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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II in the reply filed on 06/23/2026 is acknowledged.
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, 6-8, 10, 12, 17-19, 21, 23, 28-30 and 32 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, 12 and 23, claims recite “wherein the laser pump beam forms a spot having a spot length that well exceeds a depth associated with the given pump probe”
However, it is not clear with following reasons.
First, it is not clear what the applicant tried to mean by “a depth associated with the give pump probe.”
Second, if the applicant tried to mean a general ‘a depth in relation to a pump probe’ in ultrafast laser spectroscopy, it is defined as unitless, fractional change amount of intensity, transmittance or reflectance etc.
Third, if the applicant tried to mean a diffusion length of a sample (as slightly disclosed in ([0060]), then clear amendment is required.
As a result, it is not clear how one can compare length with unitless physical amount and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what the applicant tried to mean by the limitation.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the examination purposes, examiner will interpret it as appeared in [0060] of specification of the instant application.
Amendment is required.
Claims further recite “well exceeds” and “substantially equals”.
Both terms are relative, however, the examiner found reasonable meaning of well exceeds as supported in the [0060] of the specification of instant application such as factor of 2 or more. However, the limitation of “substantially equals” found indefinite along with the rest of the limitations and under the scope the specification instant application.
Clarification is required.
Claims further recite “decaying plane wave propagating at a distance that substantially equals the thermal diffusivity of the sample”.
First, it is not clear what is claimed to be equal to the diffusivity.
Speed of decaying? A distance? Or something else?
A thermal diffusivity is defined in m^2/s unit which does not allow any reasonable interpretation in relation/comparison with above possible values.
Does the applicant tried to mean ‘thermal diffusion length’?
Even if it was a thermal diffusion length, it is not clear how to interpret ‘decaying plane wave propagating at a distance that substantially equals the thermal diffusion length of the sample’ since it is not clear what it mean by ‘decaying X propagating at a distance A.. equals to length B” (i.e., does that mean X decays at distance B? or decaying X still propagate at the distance B? or something else?).
Even further, in the limitation of “processing circuit is configured to :.. (b) determine a presence of one or more sample abnormalities based on the analysis results by modeling an oscillatory component of a thermal response of the sample that is obtained during the pump probe measurement as a decaying plane wave propagating at a distance that substantially equals the thermal diffusivity of the sample”, it is not clear whether the processing circuit is configured to control the claimed decaying wave propagating distance or not (i.e., whether the limitations of “that is obtained during the pump probe measurement as a decaying.. of the sample” requires what function of the processing circuit, control? Or discriminating results based on the condition? Or something else?).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Clarification is required.
Dependent claims 6-8, 10, 17-19, 21, 28-30 and 32 are also rejected since they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 12, 17-19, 21, 23, 28-30 and 32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
After completing a thorough search of independent claims 189, the closest reference to Grossman et al. (US 7973919) teaches an evaluation system (20 in Fig. 1A and col. 3 lines 34-40) for evaluating a sample (70 in Fig. 1A and col. 3 lines 34-40), the evaluation system comprises:
optics (pump beam generator 54, probe beam generator 94, beam combiner 52, relay optics 104, beam splitter 106, mirror 110 and 112 and optical system in Fig. 1A and col. 4 lines 62-64 and col. 5 lines 8-15 and 24-37);
a sensing unit (128, 234 collectively in Fig. 1A and col. 6 lines 17-29);
a processing circuit (36, 41 in Fig. 1A and col. 4 lines 3-6);
a controller (38 in Fig. 1A and col. 4 lines 6-8) that is configured to control a performing of one or more pump probe measurements (Fig. 1A, col. 4 lines 3-6, 57 to col. 5 lines 3, 18-20, 44-46, 65 to col.6, line 5, 12-22 and 27-29), wherein during a pump probe measurement:
the optics are configured to:
(a) illuminate the sample (70) by a laser pump beam (34 along line 33 in Fig. 1A) that is modulated by a modulation frequency (col. 4, lines 40-44 and 60-64);
(b) illuminating the sample (70) by a laser probe beam (74) (col. 4, lines 40-44 and 60-64);
the sensing unit (128 and 134) is configured to detect radiation resulting from the illumination of the sample (Fig. 1A and col. 5 lines 65-col. 6 line 5 and col. 6 line 12-29);
the processing circuit (36 and 41) is configured to:(a) determine, based on the detected radiation, thermo-reflectance information (col. 6 lines 12-29 and col. 13 lines 20-28 and 37-41) regarding a sample region (122) located at a depth of the sample (col. 5 line 65-col. 6 line 5, 20-29, col. 13 lines 42-56 and col. 14 lines 22-25);
wherein the thermo-reflectance information comprises information about an oscillatory component of a thermal response of the sample measured during the pump probe measurement (AC component of returning probe radiation shown in the graph 152 of Fig. 2, col. 5, line 65-col. 6 line 5, 20-29 and col. 7 lines 47-58, col. 11 lines 43-53); and
(b) determine a presence of one or more sample abnormalities based on the analysis results (col. 4 lines 6-14, col. 11 lines 43-53)
and Borden et al. (US 20050122515 A1) teaches pump beam has a slightly different (in this example slightly larger) spot size of diameter Bpump than the probe beam's diameter Bprobe.
But none of the searched prior arts alone or in combination discloses the claimed invention having the following recited limitations of independent claims 1, 12 and 23.
As to claims 1, 12 and 23, none of the prior art alone or in combination disclose or teach of the laser pump beam forms a spot having a spot length that well exceeds a diffusion length of the sample and processing circuit configured to determine a presence of one or more sample abnormalities based on the analysis results by modeling an oscillatory component of a thermal response of the sample that is obtained during the pump probe measurement as a decaying plane wave propagating at a distance that substantially equals the thermal diffusivity of the sample along with other limitations of claims 1, 12 and 23.
Claims 6-8, 10, 17-19, 21, 28-30 and 32 are indicated as allowable due to their dependencies only.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNGHEE Y GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3211. The examiner can normally be reached on T-R, 8:00 am-4:00 pm and F 8 :00 to 2:00 pm.
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 571-270-4211.
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.
/SUNGHEE Y GRAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2886
Prosecution Insights