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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2024 and 08/29/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,416,471. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a control system connected to the one or more actuation systems, the control system configured to send a signal to the rapid actuator to adjust the rotation shaft of the rotary stepper motor to thereby rotate the associated refractive optical element about its rotation axis” renders claims 1-33 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10,416,471.
Claims 1-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,845,610. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a plurality of right-angled prisms through which the pulsed light beam is transmitted so that the pulsed light beam changes its magnification as it passes through each right-angled prism” renders claims 1-33 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,845,610.
Claims 1-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,561,407. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “at least one actuation system comprising a rapid actuator” and “a beam expander including a plurality of prisms arranged in a path between the dispersive optical element and an aperture” renders claims 1-33 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,561,407.
Claims 1-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,053. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a beam expander including a plurality of refractive optical elements arranged in a path of the pulsed light beam between the dispersive optical element and the pulsed optical source” renders claims 1-33 as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,053.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokitski et al. (US 2014/0104614; already of record) in view of Ershov et al. (US 7,885,309; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Rokitski discloses, a spectral feature selection apparatus (Figs. 1-3B) comprising:
a grating (380) arranged to interact with a pulsed light beam (110) produced by an optical source (105, 130);
a plurality of prisms (382, 384, 386, 388) arranged in a path of the pulsed light beam between the grating (380) and the optical source (105, 130) including a first prism farthest from the grating (see Fig. 3B); and
an actuation system (Para. 0069-0071 and see Fig. 3A) associated with the first prism, the actuation system comprising:
a drive mechanism (352, 354, 356, 358) having a rotation shaft configured to rotate about a shaft axis (Para. 0070-0072).
Rokitski does not disclose an extending arm comprising a first region mechanically linked to the shaft axis and a second region offset from the shaft axis such that the second region is not intersected by the shaft axis; wherein the first prism is mechanically linked to the second region.
Ershov teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus (Fig. 23) that it would have been desirable to make an extending arm (140, 560) comprising a first region mechanically linked to the shaft axis (see region of 140, 560 adjacent to 148, 582) and a second region offset from the shaft axis (see region of 140, 560 adjacent to 568) such that the second region is not intersected by the shaft axis (see Fig. 23); wherein the first prism is mechanically linked to the second region (see Fig. 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an extending arm comprising a first region mechanically linked to the shaft axis and a second region offset from the shaft axis such that the second region is not intersected by the shaft axis; wherein the first prism is mechanically linked to the second region as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Ershov in the spectral feature selection apparatus of Rokitski since Ershov teaches it is known to include these features in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a spectral feature selection apparatus with reduced size and costs.
Regarding claim 2, Rokitski in view of Ershov discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, the grating and the plurality of prisms are arranged in an XY plane and the shaft axis is perpendicular to the XY plane (see Figs. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 3, Rokitski in view of Ershov discloses and teaches as set forth above, Ershov further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus that it would have been desirable to make the second region is offset from the first region along the XY plane (Fig. 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Ershov in the spectral feature selection apparatus of Rokitski since Ershov teaches it is known to include these features in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a spectral feature selection apparatus with reduced size and costs.
Regarding claim 12, Rokitski in view of Ershov discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, the drive mechanism is configured to rotate the first region by way of the shaft axis to thereby rotate the extending arm about the shaft axis and impart a combined movement to the first prism in the XY plane (Para. 0070-0072 and see 352, 354, 356, 358).
Regarding claim 13, Rokitski in view of Ershov discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, a secondary actuator physically coupled to the first prism, the secondary actuator configured to rotate the first prism about an axis that lies in the XY plane and also lies in a plane of a hypotenuse of the first prism (Para. 0070-0072 and see 352, 354, 356, 358).
Regarding claim 14, Rokitski in view of Ershov discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, the secondary actuator is configured to displace the first prism in a direction perpendicular to the XY plane to enable control over where the light beam enters the hypotenuse of the first prism (Para. 0070-0072 and see 352, 354, 356, 358).
Regarding claim 15, Rokitski in view of Ershov discloses and teaches as set forth above, Ershov further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus that it would have been desirable to include a control system (Para. 0070-0072 and 185) connected to the actuation system, the control system configured to send a signal to the actuation system based on one or more instructions from a photolithography exposure apparatus (115) configured to receive an output light beam produced from the pulsed light beam of the optical source (Para. 0054-0055 and Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 17, Rokitski in view of Ershov discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, the drive mechanism comprises a rotary motor (Para. 0070-0072).
Regarding claim 18, Rokitski discloses, an illumination system comprising:
an optical source (105) configured to produce a pulsed light beam (110); and
a spectral feature selection apparatus (Figs. 1-3B) comprising:
a grating (380) arranged to interact with a pulsed light beam (110) produced by an optical source (105, 130);
a plurality of prisms (382, 384, 386, 388) arranged in a path of the pulsed light beam between the grating (380) and the optical source (105, 130) including a first prism farthest from the grating (see Fig. 3B); and
an actuation system (Para. 0069-0071 and see Fig. 3A) associated with the first prism, the actuation system comprising:
a drive mechanism (352, 354, 356, 358) having a rotation shaft configured to rotate about a shaft axis (Para. 0070-0072).
Rokitski does not disclose an extending arm comprising a first region mechanically linked to the shaft axis and a second region offset from the shaft axis such that the second region is not intersected by the shaft axis; wherein the first prism is mechanically linked to the second region.
Ershov teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus (Fig. 23) that it would have been desirable to make an extending arm (140, 560) comprising a first region mechanically linked to the shaft axis (see region of 140, 560 adjacent to 148, 582) and a second region offset from the shaft axis (see region of 140, 560 adjacent to 568) such that the second region is not intersected by the shaft axis (see Fig. 23); wherein the first prism is mechanically linked to the second region (see Fig. 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an extending arm comprising a first region mechanically linked to the shaft axis and a second region offset from the shaft axis such that the second region is not intersected by the shaft axis; wherein the first prism is mechanically linked to the second region as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Ershov in the spectral feature selection apparatus of Rokitski since Ershov teaches it is known to include these features in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a spectral feature selection apparatus with reduced size and costs.
Regarding claim 19, Rokitski in view of Ershov discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Ershov further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus that it would have been desirable to make the grating and the plurality of prisms are arranged in an XY plane, the shaft axis is perpendicular to the XY plane, and the second region is offset from the first region along the XY plane (see Fig. 23); and the drive mechanism is configured to rotate the first region by way of the shaft axis to thereby rotate the extending arm about the shaft axis and impart a combined movement to the first prism in the XY plane (see Fig. 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an extending arm comprising a first region mechanically linked to the shaft axis and a second region offset from the shaft axis such that the second region is not intersected by the shaft axis; wherein the first prism is mechanically linked to the second region as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Ershov in the spectral feature selection apparatus of Rokitski since Ershov teaches it is known to include these features in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a spectral feature selection apparatus with reduced size and costs.
Regarding claim 20, Rokitski in view of Ershov discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, the combined movement to the first prism in the XY plane comprises a translation of the first prism in the XY plane and a rotation of the first prism in the XY plane (Para. 0070-0072); and the translation of the first prism in the XY plane is configured to translate a surface of the first prism that interacts with the pulsed light beam to thereby adjust an area at which the pulsed light beam interacts with the grating (Para. 0070-0072).
Regarding claim 21, Rokitski in view of Ershov discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, the translation of the first prism in the XY plane translates the pulsed light beam along a direction parallel with a longer axis of a surface of the grating, the longer axis being parallel with the XY plane (Para. 0049-0050, 0067 and see Figs. 3A-B); and the translation of the first prism in the XY plane translates the pulsed light beam along the direction parallel with the longer axis of the grating surface from a first region to a higher wavefront distortion region of the grating surface to thereby increase a spectral bandwidth of the pulsed light beam (Para. 0049-0050, 0067 and see Figs. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 22, Rokitski in view of Ershov discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, the increase in spectral bandwidth of the pulsed light beam due to the translation of the first prism in the XY plane adds to the increase in spectral bandwidth of the pulsed light beam due to the rotation of the first prism in the XY plane (Para. 0049-0050, 0067 and see Figs. 3A-B).
Claims 4-11 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokitski et al. (US 2014/0104614; already of record) in view of Ershov et al. (US 7,885,309; already of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsunaga (US 2015/0380893; already of record).
Rokitski in view of Ershov remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Rokitski in view of Ershov does not disclose the drive mechanism is configured to rotate the first region by way of the shaft axis to thereby rotate the extending arm about the shaft axis and impart a combined movement to the first prism in the XY plane.
Matsunaga teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus that it would have been desirable to make the drive mechanism is configured to rotate the first region by way of the shaft axis to thereby rotate the extending arm about the shaft axis and impart a combined movement to the first prism in the XY plane (Para. 0078-0082 and see 32, 34, 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the drive mechanism is configured to rotate the first region by way of the shaft axis to thereby rotate the extending arm about the shaft axis and impart a combined movement to the first prism in the XY plane as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Matsunaga in the combination of Rokitski in view of Ershov since Matsunaga teaches it is known to include this feature in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a compact spectral feature selection apparatus with increased resolution.
Regarding claim 5, Rokitski, Ershov and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Matsunaga further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus that it would have been desirable to make the combined movement to the first prism in the XY plane comprises a translation of the first prism in the XY plane and a rotation of the first prism in the XY plane (Para. 0078-0082 and Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Matsunaga in the combination of Rokitski in view of Ershov since Matsunaga teaches it is known to include this feature in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a compact spectral feature selection apparatus with increased resolution.
Regarding claim 6, Rokitski, Ershov and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Matsunaga further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus that it would have been desirable to make the translation of the first prism in the XY plane comprises a motion along a direction perpendicular to the shaft axis (Para. 0078-0082 and Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Matsunaga in the combination of Rokitski in view of Ershov since Matsunaga teaches it is known to include this feature in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a compact spectral feature selection apparatus with increased resolution.
Regarding claim 7, Rokitski, Ershov and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Matsunaga further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus that it would have been desirable to make the translation of the first prism in the XY plane comprises a linear translation in the XY plane (Para. 0070-0072 and see 352, 354, 356, 358).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Matsunaga in the combination of Rokitski in view of Ershov since Matsunaga teaches it is known to include this feature in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a compact spectral feature selection apparatus with increased resolution.
Regarding claim 8, Rokitski, Ershov and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Matsunaga further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus that it would have been desirable to make the translation of the first prism in the XY plane is configured to translate a surface of the first prism that interacts with the pulsed light beam to thereby adjust an area at which the pulsed light beam interacts with the grating (Para. 0070-0072 and see 352, 354, 356, 358).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Matsunaga in the combination of Rokitski in view of Ershov since Matsunaga teaches it is known to include this feature in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a compact spectral feature selection apparatus with increased resolution.
Regarding claim 9, Rokitski, Ershov and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Matsunaga further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus that it would have been desirable to make the translation of the first prism in the XY plane translates the pulsed light beam along a direction parallel with a longer axis of a surface of the grating, the longer axis being parallel with the XY plane (Para. 0070-0072 and see 352, 354, 356, 358).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Matsunaga in the combination of Rokitski in view of Ershov since Matsunaga teaches it is known to include this feature in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a compact spectral feature selection apparatus with increased resolution.
Regarding claim 10, Rokitski, Ershov and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Matsunaga further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus that it would have been desirable to make the translation of the first prism in the XY plane translates the pulsed light beam along the direction parallel with the longer axis of the grating surface from a first region to a higher wavefront distortion region of the grating surface to thereby increase a spectral bandwidth of the pulsed light beam (Para. 0070-0072 and see 352, 354, 356, 358).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Matsunaga in the combination of Rokitski in view of Ershov since Matsunaga teaches it is known to include this feature in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a compact spectral feature selection apparatus with increased resolution.
Regarding claim 11, Rokitski, Ershov and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, the increase in spectral bandwidth of the pulsed light beam due to the translation of the first prism in the XY plane adds to the increase in spectral bandwidth of the pulsed light beam due to the rotation of the first prism in the XY plane (Para. 0049-0050, 0067 and 0070-0072).
Regarding claim 23, Rokitski, Ershov and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Matsunaga further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus that it would have been desirable to make the drive mechanism is configured to rotate the first region by way of the shaft axis to thereby rotate the extending arm about the shaft axis and impart a combined movement to the first prism in the XY plane (Para. 0078-0082 and Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Matsunaga in the combination of Rokitski in view of Ershov since Matsunaga teaches it is known to include this feature in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a compact spectral feature selection apparatus with increased resolution.
Regarding claim 24, Rokitski, Ershov and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, a secondary actuator physically coupled to the first prism, the secondary actuator configured to rotate the first prism about an axis that lies in the XY plane and also lies in a plane of a hypotenuse of the first prism (Para. 0070-0072 and see 352, 354, 356, 358); wherein the secondary actuator is configured to displace the first prism a direction parallel to the shaft axis to enable control over where the light beam enters the hypotenuse of the first prism (Para. 0070-0072 and see 352, 354, 356, 358).
Regarding claim 25, Rokitski, Ershov and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Matsunaga further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus that it would have been desirable to make the combined movement to the first prism in the XY plane comprises a translation of the first prism in the XY plane and a rotation of the first prism in the XY plane (Para. 0078-0082 and Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Matsunaga in the combination of Rokitski in view of Ershov since Matsunaga teaches it is known to include this feature in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a compact spectral feature selection apparatus with increased resolution.
Regarding claim 26, Rokitski, Ershov and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, the optical source comprises a master oscillator providing a seed light beam to a power amplifier, the spectral feature selection apparatus configured to receive a light beam from the master oscillator (Para. 0028, 0061 and 0063).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokitski et al. (US 2014/0104614; already of record) in view of Ershov et al. (US 7,885,309; already of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (US 2019/0181607; already of record).
Rokitski in view of Ershov remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Rokitski in view of Ershov does not disclose the grating and the plurality of prisms are arranged in a Littrow configuration.
Miyamoto teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection apparatus that it would have been desirable to make the grating and the plurality of prisms are arranged in a Littrow configuration (Para. 0047).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the grating and the plurality of prisms are arranged in a Littrow configuration as taught by the spectral feature selection apparatus of Miyamoto in the combination of Rokitski in view of Ershov since Miyamoto teaches it is known to include this feature in a spectral feature selection apparatus for the purpose of providing a spectral feature selection apparatus with reduced size and enhanced resolution.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokitski et al. (US 2014/0104614; already of record) in view of Das et al. (US 5,978,409; already of record).
Regarding claim 27, Rokitski discloses, a spectral feature selection method (Figs. 1-3B) comprising:
adjusting a wavelength of a pulsed light beam (110) produced by an optical source (105) by changing an angle of incidence (Para. 0070-0072) at which the pulsed light beam impinges upon a diffractive surface of a grating (Para. 0070-0072 and 380); and
adjusting a bandwidth of the pulsed light beam (Para. 0049-0050, 0067 and 0070-0072) by:
illuminating a higher wavefront distortion region of the diffractive surface of the grating by applying a combined rotational and translational motion to a first prism farthest from the grating (Para. 0049-050, 0067 and 0070-0072).
Rokitski does not disclose adjusting a bandwidth of the pulsed light beam by: changing an optical magnification of the pulsed light beam impinging upon the diffractive surface of the grating.
Das teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection method that it would have been desirable to include adjusting a bandwidth of the pulsed light beam by: changing an optical magnification of the pulsed light beam (Col. 2, lines 32-51 and Fig. 3) impinging upon the diffractive surface of the grating (Col. 1, lines 50-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include adjusting a bandwidth of the pulsed light beam by: changing an optical magnification of the pulsed light beam impinging upon the diffractive surface of the grating as taught by the spectral feature selection method of Das in the spectral feature selection method of Rokitski since Das teaches it is known to include this feature in a spectral feature selection method for the purpose of providing an effective and low cost spectral feature selection method.
Claims 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rokitski et al. (US 2014/0104614; already of record) in view of Das et al. (US 5,978,409; already of record) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Matsunaga et al. (2015/0380893; already of record).
Rokitski in view of Das remains as applied to claim 27 above.
Rokitski in view of Das does not disclose the combined motion to the first prism is caused by a rotation of a shaft axis fixed to a first region of an extending arm and the first prism being fixed to a second region of the extending arm.
Matsunaga teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection method (Fig. 4) that it would have been desirable to make the combined motion to the first prism (32) is caused by a rotation of a shaft axis fixed to a first region of an extending arm and the first prism being fixed to a second region of the extending arm (Para. 0079-0082 and see 32, 36, 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the combined motion to the first prism is caused by a rotation of a shaft axis fixed to a first region of an extending arm and the first prism being fixed to a second region of the extending arm as taught by the spectral feature selection method of Matsunaga in the combination of Rokitski in view of Das since Matsunaga teaches it is known to include this feature in a spectral feature selection method for the purpose of providing a spectral feature selection method with increased resolution.
Regarding claim 29, Rokitski, Das and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Matsunaga further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a spectral feature selection method that it would have been desirable to make the grating and the first prism are arranged in an XY plane, and wherein rotation of the first region by way of the shaft axis rotates the extending arm about the shaft axis and imparts the combined motion to the first prism in the XY plane (Para. 0079-0082 and see 32, 36, 38 and 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the spectral feature selection method of Matsunaga in the combination of Rokitski in view of Das since Matsunaga teaches it is known to include this feature in a spectral feature selection method for the purpose of providing a spectral feature selection method with increased resolution.
Regarding claim 30, Rokitski, Das and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, the translational motion to the first prism comprises a translation of the first prism in the XY plane and the rotational motion to the first prism comprises a rotation of the first prism in the XY plane (Para. 0070-0072 and see 352, 354, 356, 358).
Regarding claim 31, Rokitski, Das and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, the translation of the first prism in the XY plane comprises translating a surface of the first prism that interacts with the pulsed light beam to thereby adjust an area at which the pulsed light beam interacts with the grating (Para. 0070-0072 and see 352, 354, 356, 358).
Regarding claim 32, Rokitski, Das and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, the translation of the first prism in the XY plane comprises translating the pulsed light beam along a direction parallel with a longer axis of the diffractive surface of the grating, the longer axis being parallel with the XY plane (Para. 0070-0072 and see 352, 354, 356, 358).
Regarding claim 33, Rokitski, Das and Matsunaga discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Rokitski further discloses, the translation of the first prism in the XY plane comprises translating the pulsed light beam along the direction parallel with the longer axis of the diffractive surface of the grating from a first region to a higher wavefront distortion region of the diffractive surface to thereby increase a spectral bandwidth of the pulsed light beam (Para. 0070-0072 and see 352, 354, 356, 358).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 06/26/2026
Prosecution Insights