DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of figure 3, claims 1-11 and 14-15 in the reply filed on 6/04/2026 is acknowledged.
It is noted that there is allowable subject matter indicated below. Therefore, if there is an amendment such that the non-elected claims include all the limitations of an allowable claim, then the restriction may be withdrawn and the non-elected claims may be allowed.
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: moving mechanism in claim 9.
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
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.
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 1, 5-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over De Lega (US 20040252310 A1) in view of Tafas (US 6320174 B1) and Hara (4508453 A).
Regarding claim 1, De Lega teaches a conventional optical interference microscopic system adapted to measure an object to be measured, wherein the optical interference microscopic system comprises:
at least one light source (100) configured to emit illumination light, wherein the illumination light is configured to illuminate the object to be measured (120) and is reflected by the object to be measured into a light to be measured (figure 1; paragraph 42);
an objective lens array device (110, 111) comprising objective lens (figure 1; paragraph 42);
a sensor comprising at least a first sensor (140).
.
PNG
media_image1.png
548
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
De Lega doesn’t explicitly teach the objective lenses are a plurality; a plurality of waveguides receiving the light to be measured passed through the objective lens array device; the sensors are a plurality comprising a second sensor; wherein the plurality of waveguides comprise at least one first waveguide transmitting the light to be measured in a first direction and at least one second waveguide transmitting the light to be measured in a second direction, and the first direction is different from the second direction, wherein the light to be measured outputted from the at least one first waveguide enters the first sensor, and the light to be measured outputted from the at least one second waveguide enters the second sensor
Like De Lega (and like the instant application), Tafas is directed to an optical microscope and teaches the objective lenses are a plurality (110; figures 1-2; column 4, lines 1-10); a plurality of optical elements receiving the light to be measured passed through the objective lens array device (figures 1-2); the sensors are a plurality comprising a second sensor (CCD camera array, 130); wherein the plurality of optical elements comprise at least one first optical element transmitting the light to be measured in a first direction and at least one second optical element transmitting the light to be measured in a second direction (figures 1-2), , wherein the light to be measured outputted from the at least one first optical element enters the first sensor, and the light to be measured outputted from the at least one second optical element enters the second sensor (figures 1-2). Additionally, Tafas teaches this provides the benefit of scanning a large area of a sample in a small amount of time (abstract).
PNG
media_image2.png
704
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
772
346
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify De Lega such that the objective lenses are a plurality; a plurality of optical elements receiving the light to be measured passed through the objective lens array device; the sensors are a plurality comprising a second sensor; wherein the plurality of optical elements comprise at least one first optical element transmitting the light to be measured in a first direction and at least one second optical element transmitting the light to be measured in a second direction, wherein the light to be measured outputted from the at least one first optical element enters the first sensor, and the light to be measured outputted from the at least one second optical element enters the second sensor – in order to measure a large area of the sample in a small amount of time.
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the optical elements are waveguides; the first direction is different from the second direction.
Like the above combination (and like the instant application), Hara is also directed to an optical measurement system with multiple objective lenses and teaches an objective lens array device comprising a plurality of objective lenses (6, 6’); a plurality of waveguides (27, 27’) receiving the light to be measured passed through the objective lens array device; and a plurality of sensors (28, 28’) comprising at least a first sensor and a second sensor (figure 9; for context, see figures 5 and 11-12), wherein the plurality of waveguides (27, 27’) comprise at least one first waveguide transmitting the light to be measured in a first direction and at least one second waveguide transmitting the light to be measured in a second direction (figure 9), and the first direction is different from the second direction (as can be seen in figure 9, since the fibers end in a compact holder 26, they have to exit in different directions to go to the different sensors, as explained in column 5, lines 25-45), wherein the light to be measured outputted from the at least one first waveguide enters the first sensor, and the light to be measured outputted from the at least one second waveguide enters the second sensor (figure 9; column 5, lines 25-45).
PNG
media_image4.png
674
472
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
634
452
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
420
376
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the optical elements are waveguides; and the first direction is different from the second direction – in order to have a high signal to noise ratio (by blocking ambient light and maximizing the detected signal) while still allowing the flexibility with respect to the location of the sensors, including being able to arrange them further away, and have a more compact measurement head.
Regarding claim 5, De Lega teaches each of the objective lenses (110, 111) comprises a lens, a patterned optical element, and a beam splitting element sequentially stacked, a first portion of the illumination light sequentially penetrates the lens, the patterned optical element, and the beam splitting element, and then illuminates the object to be measured (figures 1-2).
PNG
media_image7.png
567
652
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, De Lega teaches the patterned optical element comprises a transmission area and a reflection area, and the transmission area of the patterned optical element and the beam splitting element allow the first portion of the illumination light to penetrate (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, De Lega teaches the reflection area of the patterned optical element reflects a second portion of the illumination light (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, De Lega teaches the beam splitting element and the transmission area of the patterned optical element allow at least part of the light to be measured to penetrate (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, De Lega teaches a moving mechanism (150) adapted to move the object to be measured in a direction parallel to an optical axis of the plurality of objective lenses (paragraph 43; figure 1; movement along axis 170).
Regarding claims 14-15, the above embodiment doesn’t explicitly teach a quantity of the at least one first waveguide is plural, and the light to be measured outputted from the plurality of first waveguides enters the first sensor (claim 14); a quantity of the at least one second waveguide is plural, and the light to be measured outputted from the plurality of second waveguides enters the second sensor (claim 15).
However, there are multiple ways to implement connecting the plurality of waveguides to the plurality of optical sensors as taught above, including using both single waveguides or plurality of waveguides (for example, see Tafas, figure 4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that each of the fibers in the above combination are multiple fibers, such as a fiber bundle, in order to obtain more information from each measurement beam (such as spatial or wavelength information).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lega, Tafas, and Hara, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Huhse (US 20100254000 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the above combination doesn’t explicitly teach each of the waveguides is an etched surface waveguide.
However, in the above combination, the waveguides are optical fibers (see citations above), and optical fibers are etched waveguides are recognized substitutes and equivalents for the purpose of guiding light in the art of microscopes (Huhse, paragraph 29).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the waveguides in the above combination by utilizing an art-recognized substitute/equivalent, an etched surface waveguide and in order to provide the benefit of a more compact device by providing the waveguide with other optical components on a common chip.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Lega, Tafas, and Hara, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimura (US 20230084871 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the above combination doesn’t explicitly teach a quantity of the plurality of objective lenses is equal to a quantity of the plurality of waveguides, and the light to be measured entering the plurality of waveguides comes from each of the plurality of objective lenses.
However, De Lega teaches quantity of the plurality of objective lenses is equal to a quantity of the plurality of optical elements, and the light to be measured entering the plurality of optical elements comes from each of the plurality of objective lenses (figures 1-2). Additionally, like the above combination (and like the instant application), Kimura is directed to an optical measurement device with multiple objectives and teaches a quantity of the plurality of objective lenses (124a-124c) is equal to a quantity of the plurality of waveguides (A-C), and the light to be measured entering the plurality of waveguides comes from each of the plurality of objective lenses (figure 14B).
PNG
media_image8.png
298
584
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the adding of the waveguides such that a quantity of the plurality of objective lenses is equal to a quantity of the plurality of waveguides, and the light to be measured entering the plurality of waveguides comes from each of the plurality of objective lenses – in order to ensure the system accurately measures each region of the sample without undesired cross talk.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record (taken alone or in combination) fails to anticipate or render obvious, “the multi-channel optical interference microscopic system comprises: at least one light source configured to emit illumination light, wherein the illumination light is configured to illuminate the object to be measured and is reflected by the object to be measured into a light to be measured; an objective lens array device comprising a plurality of objective lenses; a plurality of waveguides receiving the light to be measured passed through the objective lens array device; and a plurality of sensors comprising at least a first sensor and a second sensor, wherein the plurality of waveguides comprise at least one first waveguide transmitting the light to be measured in a first direction and at least one second waveguide transmitting the light to be measured in a second direction, and the first direction is different from the second direction, wherein the light to be measured outputted from the at least one first waveguide enters the first sensor, and the light to be measured outputted from the at least one second waveguide enters the second sensor… wherein each of the waveguides comprises a first optical surface, a second optical surface, and a beam splitter, the beam splitter is disposed on the first optical surface, and the beam splitter allows at least part of the illumination light to penetrate, and the at least part of the illumination light penetrating the beam splitter illuminates the object to be measured,” in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Additional Prior Art
US 5077821 A reads, “ It is desirable to couple light signals to an electro-optical sensor through a coherent fiber-optic bundle as a substitute for a complex imaging system and in circumstances where the source of reflected or generated light is, for example, at a remote location from the sensor, at a location which is difficult of access for the sensor, or at a location where the environment would damage the sensor.
US 9702983 B2 reads, “(12) Additionally or alternatively, the alignment unit includes multiple fiber bundles and multiple alignment detectors, each coupled to receive the optical radiation from a respective one of the fiber bundles and to provide the signals to the controller.”
US 5483347 A reads, “7. The apparatus as claimed in claim 5 further comprising means, disposed between said second arm of said bifurcated bundle of optical fibers and said light detector, for selecting the optical wavelength reaching said light detector.”
4508453 A reads, “(3) In order to realize such array sensors 21 and 21' with a high sensitivity and a high response speed, as shown in FIG. 9, optical fibers 25 are arranged in an array form by means of a holder 26 in the imaging surface so that the lights received at the optical fibers will be guided to the light receiving portions of photoelectric multipliers 28 via respective fiber cables 27 where the photoelectrons are multiplied. In this method, electric signals to which the lights are photoelectrically converted at the light receiving portions, can be amplified 10.sup.4 to 10.sup.6 times and thus the sensitivity of the system can be remarkably improved and the present invention can be applied even in the case where the illumination light is relatively weak. More specifically, in this case, one end of each of N light fibers 27.sub.1, 27.sub.2, . . . , 27.sub.n are connected to N respective photo-sensors 28.sub.1, 28.sub.2, . . . , 28.sub.n. In this way, the free ends of the N light fibers are used as the light receiving portions of the photo-sensors and are arranged in a straight line L into the light fiber row 27.”
“The arrangement of the system shown in FIG. 12 will next be explained in comparison with FIG. 11As in the embodiment of FIG. 11, the two objective lenses 6 and 6' and the two sets of optical fiber rows 27 and 27' are provided so as to be opposed to the two patterns 32 and 32'.” (column 7, lines 15-25)
DE 10362401 B3 discloses
PNG
media_image9.png
764
572
media_image9.png
Greyscale
US 5581345 A discloses
PNG
media_image10.png
610
442
media_image10.png
Greyscale
JP2934715B2 discloses
PNG
media_image11.png
838
782
media_image11.png
Greyscale
2023/0194427 discloses
PNG
media_image12.png
478
498
media_image12.png
Greyscale
US 9689797 B2 discloses
PNG
media_image13.png
604
576
media_image13.png
Greyscale
WO 2017/172819 discloses
PNG
media_image14.png
606
650
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights