DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 3/18/2025, in which claims 1-10 are currently pending. The Application claims foreign priority to 2024-044027, filed 03/19/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The 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 application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 3/18/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6- This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
DC offset remover, first phase adjuster in claims 1-2, 7, 9;
Second phase adjuster in claim 8,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7- 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.
8- Claims 1-10 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.
As to claim 1, which reads “… a laser source configured to emit a ;”, the underlined clause presents indefiniteness issues as it is incomplete and the Examiner is at loss as to whether the laser source emits a laser light, a coherent or incoherent light, modulated or unmodulated light. It is also not clear how this limitation connects to the rest of the claim limitations.
For examination purposes, all the options will be considered.
Also, Claim 1 reads “ … a phase calculator configured to calculate a phase derived from the object as the sample signal…”, which appears unclear as the concept of a “phase derived from an object” is not known in the art. Do Applicants mean to derive a phase of the light signal generated by the laser light when interacting with the object? Or the phase of the sample signal? Or the phase of light of the interaction of the laser light or the sample signal with the reference signal?
For examination purposes, all the options will be considered.
Claims 2-10 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
As to Claim 4 which reads “… wherein the DC offset remover is set so as to satisfy
PNG
media_image1.png
40
79
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[deg] … when defining a difference between a phase delay amount when a component with a frequency of the modulation signal passes and a phase delay amount when a component with a frequency twice as high as the frequency of the modulation signal passes as y1”, it is unclear what y1 refers to and how it relates to the underlined clauses that are also unclear. “a component” is not defined and it can refer to a physical signal or data of a measured or applied signal.
Claims 5-6 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
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 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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
9- 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.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
10- Claims 1-3 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada (PGPUB No. 2012/0320381)
As to claim 1, Okada teaches a laser interferometer (Abstract, Figs. 1-12) comprising: a laser source (600) configured to emit a laser light; a light modulator which includes a resonator (400 or any of the components 4, 6, 8 or 80) and is configured to add a modulation signal to the laser light using the resonator (Figs. 1, 4, 7, 12); a photodetector (2) configured to detect a change in intensity of the laser light including a sample signal added by an object (P2) and the modulation signal to output a laser light reception signal (output of component 8); an oscillator (module 80 using P1 and generating reference signal output from 18) configured to generate a reference signal with a first frequency using the resonator as a vibratory source (80 generating one of the fsp, fm, fr); and a demodulation circuit (¶ 39; demodulation unit based around components 10/20) configured to demodulate the sample signal from the laser light reception signal based on the reference signal to obtain the displacement of the object (Figs. 1, 4, 7, 12; demodulation at output of 30/50), wherein the demodulation circuit includes a DC offset remover configured to remove an offset of a direct current component of the laser light reception signal (¶ 29), a first phase adjuster configured to adjust a phase of the reference signal (any of 14/16/18/250), a first multiplier (one of 10, 20, 260 or any from the other multipliers) configured to multiply the laser light reception signal output from the DC offset remover by the reference signal output from the first phase adjuster to output a first multiplication signal (see ¶ 31, 33, 35, 56-57 for ex), a first filter (LPFs are used) configured to remove a high-frequency component contained in the first multiplication signal (¶ 29 for ex.), a second multiplier (another from 10 or 20, 260 or any from the other multipliers or inside phase calculator 60) configured to multiply the first multiplication signal and the reference signal output from the first phase adjuster to output a second multiplication signal (see ¶ 31, 33, 35, 44-45, 56-57 for ex), a second filter configured to remove a high-frequency component contained in the second multiplication signal (¶ 29 for ex.), and a phase calculator (60) configured to calculate a phase derived from the object as the sample signal based on a signal output from the first filter and a signal output from the second filter (¶ 44-48).
(claim 2) wherein the demodulation circuit includes a third filter (16 for ex.) which is disposed between the oscillator and the first phase adjuster and is configured to extract a component with the first frequency contained in the reference signal (¶29-30 for ex.)
(claim 3) wherein the demodulation circuit includes an amplifier configured to uniform an amplitude of the first multiplication signal output from the first filter and an amplitude of the second multiplication signal output from the second filter (¶ 29).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11- 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.
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.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
12- Claims 4-9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada.
As to claims 4-5, Okada teaches the laser interferometer according to claim 1.
Okada does not teach expressly wherein the DC offset remover is set so as to satisfy
PNG
media_image1.png
40
79
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[deg] when defining a difference between a phase delay amount when a component with a frequency of the modulation signal passes and a phase delay amount when a component with a frequency twice as high as the frequency of the modulation signal passes as y1; (Claim 5) wherein the DC offset remover is set so that the phase delay amount difference satisfies
PNG
media_image2.png
41
154
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, and given the 112 issues here above, Okada suggests considering phase delays in the decimation modules and at different stages for control purposes (¶ 41), and one PHOSITA would find it obvious to set specific thresholds, including ranges overlapping with the claimed values for control and optimization of the phase calculation (See MPEP § 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Okada so that the DC offset remover is set so as to satisfy
PNG
media_image1.png
40
79
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[deg] when defining a difference between a phase delay amount when a component with a frequency of the modulation signal passes and a phase delay amount when a component with a frequency twice as high as the frequency of the modulation signal passes as y1; (Claim 5) wherein the DC offset remover is set so that the phase delay amount difference satisfies
PNG
media_image2.png
41
154
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the phase calculation.
(claim 6) wherein the demodulation circuit includes an amplifier configured to adjust at least one of the amplitude of the first multiplication signal output from the first filter and the amplitude of the second multiplication signal output from the second filter, wherein the amplifier adjusts the amplitude of the first multiplication signal and the amplitude of the second multiplication signal so as to be made uniform, and adjusts the amplitude of the second multiplication signal so as to cancel out an amplitude variation reflecting the phase delay amount difference (See rejection of claim 3, in addition to systems of Figs. 1, 4, 7, 12).
As to claims 7-9, Okada teaches the laser interferometer according to claim 1.
Okada does not teach expressly wherein the first phase adjuster is configured to adjust the phase of the reference signal so as to be in phase with a fundamental frequency component of the modulation signal contained in the laser light reception signal; (Claim 8) wherein the demodulation circuit includes a second phase adjuster which is disposed between the oscillator and the second multiplier, and is configured to adjust the phase of the reference signal so that the phase of the reference signal is in phase with a phase of the modulation signal contained in the laser light reception signal, and a phase adjustment amount equal to a phase delay amount difference in a pass band of the DC offset remover is generated in a component with the first frequency from the phase in phase with the phase of the modulation signal; (Claim 9) wherein the demodulation circuit is disposed between the first phase adjuster and the second multiplier, and is configured to adjust the phase of the reference signal so that a phase adjustment amount equal to a phase delay amount difference in a pass band of the DC offset remover is generated in a component with the first frequency from a phase of the reference signal output from the first phase adjuster.
However, Okada suggests (Fig. 10 and ¶ 32 for ex.) to use phase comparators 260 in module 250 to output zero phase lag, by the use of band pass filters and phase adjusters (¶ 29-31) (See MPEP § 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Okada so that the first phase adjuster is configured to adjust the phase of the reference signal so as to be in phase with a fundamental frequency component of the modulation signal contained in the laser light reception signal; wherein the demodulation circuit includes a second phase adjuster which is disposed between the oscillator and the second multiplier, and is configured to adjust the phase of the reference signal so that the phase of the reference signal is in phase with a phase of the modulation signal contained in the laser light reception signal, and a phase adjustment amount equal to a phase delay amount difference in a pass band of the DC offset remover is generated in a component with the first frequency from the phase in phase with the phase of the modulation signal; wherein the demodulation circuit is disposed between the first phase adjuster and the second multiplier, and is configured to adjust the phase of the reference signal so that a phase adjustment amount equal to a phase delay amount difference in a pass band of the DC offset remover is generated in a component with the first frequency from a phase of the reference signal output from the first phase adjuster, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the phase calculation.
13- Claim 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Binder (PGPUB 20190154439)
As to claim 10, Okada teaches the laser interferometer according to claim 1.
Okada discloses the use of the interferometer to measure displacement of any movable object (¶ 4, 45-46, 54 for ex.)
Okada does not teach expressly a spectroscopic apparatus comprising: a spectroscopic analyzer which includes a spectroscopic optical system including a movable mirror and is configured to generate spectrum information derived from a sample, wherein the laser interferometer measures a displacement of the movable mirror, and the spectroscopic analyzer generates the spectrum information based on a measurement result of the displacement of the movable mirror by the laser interferometer, even though the claim appears to pertain to an intended use without specific characteristics that present a novelty in using the interferometer to the spectroscopic apparatus.
Moreover, prior art such as Binder uses MZ interferometer (¶199 for ex.) in conjunction to apparatus for cooperative usage of distance meters (Abstract, Figs. 1-46) where spectrometer mirrors, eventually switchable, are to be monitored (¶32-36, 350). One PHOSITA would have found obvious to use the highly sensitive/accurate displacement detector of Okada according to Binder’s suggestions as a mere intended use and measure the displacement of the mirrors with high accuracy (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Okada according to Binder’s suggestions so that a spectroscopic apparatus comprises: the interferometer and a spectroscopic analyzer which includes a spectroscopic optical system including a movable mirror and is configured to generate spectrum information derived from a sample, wherein the laser interferometer measures a displacement of the movable mirror, and the spectroscopic analyzer generates the spectrum information based on a measurement result of the displacement of the movable mirror by the laser interferometer, even though the claim appears to pertain to an intended use without specific characteristics that present a novelty in using the interferometer to the spectroscopic apparatus, with the advantage of effectively and accurately measuring the displacement of the mirror(s).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights