DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, see Pg. 6, filed 06/01/2026, with respect to claims 2, 9 and 15 have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objection to the claims. The objection of claims 2, 9 and 15 has been withdrawn. Applicant has canceled claim 2.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 6-11, filed 06/01/2026, with respect to claims 1-15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-15 has been withdrawn. Applicant has canceled claims 2-3 and 11.
Applicant’s amendment, see Pg. 6, filed 06/01/2026, with respect to claims 1-5 and 9 under 35 USC 112(f) have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the interpretation of the claims. The interpretation of claims 1-5 and 9 has been withdrawn.
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.
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: “a mechanism” 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.
Claim 1 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 limitation “a mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim 1, line 10 recites the limitation “a mechanism” but the specification fails to disclose sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function where the specification only describes its function for changing a position of the reference reflective surface between a position on an optical path of the light emitted from the light intensity acquisition unit and a position avoiding the optical path and that operation of the mechanism is controlled by control device (40) (Fig. 1; [0039]). Therefore, claim 1 is rejected. Claims 4-9 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1, line 10 recites the limitation “a mechanism” but the specification fails to disclose sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function where the specification only describes its function for changing a position of the reference reflective surface between a position on an optical path of the light emitted from the light intensity acquisition unit and a position avoiding the optical path and that operation of the mechanism is controlled by control device (40) (Fig. 1; [0039]). Therefore, claim 1 is rejected. Claims 4-9 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a refractive index distribution measurement device comprising: a conveyor configured to convey a polymer film in a first direction; a light intensity acquisition unit comprising a light source and configured to irradiate a plurality of spots on the polymer film being conveyed with light, the plurality of spots being arranged in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and to acquire a light intensity of reflected light from each of the plurality of spots irradiated with the light; and a reference reflective surface having a known reflectance and being separated from the polymer film; a mechanism for changing a position of the reference reflective surface between a position on an optical path of the light emitted from the light intensity acquisition unit and a position avoiding the optical path; and an arithmetic processor configured to calculate a reflectance at each of the plurality of spots from the light intensity of the reflected light acquired by the light intensity acquisition unit, and to obtain a refractive index distribution of the polymer film in the second direction based on the reflectance, wherein the arithmetic processor is configured to calculate the reflectance at each of the plurality of spots based on a ratio of the light intensity of the reflected light from each of the plurality of spots to a reference light intensity obtained by irradiating the reference reflective surface with the light from the light intensity acquisition unit, and acquiring a light intensity of reflected light from the reference reflective surface.
With respect to the above claim, JP 2015/141176 A to Otsuka discloses a refractive index distribution measurement device (1A) comprising: a conveyor (110) configured to convey a polymer film (100) in a first direction (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, lines 6-25); a light intensity acquisition unit comprising a light source (10, 20A) and configured to irradiate (via a light irradiation unit 10 which comprises a light source 11, a light guide member 12, and a light emitting unit 13) a surface on the polymer film being conveyed with light (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, lines 26-38), and to acquire (via a light detection unit 20A which comprises a light incident unit 21a, a light guide member 22a, and a spectral detection unit 23a), a light intensity of reflected light from the surface irradiated with the light (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, line 39 – Pg. 4, line 16); and an arithmetic processor (30A) configured to calculate a reflectance at the surface from the light intensity of the reflected light acquired by the light intensity acquisition unit, and to obtain a refractive index distribution of the polymer film based on the reflectance (Fig. 1; Pg. 4, lines 17-22; Pg. 5, lines 20-30; Pg. 7, lines 3-10). Otsuka does not explicitly disclose an irradiation unit configured to irradiate a plurality of spots, the plurality of spots being arranged in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and to acquire a light intensity of reflected light from a plurality of spots irradiated with the light; an arithmetic processor configured to calculate a reflectance at each of the plurality of spots from the light intensity of the reflected light acquired by the light intensity acquisition unit; and to obtain a refractive index distribution of the polymer film in the second direction based on the reflectance; a reference reflective surface having a known reflectance and being separated from the polymer film; a mechanism for changing a position of the reference reflective surface between a position on an optical path of the light emitted from the light intensity acquisition unit and a position avoiding the optical path; and wherein the arithmetic processor is configured to calculate the reflectance at each of the plurality of spots based on a ratio of the light intensity of the reflected light from each of the plurality of spots to a reference light intensity obtained by irradiating the reference reflective surface with the light from the light intensity acquisition unit, and acquiring a light intensity of reflected light from the reference reflective surface. US 2005/351790 A to Sakuma discloses an irradiation unit (8) configured to irradiate a plurality of spots, the plurality of spots being arranged in a second direction intersecting a first direction, and to acquire a light intensity of reflected light from a plurality of spots irradiated with the light (Fig. 20-21, 28; Pg. 11, lines 26-42; Pg. 12, lines 13-19; Pg. 15, lines 17-26; Abstract); and an arithmetic processor (12a) (Fig. 7; Pg. 7, lines 21-25) configured to calculate a reflectance at each of the plurality of spots from the light intensity of the reflected light acquired by the light intensity acquisition unit (Fig. 20-21, 28; Pg. 11, lines 26-42; Pg. 12, lines 13-19; Pg. 15, lines 17-26; Abstract); and to obtain a refractive index distribution of the polymer film in the second direction based on the reflectance (Pg. 4, lines 14-27; Pg. 10, lines 14-23). However, Sakuma does not disclose a reference reflective surface having a known reflectance and being separated from the polymer film; a mechanism for changing a position of the reference reflective surface between a position on an optical path of the light emitted from the light intensity acquisition unit and a position avoiding the optical path; and wherein the arithmetic processor is configured to calculate the reflectance at each of the plurality of spots based on a ratio of the light intensity of the reflected light from each of the plurality of spots to a reference light intensity obtained by irradiating the reference reflective surface with the light from the light intensity acquisition unit, and acquiring a light intensity of reflected light from the reference reflective surface. JP 2001/133227 A1 to Soga discloses a film thickness measurement apparatus for measuring the thickness of the uppermost layer of a film stack on a wafer (W) during an etching process and, in particular, discloses that a reference reflective light intensity distribution A0 is obtained from the wafer before the deposition of the upper most film layer, where a ratio of the measured reflective light intensity distribution A to the reference reflective light intensity distribution represents the influence of the uppermost layer (Abstract; Pg. 2, line 36 - Pg. 3, line 12). However, Soga does not appear to explicitly disclose a reference reflective surface having a known reflectance and being separated from the polymer film; a mechanism for changing a position of the reference reflective surface between a position on an optical path of the light emitted from the light intensity acquisition unit and a position avoiding the optical path; and wherein the arithmetic processor is configured to calculate the reflectance at each of the plurality of spots based on a ratio of the light intensity of the reflected light from each of the plurality of spots to a reference light intensity obtained by irradiating the reference reflective surface with the light from the light intensity acquisition unit, and acquiring a light intensity of reflected light from the reference reflective surface. Lastly, US 2023/0296500 A1 to Yamauchi, in the field of endeavor of spectroscopic measurement systems using reflectance measurements, discloses a measurement system wherein a light intensity acquisition unit (3) includes a reference reflective surface (25), and a mechanism (26) for changing a position of the reference reflective surface between a position on an optical path of the light emitted from the light intensity acquisition unit and a position avoiding the optical path (Fig. 1; [0060]-[0064]). Yamauchi does not explicitly disclose a reference reflective surface having a known reflectance and being separated from the polymer film; and wherein the arithmetic processor is configured to calculate the reflectance at each of the plurality of spots based on a ratio of the light intensity of the reflected light from each of the plurality of spots to a reference light intensity obtained by irradiating the reference reflective surface with the light from the light intensity acquisition unit, and acquiring a light intensity of reflected light from the reference reflective surface.
All combinations of prior art references listed above or previously cited failed to specifically disclose the limitations emphasized in bold wording above. Therefore, the Examiner has failed to find prior art that is analogous to the invention claimed or any motivation suggesting a similar device or purpose. As such, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejection above. Claims 4-9 would be allowable due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 10 and 12-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a refractive index distribution measurement method comprising: starting to convey a polymer film in a first direction; irradiating a plurality of spots on the polymer film being conveyed with light, the plurality of spots being arranged in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and acquiring a light intensity of reflected light from each of the plurality of spots irradiated with the light; and providing a reference reflective surface having a known reflectance and being separated from the polymer film; changing a position of the reference reflective surface between a position on an optical path of the irradiating light and a position avoiding the optical path; and calculating a reflectance at each of the plurality of spots from the light intensity of the reflected light acquired in the step of acquiring, and obtaining a refractive index distribution of the polymer film in the second direction based on the reflectance, wherein in the obtaining the refractive index distribution, the reflectance at each of the plurality of spots is calculated based on a ratio of the light intensity of the reflected light from each of the plurality of spots to a reference light intensity obtained by irradiating the reference reflective surface with the light, and acquiring a light intensity of reflected light from the reference reflective surface.
All combinations of prior art references listed above or previously cited failed to specifically disclose the limitations emphasized in bold wording above. Therefore, the Examiner has failed to find prior art that is analogous to the invention claimed or any motivation suggesting a similar method or purpose for the same reasoning outlined above for claim 1. As such, claim 10 has been found allowable. Claims 12-15 are allowed due to their dependence on claim 10.
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
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
Prosecution Insights