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 .
The Information Disclosure Statements
The prior art cited in the information disclosure statements filed on 9/16/2024, has been considered.
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.
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: mechanisms… optical component….in claim 1.
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 1-11 is/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 1 discloses: a) a non-contact optical metrology system comprising a partially coherent light beam…. a first light beam….and a second light beam. The structure is disclosed as affecting the light beams, not as active structure of the metrology system. So it’s not clear what the metes and bounds of the claims are….is it just the light beams or is it the structure affecting it? even the wherein part, there’s structure in there, but it’s not clear if all of it is part of the structure of the metrology device. For example, “when projecting said interference pattern in a camera…is the camera part of the device or is this intended use again?).
b) “simple morphological operations” which is a relative term, and “represented by.” It is not clear whether “simple morphological operations” is done by a processor or structure; and whether “represented by’ is using math to identify the information, or is generally how the information is displayed.
c) “mechanisms”, It is not clear what mechanism generate a fixed interference….
d) Claim 1 recites the limitation "the image capture system" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites” slight inclination”, in line 4. It does not define how slight. For instance, a 2° angle is a slight inclination, but so is a 5° angle.
Claim 6, recites “measurement resolution value”, in lines 2-3. Does it mean instrument resolution, display resolution? What is the value/measure of the resolution?
Claim 9, recites “a certain amount of relative…,” in liness2-3. It is unclear and vague statement because it lacks a specific, fixed number.
Appropriate clarifications required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 may be allowable if the rejection above is positively overcome.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Justice et al. (US 2014/0125985 A1) teaches a sensor suite comprising a first electronic imaging element such as an LWIR imager element and a second imaging element such as a visible imager element. The transmitter operates with a plurality of selectable beam-forming optics or a tilt-tip element. The optics for the system may be configured in a Cassegrain-type configuration in cooperation with a plurality of beam-splitting elements to permit different ranges of the received optical input to be provided respectively to the first and second electronic imagers. One or a plurality of laser illuminator analysis spectrometers are provided for the detection and characterizing of incoming laser illumination from an external source which may be in the form of a micro-lamellar spectrometer element (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI NUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1298. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9am to 6pm.
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, Kara Geisel, can be reached on (571) 272-2416. 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.
/ABDULLAHI NUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2886