of the material, a shape change of the subject calculated from the interference image, and a time required for the change in pressure and the shape change of the subject (section 2.3, paragraph 5 and section 3, final paragraph discuss how the viscoelastic properties demonstrated in the observed dimpling and drainage behavior relates to the pressure and forces on the bubble as measured from the interference fringes imaged (see FIG. 6b and 6c) over the time evolution of the system).
Regarding claim 17, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 4 (as described above) wherein the material has a refractive index greater than that of the subject (FIG. 5 shows results from a calibration measurement taken with the same imaging device in which the thin film measured is of air and the material is a glass cylinder, which has a refractive index higher than that of air).
Regarding claim 20, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the subject is a phase object (FIG. 6a, water has low optical absorption on length scales of micrometers and has a refractive index distribution).
Regarding claim 21, Butler teaches an imaging method comprising:
disposing a subject on a substrate (FIG. 6, the thin film of water between the air bubble and the glass substrate);
irradiating the subject with first emitted light (FIG. 4, emitted by the light source and entering the sample through the reflecting surface from below); and
imaging an interference image between first reflected light and second reflected light (FIG. 6b shows some examples of images), the first reflected light being the first emitted light (FIG. 4, upper-left inset, upward light labeled i) reflected at a first interface conforming to an outer surface of the subject (FIG. 4, upper-left inset, downward light labeled iii) and the second reflected light being the first emitted light reflected at a second interface between the subject and the substrate (FIG. 4, upper-left inset, downward light labeled ii).
Regarding claim 22, Butler teaches the imaging method according to claim 21 (as described above), wherein the subject is disposed in liquid (FIG. 6, the water surrounding the air bubble and thin film of water), and
at least a part of the first interface is an interface between the subject and a gas in contact with the subject (FIG. 6, the surface between the air bubble and the thin film of water underneath).
Regarding claim 23, Butler teaches the imaging method according to claim 22 (as described above), wherein the gas is supplied such that the first interface has a shape conforming to an outer surface of the subject (FIG. 6, the interface between the air bubble and the thin film of water conforms to the surface of the thin film).
Regarding claim 25, Butler teaches the imaging method according to claim 22 (as described above), wherein the first interface is formed to conform to the subject by adjusting affinity between the gas or the liquid and the substrate (section 2.3, paragraph 5 discusses the repulsive force between the gas and the substrate).
Regarding claim 27, Butler teaches the imaging method according to claim 22 (as described above), wherein a tip portion of a hollow member having a flow path is disposed in the liquid (FIG. 6a, note that the glass capillary is in the water), and in a state in which the gas is supplied to the flow path and the first interface is formed by air bubbles formed and maintained at the tip portion in the liquid (FIG. 6a, note that the bubble is at the tip of the glass capillary), at least one of the supply amount of the gas and the position of the tip portion is adjusted (page 5, first paragraph, the plastic syringe adjusts the air supply amount).
Regarding claim 28, Butler teaches the imaging method according to claim 22 (as described above), wherein a first interference image when a pressure of the gas is set as a first pressure (FIG. 6b, image at time 0 ms), and a second interference image when the pressure of the gas is set as a second pressure different from the first pressure, are acquired (FIG. 6b, image at time 200 ms. Note that the pressure of a gas changes as it expands, pushing matter out of its way, such as when the water in the dimple drains from under the bubble. Also see section 2.3, paragraphs 4-5 for more discussion of the forces involved on the bubble).
Regarding claim 29, Butler teaches the imaging method according to claim 28 (as described above), wherein viscoelasticity information (section 2.3, paragraph 5. Information and details on the dimpling and drainage behavior of the system, as well as the stability of the thin film under the bubble are types of viscoelasticity information) of the subject is acquired on the basis of the first interference image, the second interference image, the change in pressure of the gas, the shape change of the subject calculated from the first interference image and the second interference image, and the time required for the change in pressure and the shape change of the subject (FIG. 6 shows the evolution of the shape and thickness of the thin film over time as some of the water drains out from under the bubble).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10-11, 18-19, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler (non-patent literature “Local determination of thin liquid film profiles using colour interferometry”).
Regarding claim 10, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (as described above).
The experiments performed by Butler appear to use a broadband white light source (with an emission spectrum as shown in FIG. 1b), an embodiment that does not teach that a wavelength width of the first emitted light is 50 nm or less.
In the same field of endeavor of interferometry, Butler also teaches alternative light sources that could be used such that a wavelength width of the first emitted light is 50 nm or less (page 3, paragraph 4 discusses the possibility of using three lasers with discrete wavelengths (option a) or three Gaussian wavelength distributions with full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 10 nm (option b). In either case, one of the light sources would have a wavelength width less than 50 nm). Butler teaches that discrete wavelengths offer a much longer working range of thicknesses (section 3, first paragraph. Also see FIG. 2 a and b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interferometer of Butler with the alternative sources with narrower linewidths suggested by Butler in order to gain the predictable benefit of characterizing a wider range of thicknesses, as pointed out by Butler.
Regarding claim 11, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (as described above),
The experiments performed by Butler appear to use a broadband white light source (with an emission spectrum as shown in FIG. 1b), an embodiment that does not teach that the wavelength width of the first emitted light is 1/10 or less of the wavelength of the first emitted light.
In the same field of endeavor of interferometry, Butler also teaches alternative light sources that could be used such that the wavelength width of the first emitted light is 1/10 or less of the wavelength of the first emitted light (page 3, paragraph 4 discusses the possibility of using three lasers with discrete wavelengths (option a) or three Gaussian wavelength distributions with full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 10 nm (option b). In either case, one of the light sources would have a wavelength width less than 1/10 of the central wavelength of the light source). Butler teaches that discrete wavelengths offer a much longer working range of thicknesses (section 3, first paragraph. Also see FIG. 2 a and b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the interferometer of Butler with the alternative sources with narrower linewidths suggested by Butler in order to gain the predictable benefit of characterizing a wider range of thicknesses, as pointed out by Butler.
Regarding claim 18, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 17 (as described above),
While Butler does not go into great detail on the subject of using the device wherein the material is liquid containing the subject, Butler does suggest its use in such situations.
In particular, Butler suggests using the setup of the device to study wetting processes (section 2.3, final paragraph and section 3, second benefit) in which the material (the droplet approaching the surface) would be a liquid containing the subject (the air between the droplet and the surface to be wetted. Note that air has a very low refractive index compared to other substances, almost as low as vacuum, so would have a refractive index lower than the liquid as required by claim 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging interferometer of Butler by following Butler’s suggestion to use the device to study wetting phenomena in which material is a droplet of liquid, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 17 (as described above).
While Butler does not go into great detail on the subject of using the device wherein the material is a thin film member, Butler does suggest its use in such situations.
In particular, Butler suggests using the setup of the device to study phenomena of coating (section 2.3, final paragraph) and lubricating films (section 3, second benefit) in which the role the bubble plays in the experiment presented by Butler (as the material) is replaced by a droplet of the coating material or lubricant, in either case forming a thin film on the substrate (a lubricating film or another kind of film).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging interferometer of Butler by following Butler’s suggestion to use the device to study coating phenomena or the application of lubricating films, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, Butler teaches the imaging method according to claim 22 (as described above),
While Butler does not go into great detail on the subject of using the methods disclosed wherein the first interface is formed to conform to the subject by evaporating at least some of the liquid between the first interface and the second interface, Butler does suggest its use in such situations.
In particular, Butler suggests using the method to study drying processes (section 3, second benefit). In drying processes, it is common for the surface between the film to be dried from the surface to be determined by the evaporation of the film. Note that the device used by Butler would be useful for this purpose with minimal adaptation (consider FIG. 6a, but with less water in the reservoir).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging interferometric method of Butler by following Butler’s suggestion to use the method to study evaporative drying processes, for example, using the existing setup, but with only a thin film of water in the reservoir below the tip of the glass capillary, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler (non-patent literature “Local determination of thin liquid film profiles using colour interferometry”) in view of Liu (foreign patent document 2015085216).
Regarding claim 12, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the first optical system includes and an objective lens (FIG. 4, objective lens),
Butler does not go into great detail as to the optical components used, so does not explicitly teach that the first optical system includes an aperture diaphragm, an aperture controller configured to control a diameter of the aperture diaphragm,
the aperture controller adjusts a diameter of the aperture diaphragm such that the illumination numerical aperture is equal to or smaller than an imaging numerical aperture, and
the imaging numerical aperture is equal to or smaller than 0.7.
In the same field of endeavor of optical microscopy of cells, Liu does teach that the first optical system includes an aperture diaphragm, an aperture controller configured to control a diameter of the aperture diaphragm (FIG. 2, aperture 106, located on the optical path from the light source to the beam splitter 112),
the aperture controller adjusts a diameter of the aperture diaphragm such that the illumination numerical aperture is equal to or smaller than an imaging numerical aperture (FIG. 2. Note that the illumination optical path and one of the imaging optical paths both use low-numerical aperture 110, so they would share a numerical aperture unless aperture 106 were to further limit the spatial extent of the illumination), and
the imaging numerical aperture is equal to or smaller than 0.7 (FIG. 2, low-numerical aperture lens 110 is described as having a numerical aperture of 0.4 in paragraph 80, which is less than 0.7). By having optical components arranged in a particular way, Liu can choose such parameters of the imaging system as depth of field, working distance, field of view, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging interferometer of Butler with the diaphragm and lower numerical apertures of Liu in order to satisfy the imaging constraints of the measurements Butler desired to make, including proper working distance and depth of field, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (as described above),
Butler does not explicitly teach a second optical system configured to irradiate the subject with second light,
wherein the imaging part also captures the transmitted image using the second light that passes through the subject.
In the same field of endeavor of optical microscopy of cells, Liu does teach a second optical system configured to irradiate the subject with second light (FIG. 3, tungsten or other similar lamp 312 illuminates the sample),
wherein the imaging part also captures the transmitted image using the second light that passes through the subject (FIG. 3, tungsten or other similar lamp 312 illuminates the sample from above, while camera 320 and other detectors are located on the other side of the sample). By including a light source above the sample, Liu is able to measure light transmitted through the sample.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging interferometer of Butler to use transillumination in the manner of Liu in order to get a second way of looking at the interference patterns produced by the thin film of water under the bubble.
Claim(s) 15 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler (non-patent literature “Local determination of thin liquid film profiles using colour interferometry”) in view of Larimer (US patent publication 20160272933).
Regarding claim 15, Butler teaches the imaging device according to claim 1 (as described above), wherein the imaging part includes a detector (FIG. 4, color camera) configured to image the interference image (see examples in FIG. 6b), and an information processor (computer mentioned in the caption of FIG. 4).
While Butler does plot the results of thickness measurements and does show interference images (FIG. 6), Butler does not explicitly show that the computer is configured to acquire a three-dimensional image of the subject on the basis of the interference image.
In the same field of endeavor of imaging interferometry, Larimer does teach that an information processor configured to acquire a three-dimensional image of the subject on the basis of the interference image (FIG. 21B is described as a 3D image in paragraph 77). Larimer is able to provide a visualization of the measured surface profile and thickness by showing a 3D image of it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging interferometer of Butler with the 3D visualization of Larimer to provide a way of seeing the thickness of the film of water trapped under the bubble as it drains.
Regarding claim 26, Butler teaches the imaging method according to claim 21 (as described above), using a point where the first interface has reached the substrate as a reference position of a height of the subject (page 3, paragraph 5 discusses using a reference point where the interfering surfaces contact).
While Butler does plot the results of thickness measurements and does show interference images (FIG. 6), Butler does not explicitly show a three-dimensional image of the subject acquired from the interference image.
In the same field of endeavor of imaging interferometry, Larimer does teach show a three-dimensional image of the subject acquired from the interference image (FIG. 21B is described as a 3D image in paragraph 77). Larimer is able to provide a visualization of the measured surface profile and thickness by showing a 3D image of it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the imaging interferometry of Butler with the 3D visualization of Larimer to provide a way of seeing the thickness of the film of water trapped under the bubble as it drains, while using the reference thickness based on a contact point as taught by Butler.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (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 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights