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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/24 & 03/17/25 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clifford, JR. et al (US 2003/0076510 hereinafter “Clifford, Jr”).
Regarding claim 21; Clifford, Jr. discloses a method (100 @ figure 3) for capturing a distance of a first optical element (304 @ figure 3) from a second optical element (306 @ figure 3) wherein the first element (304 @ figure 3) is embodied to be light-transmissive (paragraph [0039]: e.g., material 304 is substantially transparent) and has a partially reflective first surface (330 @ figure 3 and paragraph [0042]: e.g., The unreflected portion of the incident beam 314 travels through the transparent, or partially transparent, material 304 and is incident upon the top surface 330 of the slot 310 such that a reflected light beam 332 is reflected back up through the transparent material 304 into the probe head 112), wherein the second optical element (306 @ figure 3) has an at least partially reflective second surface (334 @ figure 3 and paragraph [0034]: e.g., the unreflected portion of the incident beam 314 continues traveling through the transparent material 304, through the cavity 320, and is incident upon the top surface 334 of the material 306. A light beam 336 is reflected off of the surface 334 up through the gap 302, up through the cavity 320, up through the transparent material 304, and then back up into the probe head 112. The reflected light beam 336 is detected by the autocorrelator 110), and wherein the first surface (330 @ figure 3) lies opposite the second surface (334 @ figure 3) at the distance (322 @ figure 3) to be captured, comprising controlling a light beam source (106 @ figure 3) such that a light beam (314 @ figure 3) is coupled into the first optical element (304 @ figure 3) through a surface (324 @ figure 3), which is different from the first surface (330 @ figure 3) of the first element (304 @ figure 3), such that a first partial light beam (332 @ figure 3) is reflected by the first surface (330 @ figure 3) and a second partial light beam (336 @ figure 3) traveling through the first surface (330 @ figure 3) is reflected by the second surface (334 @ figure 3) in each case back into the first optical element (304 @ figure 3), capturing the two partial light beams (332, 336 @ figure 3), and ascertaining, a computer PC (104 @ figure 4 and paragraphs [0007], [0013], [0052]: e.g., the distance 322 is determined directly by measurement. The distance 308 of the gap 302 (FIG. 3) is easily determined by simply subtracting the known distance 312 from the measured distance 322. Thus, forming the slot 310 in material 304 allows for direct measurement of the distance 322, and the calculation of the distance 308) the distance between the first (304 @ figure 3) and the second surface (306 @ figure 3) depending on the captured partial light beams (332, 336 @ figure 3). See figures 1-7
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clifford, JR. et al (US 2003/0076510 hereinafter “Clifford, Jr.) in view of Doerband (US 2012/0236316).
Regarding claim 1; Clifford, Jr. discloses a measurement arrangement (100 @ figure 3) for determining at least one distance (322 @ figure 3) between a first optical element (304 @ figure 3) and a second optical element (306 @ figure 3), wherein the first optical element (304 @ figure 3) is a light-transmissive measurement matrix (paragraph [0039]: e.g., material 304 is substantially transparent) and has a partially reflective first surface (330 @ figure 3), wherein the second optical element (306 @ figure 3) and has an at least partially reflective second surface (334 @ figure 3), and wherein the first surface (330 @ figure 3) lies opposite the second surface (334 @ figure 3) at the distance to be determined by a computer PC (104 @ figure 3 and paragraphs [0007], [0013], and [0052]: e.g., the distance 322 is determined directly by measurement. The distance 308 of the gap 302 (FIG. 3) is easily determined by simply subtracting the known distance 312 from the measured distance 322. Thus, forming the slot 310 in material 304 allows for direct measurement of the distance 322, and the calculation of the distance 308), comprising:
a light beam source (106 @ figure 3) and a light beam sensor (110 @ figure 3), wherein a light beam (314 @ figure 3) generated by the light beam source (106 @ figure 3) is coupled into the first optical element (304 @ figure 3) through a surface (324 @ figure 3) which differs from the first surface (330 @ figure 3), such that a first partial light beam (322 @ figure 3) is reflected by the first surface (330 @ figure 3) and a second partial light beam (336 @ figure 3) traveling through the first surface (330 @ figure 3) is reflected by the second surface (334 @ figure 3) respectively back into the first optical element (304 @ figure 3), and wherein the light beam sensor (100 @ figure 3) is arranged to capture both partial light beams (332, 336 @ figure 3) in order to determine the distance (322 @ figure 3) dependent on the captured partial light beams (332, 336 @ figure 3). See figures 1-7
Clifford, Jr. discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the second optical element is a mirror configured for extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation. However, Doerband teaches that it is known in the art to provide the second optical element (12 @ figures 1 and 5-6) is a mirror configured for extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation (claim 8 and paragraphs [0016] and [0034]: e.g., an apparatus 10 for determining a shape of an optical test surface 14 in the form of the reflective surface of an optical element 12 reflecting radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wavelength range… The optical element 12 measured by means of the apparatus 10 can be, for example, a mirror of a projection exposure tool for microlithography, in particular a mirror of a projection objective or of an illumination system of such a tool).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with the second optical element is a mirror configured for extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation as taught by Doerband for the purpose of improving shape of high-precision optical free form surfaces, the deviation of which from rotational symmetry clearly exceeds the dynamics of a conventional interferometer.
Regarding claim 13; Clifford, Jr. discloses the surface of the second element (306 @ figure 3) is formed to be non-spherical or in the form of a free-form surface (paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 14; Clifford, Jr. discloses a distance measurement apparatus (CP 104 @ figure 3) for capturing the distance (322 @ figure 3) between a first optical element (304 @ figure 3) and a second optical element (304 @ figure 3), wherein the first optical element (304 @ figure 3) is configured to be light-transmissive (paragraph [0039]) and has a partially reflective first surface (330 @ figure 3), wherein the second optical element (306 @ figure 3) has an at least partially reflective second surface (334 @ figure 3), wherein the first surface (330 @ figure 3) lies opposite the second surface (334 @ figure 3) at the distance to be determined (104 @ figure 3 and paragraphs [0007], [0013], and [0052]: e.g., the distance 322 is determined directly by measurement. The distance 308 of the gap 302 (FIG. 3) is easily determined by simply subtracting the known distance 312 from the measured distance 322. Thus, forming the slot 310 in material 304 allows for direct measurement of the distance 322, and the calculation of the distance 308).
Regarding claim 15; Clifford, Jr. discloses further comprising at least one further measurement (110 @ figure 1), wherein the focus points of the light beams (326, 332, 336 @ figure 3) lie at a distance from one another on the first surface (330 @ figure 3) of the first optical element (304 @ figure 3).
Claims 2-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clifford Jr. in view of Doerband as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (Gap Measurement by Position-Sensitive Detectors, hereinafter “Kim”, submitted by IDS).
Regarding claim 2; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a first focusing device, having at least one lens element and/or a mirror, arranged between the light beam source and the first optical element and is configured to focus the light beam at the first surface onto a first focus point. However, Kim teaches that it is known in the art to provide a first focusing device (L1, M1 @ figure 1), having at least one lens element (L1 @ figure 1) and/or a mirror (M1 @ figure 1), arranged between the light beam source (LD @ figure 1) and the first optical element (mask @ figure 1) and is configured to focus the light beam at the first surface (mask @ figure 1) onto a first focus point (figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving gap-measurement system with dual position sensitive detectors.
Regarding claim 3; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light beam source and the lens element are arranged and configured such that the focused light beam is incident on the first surface at an angle deviating from 90°. However, Kim teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light beam source (LD @ figure 1) and the lens element (L1 @ figure 1) are arranged and configured such that the focused light beam is incident on the first surface (mask @ figure 1) at an angle deviating from 90° (figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving gap-measurement system with dual position sensitive detectors.
Regarding claim 4; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light beam source and the light beam sensor are arranged on a side of the first element facing away from the second element. However, Kim teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light beam source (LD @ figure 1) and the light beam sensor (PSD @ figure 1) are arranged on a side of the first element (mask @ figure 1) facing away from the second element (substrate @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving gap-measurement system with dual position sensitive detectors.
Regarding claim 5; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light beam source and the first focusing device are arranged and configured such that the light beam from the light beam source is coupled into the first optical element obliquely through the surface. However, Kim teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light beam source (LD @ figure 1) and the first focusing device (L1, M1 @ figure 1) are arranged and configured such that the light beam from the light beam source (LD @ figure 1) is coupled into the first optical element (mask @ figure 1) obliquely through the surface (figure 1 “upper surface of mask”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving gap-measurement system with dual position sensitive detectors.
Regarding claim 7; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for at least one second focusing device with at least one lens element and/or at least one mirror arranged between the first element and the light beam sensor, with which second focusing device the partial light beams are directed onto the light beam sensor. However, Kim teaches that it is known in the art to provide at least one second focusing device with at least one lens element and/or at least one mirror arranged between the first element and the light beam sensor, with which second focusing device the partial light beams are directed onto the light beam sensor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving gap-measurement system with dual position sensitive detectors.
Regarding claim 8; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for at least one lens element of a first focusing device and/or a second focusing device is embodied in a non-rotationally symmetric manner. However, Kim teaches that it is known in the art to provide at least one lens element (L1 @ figure 1) of a first focusing device (L1, M1 @ figure 1) and/or a second focusing device (M2, L2, BS1, BS2 @ figure 1) is embodied in a non-rotationally symmetric manner. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving gap-measurement system with dual position sensitive detectors.
It is noted that the term “and/or” is alternative.
Regarding claim 9; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the lens element of the second focusing device is configured and arranged to focus the partial light beams onto the light beam sensor such that each partial light beam has a respective focus point which is capturable by the light beam sensor. However, Kim teaches that it is known in the art to provide the lens element (L2 @ figure 1) of the second focusing device (M2, L2, BS1, BS2 @ figure 1) is configured and arranged to focus the partial light beams (figure 1) onto the light beam sensor (CCD, PSD @ figure 1) such that each partial light beam has a respective focus point (figure 1) which is capturable by the light beam sensor (CCD, PSD @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving gap-measurement system with dual position sensitive detectors.
Regarding claim 10; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light beam sensor has a planar sensor surface, and wherein the at least one second lens element is configured and arranged to focus the partial light beams onto the sensor surface. However, Kim teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light beam sensor (CCD, PSD @ figure 1) has a planar sensor surface, and wherein the at least one second lens element (L2 @ figure 1) is configured and arranged to focus the partial light beams (figure 1) onto the sensor surface (CCD, PSD @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving gap-measurement system with dual position sensitive detectors.
Regarding claim 11; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light beam source and the first lens element are arranged such that the generated light beam is coupled into the first element through a surface lying opposite the first surface. However, Kim teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light beam source (LD @ figure 1) and the first lens element (L1 @ figure 1) are arranged such that the generated light beam is coupled into the first element (mask @ figure 1) through a surface (upper surface of mask @ figure 1) lying opposite the first surface (bottom surface of mask @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving gap-measurement system with dual position sensitive detectors.
Regarding claim 12; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light beam source and the lens element of the first focusing device are arranged such that the generated light beam is coupled into the first element through a surface of the first element arranged laterally with respect to the first surface. However, Kim teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light beam source (LD @ figure 1) and the lens element (L1 @ figure 1) of the first focusing device (L1, M1 @ figure 1) are arranged such that the generated light beam is coupled into the first element (mask @ figure 1) through a surface (upper surface of mask @ figure 1) of the first element (mask @ figure 1) arranged laterally with respect to the first surface (bottom surface of mask @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving gap-measurement system with dual position sensitive detectors.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband and Kim as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Clark et al (US 2007/0211343 hereinafter “Clark”).
Regarding claim 6; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband and Kim combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light beam is coupled into the first optical element at an angle is smaller than 75°. However, Clark teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light beam is coupled into the first optical element at an angle is smaller than 75° (figure 1 and paragraph [0023] and [0025]: e.g., Therefore, if the angle θ1 is less than about 48 degrees, the path of the light beam 102 will be totally internally reflected 114 and the light will not be refracted 112… a design of an optical system having a given numerical aperture, the angle .theta..sub.1 is chosen as 85 degrees. This 85-degree angle for θ1 is equivalent to a 10-degree angle for θr1. Therefore, the first and second reflections 114 and 116 are at a 10-degree angle relative to a path of the light beam 102). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Clark for the purpose of improving to maintain adjustability of optical components and optical elements while essentially eliminating ghost reflections in optical systems.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Ichihara et al (US 2001/0028462 hereinafter “Ichihara”).
Regarding claim 16; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for an optical measurement system for checking the shape of an optical surface of a test object with an optical measurement matrix as a first optical element, wherein the test object as second optical element is arrangeable opposite the measurement matrix, wherein optionally a distance and/or an orientation of the first optical element with respect to the second optical element is variable through at least one actuator. However, Ichihara teaches that it is known in the art to provide an optical measurement system (22h @ figure 7) for checking the shape of an optical surface of a test object (36 @ figures 7 and 8a-8b) with an optical measurement matrix as a first optical element (76 @ figures 7 and 8a-8b), wherein the test object as second optical element (36 @ figures 7 and 8a-8b) is arrangeable opposite the measurement matrix as the first optical element (76 @ figures 7 and 8a-8b), wherein optionally a distance (distance or gap is between aspheric surface 38 and aspheric reference surface 70 in figures 7 and 8a-8b) and/or an orientation of the first optical element (76 @ figure 7 and 8a-8b) with respect to the second optical element (36 @ figure 6 and 8a-8b) is variable through at least one actuator (72P @ figure 8a and paragraph [0089]: e.g., a piezoelectric element 72P is provided on reference element holder 72H. A test object holder 72T, which holds test object 36, is mounted to reference element holder 72H by way of piezoelectric element 72P. By driving piezoelectric element 72P, the spacing between aspheric reference surface 70 and test surface 38 can be adjusted. Furthermore, this variable spacing can also be exploited to perform a fringe scan, which is a conventional method of analyzing interference fringes). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Ichihara for the purpose of improving the absolute accuracy of precision surface measurements in an aspheric-surface-shape measuring interferometer.
Regarding claim 17; Clifford Jr. discloses a beam path of the respective light beam (314 @ figure 3) of the at least one measurement arrangement differs from an operating beam path (326, 332, 336 @ figure 3) of the measurement system for surface shape measurement (figures 3 and 5-6).
Regarding claim 18; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light beam source and the first lens element, and/or the light beam sensor and the second lens element of the at least one measurement arrangement of the distance measurement apparatus are arranged outside an operating beam path of the measurement system. However, Ichihara teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light beam source (24 @ figure 7) and the first lens element (figure 7), and/or the light beam sensor (60 @ figure 7) and the second lens element (figure 7) of the at least one measurement arrangement of the distance measurement apparatus (Cu @ figure 7) are arranged outside an operating beam path of the measurement system (figure 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Ichihara for the purpose of improving the absolute accuracy of precision surface measurements in an aspheric-surface-shape measuring interferometer.
It is noted that the term “and/or” is alternative.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband and Ichihara as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kim et al (Gap Measurement by Position-Sensitive Detectors, hereinafter “Kim”, submitted by IDS).
Regarding claim 19; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband and Ichihara combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light beam of the at least one measurement arrangement or at least one of the measurement arrangements is coupled into and/or coupled out of the first optical element outside the operating beam path of the measurement system. However, Kim teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light beam (LD, L1, M1 @ figure 1) of the at least one measurement arrangement or at least one of the measurement arrangements is coupled into and/or coupled out of the first optical element (mask @ figure 1) outside the operating beam path of the measurement system (figure 1: e.g., some reflected lights of mask and substrate go outside the measurement system). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving gap-measurement system with dual position sensitive detectors.
It is noted that the term “or” and “and/or” is alternative.
Regarding claim 20; Clifford, Jr. in view of Doerband and Ichihara combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light beam of the at least one measurement arrangement or at least one of the measurement arrangements is coupled into and/or coupled out of the first optical element within the operating beam path of the measurement system. However, Kim teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light beam (LD, L1, M1 @ figure 1) of the at least one measurement arrangement or at least one of the measurement arrangements is coupled into and/or coupled out of the first optical element within the operating beam path of the measurement system (figure 1: e.g., some reflected lights of bottom mask and upper substrate go inside detectors of the measurement system).It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the measurement arrangement of Clifford, Jr. with limitation above as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving gap-measurement system with dual position sensitive detectors.
It is noted that the term “or” and “and/or” is alternative.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Hetzler et al (US 2024/0077305) discloses a measurement apparatus (10) for interferometrically measuring a shape of a surface (12) of a test object (14) in relation to a reference shape includes a diffractive optical element (30) generating a test wave (32) from measurement radiation (22), whereas a wavefront of the test wave is adapted to a target shape of the surface of the test object.
2) Brunton (US Patent No. 3,693,025) discloses a radiation source form and directs two beams of infrared radiation of discrete wavelengths in angularly incident relationship toward an exposed, specular surface of the film producing reflective-components at both the specular surface and the diffuse interface surface. Only diffusely reflected components of incident beams of radiation are detected by a radiation-responsive sensor which is disposed in a particular geometrical arrangement such that only the diffusely reflected beam components are incident to a radiation receptor surface of the sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/SN/
July 2, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights