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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/30/2025. The submission is following the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
4. Claims 1-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “cause the one or more processors to function as: a standard unit including a standard surface; an interferometer including a light source and a detector; an adjustment unit, and a computing unit”. The claim is unclear because the standard surface; the interferometer including a light source and a detector are physical optical components; these cannot be elements generated or functioned as by a processor executing software memory instruction.
Claim 11 recites “an element”, then recites “the optical element”. It is unclear if “the optical element” is the same as the previously recited “an element”.
Claims 2-10 are indefinite due to their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki (US 2014/0300904 A1) in view of Uemura (US 2014/0268173 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Yuki discloses (Fig.5) an apparatus that measures a position of a test surface in an optical system ([0025], “different positions on the surface 100 to be measured”), the apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions which, when the instructions are executed by the one or more processors (inherent, in order to store and execute the calculations as shown in [0067]-[0069] , cause the one or more processors to function as:
a standard unit (104a, Fig. 5) including a standard surface (the surface 104a);
an interferometer (10) including a light source (101) that emits test light and reference light (see Fig. 5, the light from the light source 101 is split by splitting elements 103a/103b into test light and reference light), and a detector (113a and 113b) that acquires a first signal ([0065], the detector 113 a receives, a first interference light) and a second signal ([0065], The detector 113 b receives a second interference light);
a computing unit (115, Fig. 5) configured to calculate the position of the test surface based on the first signal and the second signal (Fig. 5 shows the processor 115 receiving signals from the detectors 113a and 113b to calculate a distance corresponding to the optical path length difference between test light and reference light of the test surface 100, see [0021] and [0068]-[0069]), wherein
the first signal (the first signal at detector 113a) is a signal generated by interference between the reference light (“The first test light”, [0025], “the first test light reflected by the surface 100”) and standard light that is the test light being reflected from the standard surface (Fig.5, and [0060], the light reflected by reference surface 104a)
, and wherein the second signal (the second signal at detector 113b) is a signal generated by interference between the reference light (the light reflected from the reference surface 104b, see Fig. 5 and [0061]) and measurement light (“the second test light”, [0026], “the second test light reflected by the surface 100”, [0061]) that is the test light being reflected from the test surface (100).
Although Yuki discloses an adjustment unit (pinhole plates 112a and 112b), Yuki fails to disclose the adjustment unit configured to adjust intensity of at least one of the first signal and the second signal as claimed. Uemura discloses an interferometer system comprising an adjustment unit (“an iris diaphragm is used as the stop 115”, Fig. 2 or 107) configured to adjust intensity of at least one of the first signal and the second signal ([0027], “an iris diaphragm is used as the stop 115, the light amount, depth of field, and speckle size can be adjusted by adjusting the diameter of the iris diaphragm”, showing that the variable aperture stop controls/adjusts the intensity of the light through the optical path). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuki, by utilizing the teaching of Uemura, to provide high-accuracy measurement and the influence of noise on the interfering signal is reduced ([0058], Uemura).
Regarding claim 3, Yuki in view of Uemura, as discussed in claim 1, Yuki discloses the standard unit includes a plurality of standard surfaces (104a, 104b, see Fig. 5 and [0060]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 11, Yuki in view of Uemura, as discussed in claim 1, Yuki discloses (Fig.5) the standard unit (104a) including an element (103a) configured to split the test light (see Fig.5), and wherein the optical element (103a) is disposed between the standard surface (104a) and the detector (113a) on an optical path of the standard light (the light reflected from the reference surface 104a, see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, Yuki in view of Uemura, as discussed in claim 12, Yuki discloses measuring a position of a test surface (100) in an optical system (Fig.5 the processor 115 receives interference signals from detectors 113a and 113b, and [0069], the processor calculates the “corresponding to the optical path length differences” and corrects the “corrected distance L2′ of the target surface 100); and adjusting the optical system using a result of measurement of the position of the test surface ([0070], “The correction processing …can be relatively easily changed and adjusted to an arrangement”).
Regarding claims 2, 13 and 19, Yuki in view of Uemura, as discussed in claims 2, 12 and 18, Yuki discloses the computing unit (the processor 115, Fig.5) acquires a first optical path length from the light source to the standard surface (surface 104a) based on the first signal (Fig5 and [0065], the processor 115 receives the first interference signal from detector 113a, and [0066], “T5 is the distance between the reference surface 104 a and the splitting element 103 a”)
, wherein the computing unit (115) acquires a second optical path length from the light source to the test surface based on the second signal (see Fig.5 and [0065], the processor 115 receives the second interference signal from detector 113a, which captures the reflection from the surface to be measured 100; and [0067]-[0068], the second interference signal is path length/distance data)
, and wherein the computing unit calculates the position of the test surface (100) based on the first optical path length and the second optical path length (see the equation in [0069], 2×L2′=2×L2−2×(T9−T8−T6+T5), wherein the L2 is the second optical path length from the second signal, and T5 is the first optical path length from the first signal).
Regarding claims 5-6, 14 and 20, Yuki in view of Uemura, as discussed in claim 1, Yuki does not disclose the adjustment unit adjusting the intensity of the first signal based on the intensity of the second signal or a detection range of the detector as claimed. Uemura discloses the adjustment unit (115/107, Fig.1) adjusting the intensity of the first signal based on the intensity of the second signal or a detection range of the detector ([0025], “The branch ratio of transmitted light and reflected light can be changed in accordance with the rotation angle of the λ/2 plate 107” and [0027], “When an iris diaphragm is used as the stop 115, the light amount, depth of field, and speckle size can be adjusted” showing the optical intensity is modified within the range of the detector). Also, Uemura discloses the adjustment unit being an aperture stop (“an iris diaphragm is used as the stop 115”, [0027]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuki by utilizing the teaching of Uemura, to prevent detection saturation.
Claims 7, 8, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki in view of Uemura, and further in view of Heinisch et al., (US 2012/0133924 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Yuki in view of Uemura, as discussed in claims 1 and 12, do not disclose the adjustment unit being a driving member configured to change an inclination of the standard surface as claimed. Heinisch et al., disclose (Fig. 5) an adjustment unit (76) being a driving member configured to change an inclination of a standard surface (74)([0074], “the aid of an actuator 76 is displaceable along the beam direction. In this way, it is possible for the optical path length…be changed”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuki and Uemura, by utilizing the teaching of Heinisch et al., to improve the position calculation for the apparatus.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Yuki in view of Uemura, as discussed in claims 1 and 12, do not disclose a condenser lens configured to collect the test light onto the standard surface; and a driving member configured to drive the condenser lens as claimed. Heinisch et al., disclose a condenser lens (46, Fig.5) configured to collect a test light onto a standard surface ([0065], “concentrates the light at a focal point 48” on a target surface); and a driving member configured to drive the condenser lens ([0065], “A zoom lens 46 which is displaceable along the reference axis 34”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuki and Uemura, by utilizing the teaching of Heinisch et al., to optimize the amount of light collected and returned to detectors.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuki in view of Uemura, and further in view of Chen et al., (US 2019/0281202 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yuki in view of Uemura, as discussed in claim 1, do not disclose the adjustment unit being a neutral density filter as claimed. Chen et al., disclose an adjustment unit being a neutral density filter (see Fig.3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuki in view of Uemura, by incorporating/substituting the iris diaphragm/stop with the neutral density filter, as taught by Chen et al., to keep the signals within the optimal detection range of the detectors.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4 and 9 would be allowed once the 112b rejection is overcome.
8. Claims 4, 9, 17 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.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to disclose the computing unit calculating a position of each of the plurality of standard surfaces based on the first signal, and calculates the position of the standard surface based on the position and the second signal.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to disclose the standard unit including a plurality of standard surfaces different in reflectance, and wherein the adjustment unit is a driving member configured to drive the plurality of standard surfaces.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art fails to disclose the adjusting includes driving a plurality of standard surfaces different in reflectance.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAI THI NGOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272- 3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00-5:30pm.
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, GEORGIA EPPS can be reached on (571)272-2328. 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. Visithttps://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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights