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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mizushima et al. (US 2010/0165307 A1), hereinafter “Mizushima”.
Regarding claim 1, Mizushima discloses a light irradiation apparatus (abstract, Figs. 1 and 4A-4D) comprising:
a light source configured to emit light (Fig. 1, ref 1; paragraph [0126]);
a first light pipe configured to receive, as an input, the light emitted from the light source, and uniformize and output an illuminance distribution of the light (Fig. 1, ref 4; Fig. 4B, ref 4a; paragraphs [0153], [0171]);
a diffusion unit configured to diffuse the light output from the first light pipe (ref 5, paragraph [0168]); and
a second light pipe configured to receive, as an input, the light diffused by the diffusion unit, and uniformize and output an illuminance distribution of the light (ref 4b, paragraphs [0153], [0171]), wherein
the diffusion unit is a light diffusion surface provided on at least one of a light output surface of the first light pipe and a light input surface of the second light pipe (as shown in Fig. 4B, the claim does not require the diffusion unit to be directly on the surface).
Regarding claim 2, Mizushima discloses wherein a diameter of the light incident surface of the second light pipe is the same as a diameter of the light output surface of the first light pipe (inherently shown in Fig. 4, if the diameters were different, one would expect the disclosure to state).
Regarding claim 5, Mizushima discloses wherein the light diffusion surface is a translucent surface (paragraph [0168], a hologram diffuser is inherently translucent).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizushima as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Mizushima is silent regarding wherein a diameter of the light input surface of the second light pipe is smaller than a diameter of the light output surface of the first light pipe.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a diameter of the light input surface of the second light pipe is smaller than a diameter of the light output surface of the first light pipe as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, one would change the relative diameter in order to further uniformize the light.
Regarding claim 4, Mizushima is silent regarding wherein a diameter of a light output surface of the second light pipe is larger than a diameter of the light input surface of the second light pipe.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a diameter of a light output surface of the second light pipe is larger than a diameter of the light input surface of the second light pipe as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, one would change the relative diameter in order to have an irradiation range on the sample that is expanded.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizushima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US 2017/0210006 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mizushima teaches a measurement apparatus comprising: the light irradiation apparatus according to claim 1 (supra); but is silent regarding an imager configured to image measurement light generated by light with which a measurement target is irradiated from the light irradiation apparatus.
However, Takahashi teaches an optical measurement device (abstract, Fig. 1, 3) including an imager configured to image measurement light (ref 21) generated by light with which a measurement target (ref 11) is irradiated from the light irradiation apparatus (ref 20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Mizushima with the teaching of Takahashi by including an imager configured to image measurement light generated by light with which a measurement target is irradiated from the light irradiation apparatus as Takahashi teaches that its source is a diffuser, and it would be obvious to measure a target in order to obtain a 3D image of the target.
Regarding claim 7, Mizushima teaches an observation apparatus comprising: the light irradiation apparatus according to claim 1 (supra); but is silent regarding an imager configured to image observation light that is light with which a measurement target is irradiated from the light irradiation apparatus.
However, Takahashi teaches an optical measurement device (abstract, Fig. 1, 3) including an imager configured to image observation light (ref 21) that is light with which a measurement target (ref 11) is irradiated from the light irradiation apparatus (ref 20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Mizushima with the teaching of Takahashi by including an imager configured to image observation light that is light with which a measurement target is irradiated from the light irradiation apparatus as Takahashi teaches that its source is a diffuser, and it would be obvious to measure a target in order to obtain a 3D image of the target.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizushima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinoshita (JP2002122554A).
Regarding claim 8, Mizushima teaches a measurement apparatus comprising: the light irradiation apparatus according to claim 1 (supra); but is silent regarding an imager configured to image observation light that is light with which a measurement target is irradiated from the light irradiation apparatus, and output imaging data; and a film thickness derivation unit configured to derive a film thickness of the measurement target based on the imaging data.
However, Kinoshita teaches a film thickness measurement apparatus (abstract) including an imager configured to image observation light that is light with which a measurement target is irradiated from the light irradiation apparatus, and output imaging data; and a film thickness derivation unit configured to derive a film thickness of the measurement target based on the imaging data (paragraphs [0009], [0016]-[0019], [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Mizushima with the teaching of Kinoshita by including an imager configured to image observation light that is light with which a measurement target is irradiated from the light irradiation apparatus, and output imaging data; and a film thickness derivation unit configured to derive a film thickness of the measurement target based on the imaging data in order to perform measurement on a film.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamamoto (US 2017/0146720) and Inoue (US 2018/0347964) teach conventional optical measurement devices with a diffuser, and could be combined with prior art of record to render the claims obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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 E Geisel can be reached at (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 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights