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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “an intensity distribution . . . has a predetermined change within a surface” recited in Claim 1 in each of the alternatives (i)–(iv) is understood to reference a distribution of light transmittance within the surface, for example, as discussed in paragraphs [0012], [0013], and [0027]–[0033] of the specification as filed (paragraphs [0054], [0055], and [0069]–[0075] published), achieved, for example, using modulation elements 25 and 77. Applicant’s comments regarding this interpretation are welcome.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1–3 and 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0074868 to Honda et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Honda would have rendered obvious (e.g., Fig. 1A and its description) a microscope device (where Honda teaches inspecting for minute defects, paragraph [0001], reasonably suggesting a microscope device), comprising: a first microscope part (comprising components in Fig. 1A following the light path through beam splitter 211) including a first illumination optical system (comprising components guiding light along the path through beam splitter 211) that irradiates a sample 1 with a first illumination light toward a first direction and a first detection optical system 102 that receives detection light from the sample in response to the irradiation with the first illumination light and guides the detection light to a first detector (Fig. 1A); and a second microscope part (comprising components in Fig. 1A following the light path reflected off of beam splitter 211) including a second illumination optical system (comprising components guiding light along the path reflected off of beam splitter 211) that irradiates the sample with a second illumination light toward a second direction and a second detection optical system 24 that receives detection light from the sample in response to the irradiation with the second illumination light and guides the detection light to a second detector 242, the second direction being different from the first direction (e.g., paragraph [0061]; Fig. 1A), wherein the microscope device comprises any one of the followings (i) to (iv):
(i) an intensity distribution of the first illumination light at a position of a pupil in the first illumination optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil has a predetermined change within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (e.g., paragraph [0056], “[a] laser beam emitted from the laser beam source 2 . . . is adjusted to a desired intensity distribution by the illumination intensity distribution control unit 7”), an intensity distribution of detection light from the sample in response to the irradiation with the second illumination light at a position of a pupil in the second detection optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil has a predetermined change within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (e.g., paragraph [0060], “an illumination intensity distribution on the surface of the sample 1 is controlled by an illumination intensity distribution control unit 7v in the same manner as the oblique incident illumination”); the first detector is provided at a conjugated position to the sample in the first detection optical system (Fig. 1A); and the second detector is provided at a conjugated position to the pupil in the second detection optical system (Fig. 1A);
(ii) an intensity distribution of the first illumination light at a position of a pupil in the first illumination optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil has a predetermined change within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (e.g., paragraph [0056], “[a] laser beam emitted from the laser beam source 2 . . . is adjusted to a desired intensity distribution by the illumination intensity distribution control unit 7”); an intensity distribution of the second illumination light at a position of a pupil in the second illumination optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil has a predetermined change within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (e.g., paragraph [0060], “an illumination intensity distribution on the surface of the sample 1 is controlled by an illumination intensity distribution control unit 7v in the same manner as the oblique incident illumination”); the first detector is provided at a conjugated position to the sample in the first detection optical system (Fig. 1A); and the second detector is provided at a conjugated position to the sample in the second detection optical system (Fig. 1A);
(iii) an intensity distribution of detection light from the sample in response to the irradiation with the first illumination light at a position of a pupil in the first detection optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil has a predetermined change within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (e.g., paragraph [0056], “[a] laser beam emitted from the laser beam source 2 . . . is adjusted to a desired intensity distribution by the illumination intensity distribution control unit 7”); an intensity distribution of detection light from the sample in response to the irradiation with the second illumination light at a position of a pupil in the second detection optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil has a predetermined change within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (e.g., paragraph [0060], “an illumination intensity distribution on the surface of the sample 1 is controlled by an illumination intensity distribution control unit 7v in the same manner as the oblique incident illumination”); the first detector is provided at a conjugated position to the pupil in the first detection optical system (Fig. 1A); and the second detector is provided at a conjugated position to the pupil in the second detection optical system (Fig. 1A); and
(iv) an intensity distribution of detection light from the sample in response to the irradiation with the first illumination light at a position of a pupil in the first detection optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil has a predetermined change within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (e.g., paragraph [0056], “[a] laser beam emitted from the laser beam source 2 . . . is adjusted to a desired intensity distribution by the illumination intensity distribution control unit 7”); an intensity distribution of the second illumination light at a position of a pupil in the second illumination optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil has a predetermined change within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (e.g., paragraph [0060], “an illumination intensity distribution on the surface of the sample 1 is controlled by an illumination intensity distribution control unit 7v in the same manner as the oblique incident illumination”); the first detector is provided at a conjugated position to the pupil in the first detection optical system (Fig. 1A); and the second detector is provided at a conjugated position to the sample in the second detection optical system (Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 2, Honda would have rendered obvious wherein: in a case where the (i) is comprised, an intensity distribution of the first illumination light is formed by a first modulation element 7 that is provided at a position of the pupil in the first illumination optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil and that exhibits light transmittance that changes within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (paragraph [0056]; Fig. 1A); and an intensity distribution of detection light from the sample in response to the irradiation with the second illumination light is formed by a second modulation element 7v that is provided at a position of the pupil in the second detection optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil and that exhibits light transmittance that changes within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (paragraph [0060]; Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 3, Honda would have rendered obvious wherein: the first detection optical system has a first objective lens (e.g., 1021, Fig. 10A, illustrating a detailed view of detection unit 102) that receives detection light from the sample in response to the irradiation with the first illumination light; the second illumination optical system has an illumination second objective lens (part of 7v) that gathers the second illumination light (paragraphs [0074] and [0077]); and the second detection optical system has a detection second objective lens 241 that is provided on an opposite side of the illumination second objective lens across the sample and that receives detection light from the sample in response to the irradiation with the second illumination light (Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 7, Honda would have rendered obvious wherein: in a case where the (ii) is comprised, an intensity distribution of the first illumination light is formed by a first modulation element 7 that is provided at a position of the pupil in the first illumination optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil and that exhibits light transmittance that changes within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (paragraph [0056]; Fig. 1A); and an intensity distribution of the second illumination light is formed by a second modulation element 7v that is provided at a position of the pupil in the second illumination optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil and that exhibits light transmittance that changes within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (paragraph [0060]; Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 8, Honda would have rendered obvious wherein: in a case where the (iii) is comprised, an intensity distribution of detection light from the sample in response to the irradiation with the first illumination light is formed by a first modulation element 7 that is provided at a position of the pupil in the first detection optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil and that exhibits light transmittance that changes within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (paragraph [0056]; Fig. 1A); and an intensity distribution of detection light from the sample in response to the irradiation with the second illumination light is formed by a second modulation element 7v that is provided at a position of the pupil in the second detection optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil and that exhibits light transmittance that changes within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (paragraph [0060]; Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 9, Honda would have rendered obvious wherein: in a case where the (iv) is comprised, an intensity distribution of detection light from the sample in response to the irradiation with the first illumination light is formed by a first modulation element 7 that is provided at a position of the pupil in the first detection optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil and that exhibits light transmittance that changes within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (paragraph [0056]; Fig. 1A); and an intensity distribution of the second illumination light is formed by a second modulation element 7v that is provided at a position of the pupil in the second illumination optical system or a conjugated position to the pupil and that exhibits light transmittance that changes within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil (paragraph [0060]; Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 10, Honda would have rendered obvious wherein: the light transmittance of at least one of the first modulation element and the second modulation element changes along one direction within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil in accordance with a continuous function (e.g., paragraphs [0056] and [0060]; also Figs. 2–6 illustrate various intensity distributions).
Claims 11–17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda, in view of WO 2021/064807 (cited in Applicants December 23, 2024 IDS, citations are made to corresponding US 2022/0244516 to Ikeda et al.).
Regarding Claim 11, Honda does not explicitly disclose wherein: the light transmittance of at least one of the first modulation element and the second modulation element monotonously increases or decreases along one direction within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil in accordance with the continuous function, and is equal to zero in a part of an outer circumference within the surface of the pupil or within the conjugated surface to the pupil.
Ikeda discloses a microscope device, and teaches in Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0088]–[0090] a suitable configuration for a modulation element where the modulation element monotonously increases or decreases along one direction within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil in accordance with the continuous function, and is equal to zero in a part of an outer circumference within the surface of the pupil or within the conjugated surface to the pupil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Honda such that the light transmittance of at least one of the first modulation element and the second modulation element monotonously increases or decreases along one direction within a surface of the pupil or within a conjugated surface to the pupil in accordance with the continuous function, and is equal to zero in a part of an outer circumference within the surface of the pupil or within the conjugated surface to the pupil, as suggested by Ikeda, as a suitable configuration for a microscope device (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Honda and Ikeda would have rendered obvious wherein: the continuous function is any function of a linear function, a quadratic function, a Gaussian function, a sine function in a range less than one cycle, and a cosine function in a range less than one cycle (paragraphs [0088]–[0092] of Ikeda).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Honda and Ikeda would have rendered obvious wherein: the first modulation element includes a plurality of first modulation elements having different distributions of light transmittance (e.g., paragraph [0041] of Ikeda, to provide additional optical characteristics to select from, where the combination of the lenses 18 and 22 determine the illumination, paragraph [0129]); and the microscope device comprises a switching control part that performs control so as to switch to any one of the plurality of first modulation elements to be arranged within the surface of the pupil or within the conjugated surface to the pupil (e.g., Fig. 1 of Ikeda and paragraph [0041], teaching switching the lenses 18, reasonably suggesting means for performing the switching).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Honda and Ikeda would have rendered obvious wherein: the second modulation element includes a plurality of second modulation elements having different distributions of light transmittance; and the microscope device comprises a switching control part that performs control so as to switch to any one of the plurality of second modulation elements to be arranged within the surface of the pupil or within the conjugated surface to the pupil (e.g., as discussed above with respect to Ikeda and Claim 13 above, where those features would also reasonably be applied to the second modulation element of Honda, to similarly provide additional profiles to select between).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Honda and Ikeda would have rendered obvious wherein: at least one of the first modulation element and the second modulation element is a plate that has translucency and has a light transmittance changing in accordance with the continuous function (e.g., paragraphs [0006] and [0040] of Ikeda); the plate has a dot pattern allowing to reduce the light transmittance; and depending on coarseness and fineness of the dot pattern, the light transmittance of the plate changes in accordance with the continuous function (e.g., paragraph [0229] of Ikeda).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Honda and Ikeda would have rendered obvious wherein: at least one of the first modulation element and the second modulation element is a spatial light modulator that can change the distribution of the light transmittance changing in accordance with the continuous function (e.g., paragraphs [0006] and [0229] of Ikeda); the spatial light modulator includes a transmissive liquid crystal element, reflective liquid crystal element, or a digital mirror device (e.g., paragraphs [0006] and [0229] of Ikeda); and the microscope device comprises a modulator control part that performs control so as to cause the spatial light modulator to change the distribution of the light transmittance (e.g., paragraphs [0006] and [0229] of Ikeda).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Honda and Ikeda would have rendered obvious a data processing part that generates a three-dimensional refractive index distribution on the sample based on a detection signal for the light output from the first detector and a detection signal for the light output from the second detector (e.g., paragraphs [0005]–[0006] and also claims 1, 13, 15, and 16 of Ikeda).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Honda and Ikeda would have rendered obvious wherein: the first detector detects detection light from a plurality of detection positions that are different in position in an optical axis direction in the sample and outputs a detection signal for the detection light; and the data processing part generates a three-dimensional refractive index distribution on the sample based on the detection signal for the detection light from the plurality of detection positions, the detection signal being output from the first detector (e.g., paragraphs [0220] and [0232]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4–6, 18, and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights