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 Group I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 04/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “… a top electromagnetic (EM) radiation source that directs diffuse EM radiation downwardly toward to the material sample … a bottom EM radiation source that directs bottom EM radiation toward the material sample … an objective lens positioned above the stage which collects EM radiation from the material sample … a reflective surface positioned to receive EM radiation …” (emphasis added to accentuate insufficient antecedent basis).
The claim introduces two distinct types of radiation: “diffuse EM radiation” (from the top source) and “bottom EM radiation” (from the bottom source). However, later in the claim, the objective lens collects “EM radiation” and the reflective surface receives “EM radiation.”
It is unclear which EM radiation is the lens collecting, (e.g., diffuse, bottom, or both).
For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the following:
“… an objective lens positioned above the stage which collects at least a portion of the diffuse EM radiation and the bottom EM radiation from the material sample … a reflective surface positioned to receive the collected EM radiation …”.
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, 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, 3-4, 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al., hereinafter referred to as Kaplan (US 2008/0043220 A1) in view of Stanescu et al., hereinafter referred to as Stanescu (US 2019/0293916 A1).
As per claim 1, Kaplan discloses an imaging system (Kaplan: Abstract.), comprising:
a stage for supporting a material sample, the stage comprising an aperture (Kaplan: Para. [0012] discloses “The workpiece [claimed material sample] is mounted on a translatable stage”; Kaplan: Paras. [0068], [0072] disclose a cut gemstone workpiece mounting system, having an aperture.);
a top electromagnetic (EM) radiation source that directs diffuse EM radiation downwardly toward to the material sample supported by the stage (Kaplan: Para. [0101] discloses “top illumination … An LED 20 or array of LEDs [claimed top electromagnetic (EM) radiation source] having emission at about 650 nm projects through a collimating lens 21 to produce a collimated illumination beam 22 … onto the workpiece 11 [claimed material sample]”; Kaplan: Para. [0102] discloses “A set of spaced 650 nm LEDs 30 produce illumination 31 at angles generally converging from the top toward the workpiece 11”.);
a bottom EM radiation source that directs bottom EM radiation toward the material sample through the aperture (Kaplan: Para. [0103] discloses “The bottom illumination system, shown in Fig. 4 includes a set of spaced miniature arc lamps 40 [claimed bottom EM radiation source] below the workpiece 11 [claimed material sample], producing illumination along paths 41 which are upwardly converging”; Kaplan: Para. [0068] discloses “a cut gemstone mounting system, having an aperture”.);
a reflective surface positioned to receive EM radiation via the objective lens and to reflect the EM radiation laterally to form the magnified image (Kaplan: Para. [0101] discloses “The workpiece 11 reflects a portion of the illumination beam back through the microscope objective 10 [claimed objective lens] and through the dichroic mirror 8, onto the reflecting mirror 24 [claimed reflective surface] … toward a top CCD camera 28. Thus, the top CCD camera 28 views the workpiece 11 … the resulting magnification of the image 29 [claimed magnified image] is about 200 times”.).
However, Kaplan does not explicitly disclose “… an objective lens positioned above the stage which collects EM radiation from the material sample and forms a magnified image of at least a portion of the material sample; an image capture device that generates digital image data of the magnified image …”.
Further, Stanescu is in the same field of endeavor and teaches an objective lens positioned above the stage which collects EM radiation from the material sample and forms a magnified image of at least a portion of the material sample (Stanescu: Para. [0096] discloses “a sample 20 for imaging is provided upon an XYZ scanning stage 21 [claimed stage] … moved with respect to the objective lens 2 [claimed objective lens positioned above the stage]”; Stanescu: Para. [0101] discloses “reflected light [claimed EM radiation] from the sample to pass on to the imaging device 40”; Stanescu: Para. [0050] discloses “capture an image [claimed magnified image] of the sample as viewed through the objective lens”.);
an image capture device that generates digital image data of the magnified image (Stanescu: Para. [0050] discloses “an imaging device [claimed image capture device] operable to capture an image of the sample as viewed through the objective lens. Typically, the imaging device may comprise an optical sensing array such as a CCD (charge coupled device) array [claimed generates digital image data of the magnified image]”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Kaplan and Stanescu before him or her, to modify the optical inspection system of Kaplan to include the objective lens positioning feature as described in Stanescu. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve image processing by providing a configuration that reliably captures image data for precise automated analysis and storage.
As per claim 3, Kaplan-Stanescu disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the top EM radiation source includes an annular EM radiation source comprising an annularly-shaped light emitting diode (LED) or an annular arrangement of multiple LEDs (Kaplan: Para. [0102] discloses “A set of spaced 650nm LEDs 30 [claimed top EM radiation source] produce illumination 31 at angles generally converging from the top toward the workpiece 11”; Kaplan: Para. [0154] discloses “three groups of LEDs 30 [claimed annular arrangement of multiple LEDs] are provided around the microscope objective 10, illuminating the workpiece 11”.).
As per claim 4, Kaplan-Stanescu disclose the system of claim 3, wherein the objective lens is at least partially encircled by the annular EM radiation source (Kaplan: Para. [0154] discloses “three groups of LEDs 30 [claimed annular EM radiation source] are provided around the microscope objective 10 [wherein the LEDs being provided around the objective lens discloses the objective lens is at least partially encircled]”.).
As per claim 6, Kaplan-Stanescu disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the material sample comprises a gemstone and the aperture is sized to receive a portion of the gemstone for supporting the gemstone in a selected position (Kaplan: Para. [0012] discloses “a workpiece [claimed material sample], such as a diamond gemstone”; Para. [0152] discloses “The diamond center sits in a concave depression [claimed aperture] suited to the diamond size [sized to receive a portion of the gemstone]”; Kaplan: Para. [0157] discloses “the concave cup 108 which supports the center of the diamond [gemstone] … and assures correct positioning [selected position] with respect to the laser beam”.).
As per claim 7, Kaplan-Stanescu disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the stage includes one or more stage motors configured to move the stage in one or more directions (Kaplan: Para. [0093] discloses “XYZ motion stages 50 [claimed stage] … including … DC brushless motors [claimed stage motors]”; Kaplan: Para. [0026] discloses “The stage is generally translatable along three axes, X, Y, and Z [claimed move the stage in one or more directions]”.).
As per claim 8, Kaplan-Stanescu disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the stage includes one or more tilt stage motors configured to tilt the stage about one or more axes (Kaplan: Para. [0093] discloses “motion stages 50 … including … DC brushless motors [claimed one or more tilt stage motors]”; Kaplan: Para. [0026] discloses “The stage … may also include other axes, e.g., rotational axes [configured to tilt the stage about one or more axes]”).
As per claim 9, Kaplan-Stanescu disclose the system of claim 1, further comprising a directional top-side EM source adjacent to the top EM source (Kaplan: Para. [0154] discloses “The laser axis, for example, is illuminated with a red LED 20 [claimed top EM source]... three groups of LEDs 30 [claimed directional top-side EM source] are provided around the microscope objective 10 [claimed adjacent to the top EM source]”),
the top-side EM source configured to illuminate the material sample from a side angle (Kaplan: Para. [0102] discloses “A set of spaced 650 nm LEDs 30 produce illumination 31 at angles generally converging from the top toward the workpiece 11”; Kaplan: Para. [0163] discloses “illuminating the workpiece 11 [claimed material sample] from three sides [claimed from a side angle]”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan in view of Stanescu in further view of Katzlinger hereinafter referred to as Katzlinger (US 2012/0077282 A1).
As per claim 2, Kaplan-Stanescu disclose the system of claim 1 (Kaplan: Abstract.),
However, Kaplan-Stanescu do not explicitly disclose “… wherein the aperture is defined by an adjustable iris.”.
Further, Katzlinger is in the same field of endeavor and teaches wherein the aperture is defined by an adjustable iris (Katzlinger: Para. [0093] discloses “the luminescence detector 908 may include an adjustable iris (or iris assembly) 924 mounted to the detector housing 916 at the distal (optical input) end. The adjustable iris 924 may have any configuration suitable for adjusting the numerical aperture of the luminescence detector 908, and thus the range of angles over which the luminescence detector 908 can receive the luminescent light 206 emitted from the sample 16 “.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Kaplan-Stanescu and Katzlinger before him or her, to modify the optical inspection system of Kaplan-Stanescu to include the adjustable iris feature as described in Katzlinger. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve sample analysis by providing a configuration that enables the potential for maximizing the amount of light received from the target sample.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan in view of Stanescu in further view of Pawlik hereinafter referred to as Pawlik (US 2013/0087699 A1).
As per claim 5, Kaplan-Stanescu disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the top EM radiation source comprises one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) capable of emitting light across a first spectrum and the bottom EM radiation source (Kaplan: Para. [0101] discloses “top illumination … An LED 20 or array of LEDs [claimed top EM radiation source comprises one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs)] having emission at about 650 nm [claimed capable of emitting light across a first spectrum]” and Kaplan: Para. [0103] discloses “bottom illumination system [claimed bottom EM radiation source]”.).
However, Kaplan-Stanescu do not explicitly disclose “… the bottom EM radiation source includes one or more LEDs capable of emitting light across a second spectrum that is different from the first spectrum.”.
Further, Pawlik is in the same field of endeavor and teaches the bottom EM radiation source includes one or more LEDs capable of emitting light across a second spectrum that is different from the first spectrum (Pawlik: Para. [0026] discloses “Light emitting diodes … are suitable light sources [claimed includes one or more LEDs]”; Pawlik: Para. [0030] discloses “light sources 102 and 103 emit light at the wavelengths λex1 and λex2, respectively [claimed capable of emitting light across a second spectrum that is different from the first spectrum]”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Kaplan-Stanescu and Pawlik before him or her, to modify the optical inspection system of Kaplan-Stanescu to include the multi-wavelength LED illumination sources feature as described in Pawlik. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve sample analysis by providing a configuration that varies contrast for distinct analytical imaging of the sample.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be viewed in the list of references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEET DHILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 5am-1:30pm.
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, Sath V. Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/PEET DHILLON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 2488
Date: 04-15-2026
Prosecution Insights