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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 22, 2025, has been entered.
This Office Action is also in response to applicant’s amendment filed on September 22, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1 and 2.
Claims 1-15 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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 has been amended to include the phrase “such that said first band of electromagnetic waves and said second band of electromagnetic waves enter the first end without incidence on a redirecting element” that is not supported and enable by the disclosure of the specification of originally filed. Specifically, the instant application discloses that at least one of the light paths of the first band or second band of the electromagnetic waves is orthogonal to the light pipe (please see Figure 1 of the instant application), a redirecting element is required to make both the first band and the second band of the electromagnetic waves enter the first end of the light pipe.
The claims are not enabled by the specification of originally filed.
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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 includes the phrase “first band of electromagnetic waves and said second band of electromagnetic waves are together disposed at wavelengths of a band of about 2300 nm. This makes the scopes of claim 2 confusing since claim 2 claims the electromagnetic waves are wave selected from the group consisting of ultraviolet with a wavelength band of 200 to about 400 nm, infrared and visible light. The visible light wave has a wavelength band of 400 to 700 nm. It is therefore not clear if 200 to 400 nm or 400 to 700 nm are being regarded as “about 2300 nm”. The scopes of the claims 1 and 2 therefore are not clear.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent issued to Ortyn et al (PN. 5,677,762) in view of the US patent application publication by Shchegrov et al (US 2013/0169966 A1), the US patent application publication by Zhao et al (US 2020/0401027) and the patent issued to Swanson et al (PN. 5,298,939).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Ortyn et al teaches an analyzing system serves as the configurable tester system that is comprised of a first optical channel (please see Figure 1) comprising a first light path for the transversal of a first band of electromagnetic wave, a third optical channel for receiving a third light path (directed by the turning mirror 32), wherein the third optical channel comprising a homogenizing module for homogenizing electromagnetic waves, wherein the homogenizing module comprises a light pipe (40, Figures 1 and 2) for receiving the electromagnetic wave at a first end and supplying a homogenized output of the electromagnetic waves at a second end (output end 41) and a wall comprising an output aperture (41) configured to disposed in an optical path of the light guide, wherein the wall separating a first space from a second space and the light pipe is disposed within the first space with the second end of light pipe disposed adjacent the aperture, (please see Figure 2) and the light pipe optically connected to the second space, (please see Figures 1 and 2). Ortyn et al teaches that the electromagnetic wave is disposed at wavelength at about 570 nm which is falling in the range of about 200 to 2500 nm, (please see column 6, lines 56-57).
This reference has met all the limitations of the claims. It however does not teach explicitly to include a second optical channel comprising a second light path for the transversal of a second band of electromagnetic waves.
Shchegrov et al in the same field of the endeavor teaches an illumination sources for a tester system that is comprised of at least one laser source and a broadband lamp equipped with a wavelength switchable spectral filter, (402a-402c, please see Figure 4A and paragraph [0060]). Furthermore, the illumination source (102) further comprises dichroic beam combiner (404a-404c and 406) for combining the first light path and the second light path to form a third light path. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Shchegrov et al to modify the illumination source of Ortyn et al to include a second light source such as a broadband lamp for the benefit of allowing providing more than one light sources with different electromagnetic wavelength bands to be utilized in the analyzing process.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “first band of electromagnetic waves and the second band of electromagnetic waves enter the first end without in incidence on a redirecting element”. This phrase is rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth above.
These references do not teach such explicitly. Zhao et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a laser projection apparatus that is comprised a light pipe (203, Figure 1c) for receiving a first band of electromagnetic waves and a second band of electromagnetic waves to permit the waves to propagate from a first end of the pipe to a second end of pipe. Zhao et al teaches that the laser pipe does not have any aperture or other redirecting optical elements at the first end which implicitly means the electromagnetic waves are propagated without redirection at the first end of the pipe before supplying a homogenized output of the electromagnetic waves at the second end. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Zhao et al to modify the light pipe of the homogenizing module to alternatively without any aperture or other optical means for the benefit of allowing the electromagnetic waves are propagated without redirection at the first end.
These references further do not teach explicitly that the light pipe is a fused silica light pipe.
Swanson et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a homogenizing module for homogenizing electromagnetic waves wherein the homogenizing module comprises a light pipe (307, Figure 3b) configured for receiving the electromagnetic wave wherein the light pipe is made of fused silica which makes it a fused silica light pipe, (please see column 6, lines 29-32).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Swanson et al to modify the light pipe of the homogenizing module to make the light pipe be made by art well-known optical material.
Claim 1 has further teaches that the “wavelengths of a band about 2300 nm”. These references do not teach explicitly that the wavelengths of the electromagnetic waves are a band about 2300 nm, however such modification is considered obvious matters of intended used for the benefit of using desired light sources as the illumination source.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “said light pipe having a first end with an unobscured front surface that is free of any aperture wall”.
Zhao et al teaches alternatively that the electromagnetic waves may enter into the light pipe (203, Figure 1c) with an unobscured front surface that is free of any aperture wall. Swanson et al also teaches that the electromagnetic waves may enter into the first end (306, Figure 3b) of the light pipe (30) for homogenizing with an unobscured front surface that is free of any aperture wall. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to arrange the first end (input end) of the light pipe to have no aperture wall for the benefit of controlling the shape of the electromagnetic waves entering the light pipe.
With regard to claim 2, in light of amendment to claim 1, the scopes of claim are confusing and in conflict with scope of claim 1 for the reasons set forth above. Ortyn et al teaches that the electromagnetic waves are waves may have wavelength 570 nm, (please see column 6, lines 57-58) that belongs to visible light spectrum. Swanson et al teaches that the electromagnetic waves may be generated from a mercury arc lamp (please see column 19, lines 27-28) have a wavelength in the range of 300 nm to 400 nm, or typically 300 to 600 nm that may include ultraviolet and visible light. The electromagnetic waves are waves selected from the groups consisting ultraviolet spectrum and visible light.
With regard to claim 3, Ortyn et al teaches that the module further comprises at least one lens (30, Figures 1 and 2) for focusing the electromagnetic waves onto the first end of the light pipe. Swanson et al teaches to include at least one lens (306, Figure 3b, please see column 6, lines 29) for focusing the electromagnetic wave at a first end of the light pipe.
With regard to claims 4 and 5, Ortyn et al also teaches that the homogenizing module further comprises a lens system that comprises two singlets (59 and 70, or 59 and 64, Figure 2) for focusing the homogenizing output onto an image plane (20 or 65), that implicitly includes a device under test. In light of amendment to claim 5, Zhao et al teaches that the lens system may comprise aspheric lenses, (please see paragraph [0151]).
With regard to claim 12, Ortyn et al teaches to include lens for receiving output form the homogenizing module, (59 and/or 64 please see Figure 1).
With regard to claims 14 and 15, Ortyn et al teaches a first light source configured to output the first band of electromagnetic waves. Shchegrov et al teaches to include a second light source configured to output the second band of electromagnetic waves.
that the electromagnetic waves are electromagnetic waves disposed through at least one spectral bandpass filter (28, Figures 1 and 2, column 6, line 58).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortyn et al, Shchegrov et al, Zhao et al and Swanson et as applied to claims 1 and 4 and further in view of the US patent application publication by Moriwaka (US 2005/0079645 A1).
The analyzing system with the homogenizing module taught by Ortyn et al in combination with the teachings of Shchegrov et al, Zhao et al and Swanson et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 6, these references teach to include a lens system for focusing the homogenized output to an image plane, but it does not teach explicitly that the lens system comprises a doublet. Moriwaka in the same field of endeavor teaches a beam homogenizer that is comprised of a doublet (306, Figure 3B) for focusing the homogenized output beam to an image plane (307). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Moriwaka to alternatively use a doublet for focusing the output homogenized beam for the benefit of using art well known lens system to achieve the focusing function for a reduced cost.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortyn et al, Shchegrov et al, Zhao et al and Swanson et al as applied to claim 1 and further in view of the US patent application publication by Hemar et al (US 2002/0186879 A1).
The analyzing system with the homogenizing module taught by Ortyn et al in combination with the teachings of Shchegrov et al, Zhao et al and Swanson et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 7, these references do not teach that the aperture comprises a diameter of about 1 to about 4 mm. With regard to claim 8, these references also do not teach explicitly that the aperture is configured in a shape selected from claimed group. Hemar et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a homogenizer (5, Figure 1) with an exit aperture (7) that may assume circular shape. Hemar et al also teaches that different diameter of the circular shaped aperture may be used to adjust the coherence condition of the illumination beam from the homogenizer, (please see paragraph [0041]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hemar et al to modify the aperture to assume a circular shape and to adjust the size or diameter of the circular shape for the benefit of shaping and conditioning the homogenized beam. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the aperture has a diameter of 1 to 4 mm, such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art since it has been held when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortyn et al, Shchegrov et al, Zhao et al and Swanson et al as applied to claim 1 and further in view of the US patent application publication by Tsumura et al (US 2003/0016349 A1).
The analyzing system with the homogenizing module taught by Ortyn et al in combination with the teachings of Shchegrov et al, Zhao et al and Swanson et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, these references do not teach explicitly to comprise a goniometer configured to control the orientation of a device under test in the light path.
Tsumura et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a goniometer (37, Figures 2 and 3) configured to control the orientation of the device under test in the light path. Tsumura et al further teaches to include a stage (31) for supporting the goniometer wherein the stage may be an XY table that is allowed to be moved in a direction perpendicular to the measuring beam, (please see paragraph [0099]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Tsumura et al to modify the analyzing system to include a goniometer for the benefit allowing the orientation of the device under test in the measuring light path.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortyn et al, Shchegrov et al, Zhao et al and Swanson et al as applied to claim 1 and further in view of the US patent issued to Moosmuller et al (PN. 7,173,697).
The analyzing system with the homogenizing module taught by Ortyn et al in combination with the teachings of Shchegrov et al, Zhao et al and Swanson et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 11, these references do not teach explicitly to include an integration sphere for receiving an output. Moosmuller et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that is known in the art to use an integrating sphere (150, Figure 1) to receive output from the homogenizing module. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Moosmuller et al to modify the analyzing system to include an integrating sphere for the benefit of more effectively receiving and colleting the output from the homogenizing module.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortyn et al, Shchegrov et al, Zhao et al and Swanson et al as applied to claim 1 and further in view of the US patent issued to Kaplan (PN. 5,629,766).
The analyzing system with the homogenizing module taught by Ortyn et al in combination with the teachings of Shchegrov et al, Zhao et al and Swanson et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 13, these references do not teach to further comprise a modulation transfer function (MTF) imaging camera configured to receive an output. Kaplan in the same field of endeavor teaches a MTF measurement system wherein a MTF camera (20, Figure 1) is used to receive output. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kaplan to utilize a MTF camera in the analyzing system for the benefit of allowing a MTF measurement may be achieved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended claims that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection. Applicant being one skilled in the art must have the basic knowledge that whether having an aperture wall at the first end of the light pipe only control the beam shape of the electromagnetic waves but not affecting the homogenization of the waves by the light pipe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872