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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 1 and 13-14, the boundaries of the length measuring optical system 4 is not clear because the dotted lined box is incomplete, i.e. there is no bottom line. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Interferometer with a Movable Retroreflector
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para. [0005], “The remainder of the split laser light is reflected off the fixed mirror and is returns to the beam splitter unit” should be corrected to say -- The remainder of the split laser light is reflected off the fixed mirror and is [returns] returned to the beam splitter unit--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, “an analysis light” should be corrected to say –the analysis light—due to an antecedent basis issue since the claim is dependent on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“first light receiver” and “second light receiver” 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 § 103
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 of this title, 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, 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney et al. (US5638177A), hereinafter Chaney, in view of Sonehara et al. (US 6381015 B1), hereinafter Sonehara, further in view of Heintzmann et al. (WO2016019949A1), hereinafter Heintzmann.
As to claim 1, Chaney teaches an interferometer (claim 1; laser interferometer) comprising:
an analysis optical system including a retroreflector configured to reflect analysis light (claim 1; “a movable retroreflector, mounted to said object… to provide a measurement arm”, thus, reflecting the analysis light) and a first light receiver configured to receive the analysis light and output a first light reception signal (col. 3 ln. 26-32; the detecting aperture of the laser/detector enables “measurement of the displacement of the moving retroreflector 20”, i.e. the output of the first light reception signal), the analysis optical system irradiating a sample (claim 1; the object) with the analysis light and causing the analysis light to interfere (claim 1; fig. 3; The second beam irradiates the moveable retroreflector and the object (measurement arm), and “the beams reflected from the reference and measurement arms being recombined at said beam splitter to form an interference beam which is incident upon a detector”);
a length measuring optical system (claim 1; for measuring displacement of an object) including a laser light source configured to output laser light (claim 1; a laser which generates a principal beam of light), a length measurement component generated when the retroreflector is irradiated with the laser light and output a second light reception signal (claim 5; the second beam before reflection by said moveable retroreflector is described by Chaney as the laser light), the length measuring optical system causing the laser light to interfere (claims 1 and 5; The second beam after reflection by said movable retroreflector is recombined with the reference arm “at said beam splitter to form an interference beam which is incident upon a detector”).
However, Chaney does not explicitly disclose an optical modulator configured to modulate a frequency of the laser light by using a vibrator and add a modulation component to the laser light, and a second light receiver configured to receive the laser light containing the modulation component; and a driver configured to change a position of the retroreflector.
Sonehara, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches an optical modulator configured to modulate a frequency (Sonehara abstract; “modulation frequency”) of the laser light by using a vibrator and add a modulation component to the laser light (Sonehara col. 2 ln. 23-31; “An inspection apparatus using an optical interferometer for executing optical detection by an optical interferometer using a general optical modulator providing phase modulation such as PZT” (piezoelectric vibrator. Thus, the laser light of Chaney may be modulated by using a vibrator and add a modulation component to the laser light, modulating a frequency),
and a second light receiver configured to receive the laser light containing the modulation component (Sonehara col. 2; “First detecting means for detecting the amplitudes of the first signal components; and second detecting means for detecting the amplitudes of the second signal components”. Thus, the second detecting means receives the light containing the modulation component. Thus, the laser light of Chaney may be modulated and sent to the second detecting means).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chaney to incorporate the teachings of Sonehara to include an optical modulator configured to modulate a frequency of the laser light by using a vibrator and add a modulation component to the laser light, and a second light receiver configured to receive the laser light containing the modulation component; for the advantage of enabling stable signal detection and narrow-band reception of signal in order to execute high-sensitivity detection (Sonehara col. 2 ln. 23-31).
Chaney teaches a movable retroreflector (claim 1). However, still lacking the limitation such as a driver configured to change a position of the retroreflector.
Heintzmann, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a driver configured to change a position of the retroreflector (Heintzmann page 5 ln. 34-36; a mechanical drive causes “change in the optical path length difference… which can move at least one of the retroreflectors”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chaney to incorporate the teachings of Heintzmann to include a driver configured to change a position of the retroreflector; for the advantage of more accuracy for exact optical path length differences (Heintzmann page 6 ln. 35-39).
PNG
media_image1.png
1306
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chaney Fig. 3
As to claim 7, Chaney teaches the interferometer according to claim 1.
However, Chaney does not explicitly disclose wherein the driver drives the retroreflector based on a reflector drive signal, and the vibrator is a signal source of the reflector drive signal.
Sonehara, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the vibrator is a signal source (Sonehara col. 2 ln. 23-31; “An inspection apparatus using an optical interferometer for executing optical detection by an optical interferometer using a general optical modulator providing phase modulation such as PZT” (piezoelectric vibrator). Abstract; The PZT modulates the signal from the light source 1. Thus, the PZT is a signal source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chaney to incorporate the teachings of Sonehara to include the vibrator is a signal source; for the advantage of enabling stable signal detection and narrow-band reception of signal in order to execute high-sensitivity detection (Sonehara col. 2 ln. 23-31).
Still lacking the limitations such as wherein the driver drives the retroreflector based on a reflector drive signal, and the signal source of the reflector drive signal.
Heintzmann, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the driver drives the retroreflector based on a reflector drive signal (Heintzmann page 5 ln. 34-36; A mechanical drive causes “change in the optical path length difference… which can move at least one of the retroreflectors”. Page 6 ln. 41-43; The control device 35 “evaluates the interferometer information of the reference radiation measured by the sensors 32 and controls a drive 34” to control an “optical path length”. The interferometer information measured by the sensors 32 depends on the reflected signals from the interferometers. Thus, the control device 35 which controls a drive receives a reflector drive signal in order to control the “change in the optical path length different”. Thus, the mechanical drive drives the retroreflector based on the reflector drive signal),
and the signal source of the reflector drive signal (Heintzmann page 6 ln. 41-43; The control device 35 “evaluates the interferometer information of the reference radiation measured by the sensors 32 and controls a drive 34” to control an “optical path length”. The interferometer information measured by the sensors 32 depends on the radiation source resulting in the reflected signals from the interferometers. Thus, the control device 35 receives the reflector drive signal comprising the signal from the radiation source).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chaney to incorporate the teachings of Heintzmann to include wherein the driver drives the retroreflector based on a reflector drive signal, and the signal source of the reflector drive signal; for the advantage of more accuracy for exact optical path length differences (Heintzmann page 6 ln. 35-39).
As to claim 8, Chaney teaches the interferometer according to claim 1, wherein the analysis optical system includes a light divider (claim 1; beam splitter splits “said principal laser beam into first and second laser beams” and “the beams reflected from the reference and measurement arms being recombined at said beam splitter to form an interference beam which is incident upon a detector”);
and a fixed reflector configured to reflect the other of the two parts, into which the analysis light is divided, toward the light divider, and the fixed reflector has retro-reflectivity (claim 1; “A stationary retroreflector, whose position is fixed with respect to said beam splitter, positioned in the path of said first beam, thereby to provide a reference arm”. The reference arm contains part of the principal laser beam, which is used in the light analysis. The stationary reflector reflects the reference arm toward the beam splitter to be recombined with the measurement arm).
However, Chaney in view of Sonehara does not explicitly disclose the light divider configured to divide the analysis light into two parts and mixes the two parts, into which the analysis light is divided, with each other, the retroreflector configured to reflect one of the two parts, into which the analysis light is divided, toward the light divider.
Heintzmann, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the light divider configured to divide the analysis light into two parts and mixes the two parts, into which the analysis light is divided, with each other (Heintzmann page 5 ln. 23-26; “Input radiation 17 is split by the corresponding beam splitter element 1 into two interferometer partial radiations 18, 19, preferably in the ratio 1: 1. Both interferometer partial beams 18, 19 are reflected by an associated retroreflector 4, 5 and offset. The second beam splitter element 6 combines both interferometer partial radiations into two output radiations 20”. Therefore, the beam splitter elements 1, 6 divide the analysis light into two parts 18, 19 and mixes the two parts 20, into which the analysis light (col. 5 ln. 28-30; one arm of the interferometer) is divided, with each other),
the retroreflector configured to reflect one of the two parts, into which the analysis light is divided, toward the light divider (Heintzmann page 5 ln. 23-26; “Both interferometer partial beams 18, 19 are reflected by an associated retroreflector 4, 5 and offset. The second beam splitter element 6 combines both interferometer partial radiations into two output radiations 20”. Thus, each retroreflector 4, 5 reflects each of the partial beams 18, 19, respectively. The analysis light (col. 5 ln. 28-30; one arm of the interferometer) is divided into one of the two partial beams 18, 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chaney in view of Sonehara to incorporate the teachings of Heintzmann to include the light divider configured to divide the analysis light into two parts and mixes the two parts, into which the analysis light is divided, with each other, the retroreflector configured to reflect one of the two parts, into which the analysis light is divided, toward the light divider; for the advantage of more accuracy for exact optical path length differences (Heintzmann page 6 ln. 35-39).
As to claim 9, Chaney teaches the interferometer according to claim 1, wherein the retroreflector includes a corner cube prism (col. 2 ln. 66 – col. 3 ln. 3; large corner-cube retroreflector 20 which constitutes a measurement arm).
As to claim 11, Chaney teaches the interferometer according to claim 1, wherein the retroreflector includes a corner cube mirror (col. 2 ln. 66 – col. 3 ln. 3; large corner-cube retroreflector 20 which constitutes a measurement arm).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney in view of Sonehara and Heintzmann, further in view of Manning et al. (US 9557221 B1), hereinafter Manning.
As to claim 2, Chaney teaches the interferometer according to claim 1, wherein the retroreflector has
a retroreflection surface that has retro-reflectivity and reflects the analysis light and the laser light (fig. 3; claim 5; the movable retroreflector reflects the second beam before reflection (i.e. laser light) and reflects the second beam after reflection (i.e. analysis light)).
However, Chaney in view of Sonehara and Heintzmann does not explicitly disclose a slider at which the retroreflection surface is placed and which is driven by the driver.
Manning, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a slider at which the retroreflection surface is placed and which is driven by the driver (Manning col. 12 ln. 44-48; fig. 2; “The reciprocating movement of the retroreflector which is symbolized by the double arrow S… can be a translatory movement where the retroreflector 111, 211 is guided for example by a slide track”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chaney in view of Sonehara and Heintzmann to incorporate the teachings of Manning to include a slider at which the retroreflection surface is placed and which is driven by the driver; for the advantage of enhanced precise translatory movement, ensuring accurate movements (Manning col. 12 ln. 44-48).
PNG
media_image2.png
680
1058
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Manning Fig. 2
As to claim 3, Chaney teaches the interferometer according to claim 2, wherein a position where the analysis light is reflected at the retroreflection surface and a position where the laser light is reflected at the retroreflection surface differ from each other (fig. 3; claim 5; the position of the second beam before reflection and the position of the second beam after reflection take place at the movable retroreflector 220, but at different positions as shown in fig. 3 second beam 212B, two parallel lines which follow the path to/from the retroreflector 220).
As to claim 4, Chaney teaches the interferometer according to claim 1, wherein the retroreflector has an analysis light reflecting surface that has retro-reflectivity and reflects the analysis light (fig. 3; claim 1; the “movable retroreflector… to provide a measurement arm”, i.e. the analysis light),
and a laser light reflecting surface that reflects the laser light (fig. 3; claim 5; “second beam before reflection by said movable retroreflector”, reflects the laser light back from the retroreflector 220).
However, Chaney in view of Sonehara and Heintzmann does not explicitly disclose a slider at which the analysis light reflecting surface and the laser light reflecting surface are placed and which is driven by the driver.
Manning, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a slider at which the analysis light reflecting surface and the laser light reflecting surface are placed and which is driven by the driver (Manning fig. 2; The first arm A1 is described by Manning as the laser light, and returning first partial beam A1 is described by Manning as the analysis light. Col. 12 ln. 44-48; fig. 2; “The reciprocating movement of the retroreflector which is symbolized by the double arrow S… can be a translatory movement where the retroreflector 111, 211 is guided for example by a slide track”. Thus, the first arm A1 and returning first partial beam A1 are placed on the slide track. The slide track moves in combination with the mechanical drive of Heintzmann).
As to claim 5, Chaney teaches the interferometer according to claim 4, wherein the laser light reflecting surface has retro-reflectivity (fig. 3; claim 5; “second beam before reflection by said movable retroreflector”, reflects the laser light back from the retroreflector 220, which has retro-reflectivity).
As to claim 6, Chaney teaches the interferometer according to claim 4, wherein the analysis light reflecting surface and the laser light reflecting surface face away from each other (fig. 3; the retroreflectors 216, 220 do not face each other, and thus, face away from each other).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaney in view of Sonehara, Heintzmann and Manning, further in view of Lin (CN202018521U).
As to claim 10, Chaney teaches the interferometer according to claim 9.
However, Chaney in view of Sonehara, Heintzmann and Manning does not explicitly disclose wherein the retroreflector includes an antireflection film provided at a light incident surface of the corner cube prism.
Lin, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the retroreflector includes an antireflection film provided at a light incident surface of the corner cube prism (Lin abstract; “A novel corner-cube prism comprises a corner-cube prism, wherein the corner-cube prism is provided with three right-angled reflecting surfaces, and the three right-angled reflecting surfaces of the corner-cube prism are respectively coated with an anti-reflection film layer”. Thus, the retroreflector can include an anti-reflection film layer, provided at a light incident surface, i.e. the right-angled reflecting surfaces).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chaney in view of Sonehara, Heintzmann and Manning to incorporate the teachings of Lin to include wherein the retroreflector includes an antireflection film provided at a light incident surface of the corner cube prism; for the advantage of improved working precision and simplicity (Lin abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kemaya Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-9078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 11 am – 8 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. 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.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877