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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1 and 2 lack suitable descriptive legends necessary for understanding of the drawings (see MPEP 608.02 (V)(o)). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hillman et al “High-resolution, wide-field object reconstruction with synthetic aperture Fourier holographic optical microscopy”, cited by applicant.
As to claim 1, Hillman et al disclose: A method for determining a surface map (see Figures 7 and 8: “object reconstruction”) of a sample surface (see Figure 6) having a first region with a first reflectivity and a second region with a second reflectivity, wherein the first reflectivity is different from the second reflectivity (note the bright and dark zones of Figure 6), wherein use is made of an imaging system (see Figure 5) for determining an image of the sample surface, wherein the imaging system has a focal measurement plane (see “object plane:”, Figure 3), wherein the method includes:
determining that an image of the sample surface obtained with the imaging system is saturated when the sample surface is arranged in the focal measurement plane of the imaging system; (in section 2.2 “Procedure for optimizing individual-hologram reconstruction”, paragraph 1, Hillman et al disclose that defocus is deliberately introduced, and that when highly regular objects are imaged this will avoid the issue of having diffraction peaks being tightly focused in the recording plane; it is well understood that tightly focused diffraction peaks lead to image detector saturation)
arranging the sample surface in a defocused position at a distance Z from the focal measurement plane of the imaging system along an axis perpendicular to the focal measurement plane such that the image of the sample surface obtained with the imaging system is no longer saturated; (Hillman et al disclose as indicated above that defocus is deliberately introduced, and further in Paragraph 1 that by defocusing, diffraction peaks are instead spread out over multiple detection pixels, saturation is avoided, and the reconstruction signal-to-noise ratio is improved)
obtaining a defocused image of the sample surface arranged in the defocused position with the imaging system; (met as discussed above)
determining an infocus image by backpropagating the defocused image the distance Z by applying a backpropagation algorithm to the defocused image; and (further in Paragraph 1, Fresnel backpropagation by Z=∆z: “assuming that the transformation of the sample wave over these short axial displacements can be described using Fresnel wave propagation, then defocusing can be corrected for by appropriate (de) convolution with a propagation kernel…, where ∆z is the propagation distance”)
determining the surface map of the sample surface based on the infocus image. (see “object reconstruction”, Figures 7 and 8)
Hillman et al disclose claim 2: The method according to claim 1, wherein the imaging system is configured for determining a phase and an amplitude of the image of the sample surface, wherein the obtaining the defocused image includes determining a defocused phase and a defocused amplitude of the defocused image, and wherein the backpropagation algorithm is based on the determined defocused phase and a determined defocused amplitude of the defocused image. (see the rejection of claim 1; further, digital holography determines phase and amplitude of images of sample surfaces through recorded interference patterns)
Hillman et al disclose claim 3: The method according to claim 1, wherein the imaging system is an interferometer including a light source and wherein the defocused image is a defocused interferogram, wherein the infocus image is an infocus interferogram, and wherein the surface map is a height map. (see the optical system of Figure 5 which shows an interferometer that produces interferograms as disclosed in section 2.2, referenced above in the rejection of claim 1)
Claim 5 is met by that discussed above.
As to claim 6, Hillman et al disclose: The method according to claim 1, wherein the distance Z is in dependence of a reflectivity difference between the first reflectivity and the second reflectivity. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, defocus is deliberately introduced such that when highly regular objects are imaged, such that the issue of tightly focused diffraction peaks in the recording plane is avoided. Highly regular objects or those with precise, repeating micro-structures of differing reflectivity inherently focus reflected energy in specific directions or wavelengths. It is thus inherent to the system of Hillman et al that stronger saturation would necessitate larger defocusing.
Claim 7 is met by that discussed above for claim 6.
As to claim 9: The method according to claim 1, wherein the backpropagation algorithm is one of an angular spectrum algorithm and a Fresnel propagation algorithm, Hillman et al disclose a Fresnel propagation algorithm as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 10: The method according to claim 1, wherein the surface map is determined from the infocus image using one of a carrier fringe method, a phase shifting method, a heterodyne method and Lissajous phase extraction method, in section 5 “Conclusion”, paragraphs 6-7, Hillman et al disclose that pairwise sequentially phase-matching holograms can lead to the problem of small errors accumulating over large apertures, leading to potential blurring. The reference proposes applying a slowly varying, polar-angle-dependent phase factor as a means for correcting them. The reference also discloses “the incorporation of phase-shifting interferometry”.
Claims 11-13 are met by that discussed above for claims 1-3, respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillman et al “High-resolution, wide-field object reconstruction with synthetic aperture Fourier holographic optical microscopy”, cited by applicant.
With regard to claim 4, Hillman et al do not explicitly disclose: The method according to claim 3, wherein the method further includes: determining an average intensity of a sample light beam reflected of the sample surface; and providing a reference surface such that an average intensity of a reflected reference light beam is equal to the average intensity of the reflected sample light beam. However, this is not considered to be a patentable distinction in that it would have been clearly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to match average intensities as a matter of design choice in order to optimize fringe contrast, maximize sensor dynamic range, and balance the signal-to-noise ratio.
As to claim 8, Hillman et al do not explicitly disclose: The method according to claim 1, wherein the distance Z is such that a difference between a highest intensity of the defocused image and a lowest intensity of the defocused image is below a predetermined intensity threshold. However, this is not considered to be a patentable distinction in that it would have been clearly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to apply a threshold as a matter of design choice in order to avoid saturation.
With regard to claim 14, Hillman et al disclose the operations for determining a surface map of a sample surface as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. However, in section 3 “Experimental setup and Methodology”, the reference fails to disclose that the operations are carried out by an executable set of instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium. However, this is not considered to be a patentable distinction given that it was notoriously well-known to automate a methodology through software. Accordingly, it would have been clearly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the methodology of Hillman et al in this manner in order to reproduce it at scale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W MILLER whose telephone number is 571-272-7353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1667. 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.
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights