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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 September 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments and remarks filed 04 August 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application where claims 10-17 have been withdrawn due to restriction requirement made final. Applicant’s submitted remarks filed 04 August 2025 were entered and addressed via an Advisory Action (PTOL-303) dated 04 September 2025. No new argument or claim amendment has been introduced within this Request for Continued Examination; the claims are identical to and/or patentably indistinct from the claims in the application prior to the RCE submission.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 04 June 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and therefore is considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument (remarks page 1 “Regarding Independent Claim 1” through page 2 paragraph 1) that the references Brahms (DE 102015211954 B4), Siercks (US 2014/0063204 A1) and Ota (US 12,159,425 B2) are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, examiner maintains that the references are within the field of the inventor’s endeavor as disclosed within the Final Office Action dated 04 June 2025, where the field of endeavor is reasonably considered as related to “methods for contactless three-dimensional mapping of target objects and object surfaces, all of which utilize patterned light sources to test the target” where a field of technology is reflected within the projection of patterned light sources to test the target.
Regarding applicant’s argument (remarks page 2 paragraph 1) that Brahm does not use patterned light to test the target, examiner notes (as is found in the rejection) that Brahm utilizes a radiation source 6 which imprints a thermal pattern 9 onto the surface of the object; one of ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes infrared radiation as a form of light, and as the light projected onto the object is termed “a thermal pattern”, one of ordinary skill readily recognizes Brahm as utilizing patterned light to test the target.
Regarding applicant’s argument (remarks page 2 paragraph 2) that the claimed method operates on different principles than the optical triangulation method of Siercks and Ota, examiner notes that the qualities disclosed in the argument about the “thermal diffusion as a key operational feature [of the claimed invention]” and cited sections of the specification are all limitations that are addressed by Brahm. Brahm discloses the evolution of the thermal pattern after the radiation source is switched off (Brahm [0036]) and discloses that detection and imprinting need not be carried out synchronously (Brahm [0017]). The disclosure of Siercks and Ota need not teach the principles of thermal diffusion as they are not relied upon to teach the limitations in the rejection. Examiner also wishes to note that the claimed invention utilizes optical triangulation within claim 1 and therefore shares at least some operating principles with the references Siercks and Ota [i.e. the references are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor].
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Regarding applicant’s argument (remarks page 2 paragraph 4) that aspects of the technology used by Siercks and Ota, namely using a light pattern with sharply delimited lighted areas, to the method discussed in Brahm is based on a legally erroneous hindsight consideration, examiner disagrees. The method within Brahm uses a light pattern with sharply delimited lighted areas and is based on triangulation, since spatial points on the object surfaces are determined via triangulation (Brahm abstract), and the thermal pattern (a pattern due to a projected thermal (infrared) light pattern) is desired as being irregular and capable of generating temperature variance for the thermal image values to differ from point to point [i.e. delimited lighted areas] (Brahm [0015]). Therefore, based on this the preceding argument and the disclosure within Brahm, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the incorporation of technologies of Ota and Siercks as a legally erroneous hindsight consideration.
Regarding applicant’s argument (remarks page 3 paragraph 2, page 4 paragraph 3) that it would not be readily apparent to a skill person that the size of the irradiation area is important for the accuracy of 3D mapping, and that a limitation of the irradiated area would lead to a higher spatial resolution, examiner disagrees. Brahm discloses that in order to reduce search effort in identifying corresponding points, the points which potentially correspond are restricted via epipolar geometry, and thus the variation of the points can be restricted to a limited area of the respective image plane (Brahm 0014]). One of ordinary skill would recognize that to further restrict the area where corresponding points may be identified (and therefore further decrease search effort), the irradiation area may be limited to achieve such a reduction – the corresponding points identified in Brahm are due to the object surface being irradiated, so reducing the surface area being irradiated inherently reduces the area where corresponding points may be identified. Given the reduction of search burden disclosed by Brahm, one of ordinary skill would recognize the importance of irradiation area size and possible limitation for the 3D mapping process.
Regarding applicant’s argument (remarks page 3 paragraph 4) that detection in the form of data collection is only taking place at the time when [the object] is actually irradiated, examiner notes that Siercks has been cited to teach that the thermal patterns projected onto the surface of the object under investigation are chronologically sequentially different thermal patterns projected by chronologically sequential irradiation pulses. Siercks is not cited for its teachings related to capturing data, be it when an object is actually irradiated or not – the detection of data falls to Brahm.
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.
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, 5-9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102015211954 B4 by Anika Brahm et al. (“Brahm”) in view of US 12,159,425 B2 Jun Ota et al., and further in view of US 2014/0063204 A1 by Knut Siercks. Examiner notes that the reference Brahm was cited in the IDS filed 01 August 2022.
Regarding claim 1, Brahm discloses a method for contactless measuring of an object surface, the method comprising:
generating a temporally variable temperature distribution on the object surface by imprinting a plurality of thermal patterns on the object surface (Brahm [0010]; temperature distributions are generated, due to [0012] imprinting thermal patterns on an object surface; [0015] imposed thermal pattern is irregular and generates a time-varying temperature distribution on the object surface) by irradiation with a radiation source using irradiation pulses (Brahm [0020]; radiation source for heating the object surface can be designed for pulsed emission of radiation power), wherein with each pulse one or more surface elements are irradiated on the object surface (Brahm [0012]; the irradiation of the object surface occurs in the object space, and spatial coordinates of the object surface are obtained; the object surface being irradiated comprises any surface elements within the irradiation space, and any specific element can be referred to with coordinates – reading on illuminated surface elements) wherein radiation produced by the radiation source causes a temperature increase on the object surface when it impinges thereon (Brahm [0020]; radiation source heats the object surface [temperature increase on object surface] when irradiated light impinges the surface);
detecting the object surface by one or more thermal imaging cameras at a plurality of successive recording instants (Brahm [0012]; two spaced apart thermal imaging cameras record images of the object surface; control and evaluation unit controls thermal imaging cameras to capture consecutive recording times [successive recording instants]);
identifying mutually corresponding points in at least one of an image plane of the one or more thermal imaging cameras or in at least one of a real image plane or a virtual image plane associated with the radiation source (Brahm [0012]; control and evaluation unit identifies corresponding points in the images planes of the thermal imaging cameras); wherein the mutually corresponding points are identified by determining for one or more respective pairs of potentially corresponding points, a similarity between one or more sequences of thermal image values detected for the mutually corresponding points of the one or more respective pairs or, for points in the real image plane or the virtual image plane associated with the radiation source, determined by simulation, and maximizing the similarity by varying at least one of the points of the respective pair (Brahm [0007]; corresponding points are identified by determining a similarity between the sequences of thermal image values detected for the points of the respective pair, and maximizing the similarity by varying at least one of the points of the respective pair; the limitation “for points in the real image pane or the virtual image plane…” has not been considered due to the “or” statement);
determining one or more spatial coordinates of the object surface by triangulation based on the identified mutually corresponding points (Brahm [0007]; spatial coordinates of the object surface are determined by triangulation based on the corresponding points).
Brahm is silent to wherein the irradiated surface elements are spatially limited such that an area of the object surface irradiated by a single pulse of the pulses as captured in the image plane of the one or more thermal imaging cameras is smaller than 5% of the total area of the image plane.
However, Ota does address this limitation. Brahm and Ota are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of contactless three-dimensional mapping of target objects and object surfaces.
Ota discloses “wherein the irradiated surface elements are spatially limited such that an area of the object surface irradiated by a single pulse of the pulses as captured in the image plane of the one or more thermal imaging cameras is smaller than 5% of the total area of the image plane” (Ota fig. 1 discloses a 3D measurement system for projecting light onto a target object and obtaining first and second images; col 10 ll. 4-25 and fig. 10 describes a diagram of an image sensor 96 [image plane of imaging camera], which captures the pattern shown in the figure after being projected onto the target object (see pattern of fig. 6 imaged after being incident on target object in fig. 7); the size of the dark pattern 95 (random piece) on the image sensor is disclosed as being 1/16 pixels2 on a 9 pixel2 image sensor (3x3 image size, col 9 ll. 57-60), which yields the pattern 95 being 2% of the total image size; while the pattern 95 is shown as dark, the randomly generated pattern consists of both light and dark random pieces, and a size of the smallest light random piece would be the same size as the smallest dark; therefore, for a single light subelement incident on a target object, its size would be less than 5% the total area of the image plane).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brahm to incorporate wherein the irradiated surface elements are spatially limited such that an area of the object surface irradiated by a single pulse of the pulses as captured in the image plane of the one or more thermal imaging cameras is smaller than 5% of the total area of the image plane as suggested by Ota for the advantage of ensuring random pieces are not so small such that the pattern fails to be resolved (Ota col 9 ll. 50-56) after being illuminated on the target object, thereby optimizing resolution of depth information.
Brahm when modified by Ota is silent to imprinting a plurality of chronologically sequential different thermal patterns by irradiation with radiation source using chronologically sequential irradiation pulses; and each area [is] irradiated by a single pulse of the chronologically sequential irradiation pulses.
However, Siercks does address this limitation. Brahm, Ota, and Siercks are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of contactless three-dimensional mapping of target objects and object surfaces.
Siercks discloses imprinting “a plurality of chronologically sequential different patterns by irradiation with radiation source using chronologically sequential irradiation pulses, and each area [is] irradiated by a single pulse of the chronologically sequential irradiation pulses” (Siercks [0030] describes and fig. 11 shows a representation of projected pattern sequences along a time axis where projected patterns 1, 2, etc. are sequentially arranged in time and are projected onto an object surface; therefore, the patterns projected onto the object surface disclosed by Brahm in view of Ota follow a chronologically sequential structure of irradiation pulses projecting chronologically sequential different patterns).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brahm in view of Ota to incorporate a plurality of chronologically sequential different patterns by irradiation with radiation source using chronologically sequential irradiation pulses, and each area [is] irradiated by a single pulse of the chronologically sequential irradiation pulses as suggested by Siercks for the advantage of minimizing the computing power required in the measurement system by evaluating the measurement pattern and data obtained in real time, allowing both the measurement and an associated analysis to be stored in the measurement system (Siercks [0052]).
Regarding claim 5, Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks discloses the method according to claim 1, and Brahm further teaches the method further comprising:
simultaneously obtaining a thermal image of the object surface from at least two spaced-apart thermal imaging cameras at a plurality of successive recording instants, so that a respective sequence of thermal image values is detected for points in an image plane of each of the at least two spaced-apart thermal imaging cameras (Brahm [0007]; first and second thermal imaging cameras simultaneously record thermal images in each their respective image planes a several consecutive recording times to generate a sequence of thermal image values are captured in the image plane of each of the spaced apart thermal imaging cameras):
identifying corresponding points in the image planes of the at least two thermal imaging cameras by determining, for respective pairs of potentially corresponding points, a similarity between the respective sequencies of thermal image values detected for the points of the respective pairs using a mathematical similarity measure (Brahm [0007]; corresponding points are identified by determining a similarity using a mathematical similarity measure between the sequences of thermal image values detected for the points of the respective pair by each of the spaced apart thermal image cameras);
maximizing the similarity by varying at least one of the points of the respective pairs (Brahm [0007]; the similarity is maximized by varying at least one of the points of the respective pair); and
determining one or more spatial coordinates of the object surface by a triangulation based on the identified corresponding points (Brahm [0007]; spatial coordinates of the object surface are determined by triangulation based on the corresponding points).
Regarding claim 6, Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks discloses the method according to claim 1, and Brahm further teaches the method wherein the radiation source is at least one of an infrared light source, an opto-electronic component, or a laser (Brahm [0020]; radiation source is a laser).
Regarding claim 7, Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks discloses the method according to claim 1, and Brahm further teaches the method wherein a particular recording instant lies in a time interval during which no new thermal pattern is imprinted on the object surface, and wherein the variable temperature distribution on the object surface changes by thermal diffusion between a preceding recording instant and the particular recording instant (Brahm [0016]; recording time lines in a time interval during which no new thermal pattern is impressed; temperature distribution on object surface changes due to thermal diffusion between the preceding recording time and the particular recording instant).
Regarding claim 8, Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks discloses the method according to claim 7, and Brahm further teaches the method wherein the particular recording instant is at an instant after the imprinting of a further thermal pattern on the object surface (Brahm [0016]; as with claim 7, it is provided that a recording instant occurs in an interval where no new thermal pattern is imprinted; also, [0017] discloses a typical method where an imprint is followed by multiple captures, where the most recent capture to the imprint is equivalent to the “instant after imprinting of a thermal pattern”) so that the variable temperature distribution on the object surface further changes between the preceding recording instant and the particular by an energy input by a further irradiation pulse (Brahm; a preceding recording instant will have occurred prior to an imprint of a further irradiation pulse; after the further irradiation pulse, multiple captures will take place, where the most recent will be particular recording instant in question, which has a further irradiation pulse between the two recording instants; [0016] the temperature distribution on the object surface will differ during these events, particularly from a further heating irradiation pulse).
Regarding claim 9, Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks discloses the method according to claim 1, and Brahm further teaches the method wherein the similarity between the one or more sequences of thermal image values is determined by evaluating a correlation function defined for pairs of sequences of values, and wherein the mutually corresponding points are each identified by maximizing or minimizing a value of a correlation thus formed (Brahm [0041]; pairs of sequences of temperature values are compared by a control and evaluation unit, assigning a similarity value to each of the pairs using a correlation function; the correlation function is evaluated by maximizing (also minimizing) the similarity value, where the “value of a correlation” is interpreted as being equivalent to the similarity value).
Regarding claim 18, Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks discloses the method according to claim 1, and Brahm further teaches the method wherein detecting is performed by a plurality of thermal imaging cameras, and wherein the detecting takes place simultaneously by each imaging camera of the plurality of imaging cameras (Brahm [0007]; first and second thermal imaging cameras simultaneously record thermal images [detecting takes place simultaneously as thermal image recording]) such that a respective sequence of thermal image values is detected for points in a respective image plane of each imaging camera (Brahm [0070]; a sequence of thermal image values is captured for points in an image plane of each of the thermal imaging cameras).
Claims 2-4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brahm in view of Ota, in view of Siercks, and further in view of US 2018/0209784 A1 by Guoheng Zhao et al. (“Zhao”).
Regarding claim 2, Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks discloses the method according to claim 1. Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks is silent to the method according to claim 1, wherein the surface elements irradiated in each pulse of the chronologically sequential irradiation pulses are different and spaced apart from each other such that the one or more surface elements irradiated with individual irradiation pulses are dot-shaped or line-shaped.
However, Zhao does address this limitation. Brahm, Ota, Siercks, and Zhao are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of contactless three-dimensional mapping of target objects and object surfaces.
Zhao discloses the method of claim 1, “wherein the surface elements irradiated in each pulse of the chronologically sequential irradiation pulses are different and spaced apart from each other such that the one or more surface elements irradiated with individual irradiation pulses are dot-shaped or line-shaped” (Zhao [0122]; fig. 15 shows a surface 21 on which solder bumps 9 are distributed [surface elements on an object surface], where the surface elements are dot-shaped; the chronological sequential irradiation pulses have been disclosed above by Brahm in view of Ota and Siercks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brahm in view of Ota and Siercks to incorporate wherein the surface elements irradiated in each pulse of the chronologically sequential irradiation pulses are different and spaced apart from each other such that the one or more surface elements irradiated with individual irradiation pulses are dot-shaped or line-shaped as suggested by Zhao for the advantage of an adaptable irradiation source depending on the properties of the surface being measured, ensuring adequate irradiation light for any particular surface element (Zhao [0121]).
Regarding claim 3, Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks discloses the method according to claim 1. Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks is silent to the method according to claim 1, wherein spaced-apart and changing surface elements are each irradiated in consecutive irradiation pulses.
However, Zhao does address this limitation.
Zhao discloses the method according to claim 1, “wherein spaced-apart and changing surface elements are each irradiated in consecutive irradiation pulses” (as indicated in claim 2 above, Zhao [0122] and fig. 15 shows a surface 21 with solder bumps 9 are distributed [surface elements on an object surface]; the surface elements are spaced apart, and are different (i.e. not the same surface element); the spaced-apart surface elements would be irradiated by the consecutive irradiation pulses disclosed by Siercks; also, fig. 20 shows parallel inspection of objects [i.e. soldering bumps] by a plurality of inspection modules – since the conveyer is moving, the pulses of Siercks would illuminate each of the spaced apart objects as they pass under the inspection modules along the conveyer; since the thermal imaging of Brahm is used to heat the surface of an object under investigation, one of ordinary skill would consider the changing heat profile of the surface as being “changing”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brahm in view of Ota and Siercks to incorporate wherein spaced-apart and changing surface elements are each irradiated in consecutive irradiation pulses as suggested by Zhao for the advantage of contactless measuring for multiple surface elements that can be done efficiently through the ability of spaced apart surface elements, i.e. passing along a conveyer (Zhao fig. 20).
Regarding claim 4, Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks discloses the method according to claim 1. Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks is silent to the method according to claim 1, wherein a distance remains between consecutively illuminated surface elements, wherein an image of distance in the image plane of the one or more thermal imaging cameras or is larger than 1/100 of a largest diameter of the image plane.
However, Zhao does address this limitation.
Zhao discloses the method according to claim 1, “wherein a distance remains between consecutively illuminated surface elements, wherein an image of distance in the image plane of the one or more thermal imaging cameras or is larger than 1/100 of a largest diameter of the image plane” (see claims 2 and 3 above regarding the surface 21 and solder bumps 9 [surface elements on an object surface], which are consecutively illuminated by the method of Brahm in view of Ota and Siercks; Zhao [0112] discloses a distance between solder bumps relative to the pitch of the pattern illuminated onto the surface elements and relative to the objective [image plane]; the spacing of solder bumps relative to the pitch of the pattern may be such to eliminate the need to record a plurality of images for each relative position of the surface element; since the distance between solder bumps informs the efficiency of the measuring system, the distance between solder bumps is a result effective variable, and may therefore be optimized such that the distance in the image plane is larger than 1/100 of a largest diameter in the image plane; further, it has been held that optimization requires only routine skill in the art – see MPEP 2144.05 II. (A) and II (B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brahm in view of Ota and Siercks to incorporate wherein a distance remains between consecutively illuminated surface elements, wherein an image of distance in the image plane of the one or more thermal imaging cameras or is larger than 1/100 of a largest diameter of the image plane as suggested by Zhao for the advantage of contactless measuring for multiple surface elements that can be done efficiently through the ability of spaced apart surface elements, i.e. passing along a conveyer (Zhao fig. 20), while optimizing the scale/resolution for surface elements captured within an imaging plane.
Regarding claim 19, Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks discloses the method according to claim 2. Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks is silent to the method according to claim 2, wherein the individual surface elements are dot-shaped, and wherein a diameter of an image of the individual surface elements in the image plane of the one or more thermal imaging cameras is smaller than 1/50 of a largest diameter of the image plane.
However, Zhao does address this limitation.
Zhao discloses the method according to claim 2, “wherein the individual surface elements are dot-shaped” (Zhao [0122]; fig. 15 shows a surface 21 on which solder bumps 9 are distributed [surface elements on an object surface], where the surface elements are dot-shaped, as discussed in claim 2), “and wherein a diameter of an image of the individual surface elements in the image plane of the one or more thermal imaging cameras is smaller than 1/50 of a largest diameter of the image plane” (Zhao [0115] and fig. 13 disclose the imaging of a solder bump [individual surface element], where the solder bump has a radius r (i.e. a diameter of 2r); the optical numerical aperture (NA) needs to be large enough to provide optimal resolution to resolve individual bumps in an array; since the numerical aperture describes the angle of resolution (i.e. affects the size of the image plane) for an optical system, the largest diameter of the image plane is a result effective variable, dependent on the numerical aperture and also influences the resolution of the system; therefore, for a given system it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to optimize the diameter of the image plane (by optimizing the optical numerical aperture) to effectively resolve any surface elements being investigated; an optimal ratio between the diameter of an individual surface element and the largest image plane diameter may well be 1/50 if found to be most effective for achieving optimal resolution; it has been held that optimization of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art – see MPEP 2144.05 II(A) and II(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brahm in view of Ota and Siercks to incorporate wherein the individual surface elements are dot-shaped, and wherein a diameter of an image of the individual surface elements in the image plane of the one or more thermal imaging cameras is smaller than 1/50 of a largest diameter of the image plane as suggested by Zhao for the advantage of optimizing the optical resolution to measure individual surface elements in an array-type layout through the optical numerical aperture (Zhao [0115]), analogous to the layout of the chronologically arranged individual surface elements of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brahm in view of Ota, in view of Siercks, in view of Zhao, and further in view of “Effect of solder bump shapes on underfill flow in flip-chip encapsulation using analytical, numerical, and PIV experimental approaches” by Fei Chong Ng et al. (“Ng”) (doi.org/10.1016/j.microrel.2017.12.025).
Regarding claim 20, Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks discloses the method according to claim 2. Brahm when modified by Ota and Siercks is silent to the method according to claim 2, wherein the individual surface elements are line-shaped, and wherein a line width of an image of the individual surface elements in the image plane of the one or more thermal imaging cameras is smaller than 1/50 of a largest diameter of the image plane.
However, Zhao does address these limitations.
Zhao discloses the method according to claim 2, “wherein the individual surface elements are line-shaped” (Zhao [0122]; fig. 15 shows a surface 21 on which solder bumps 9 are distributed [surface elements on an object surface], where the surface elements are dot-shaped, as discussed in claim 2; while the surface elements of Zhao are disclosed to be dot-shaped in figures, a prima facie case of obviousness exists under MPEP 2144.04 IV. B. Changes in Shape, since it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to replace dot-shaped surface elements with line-shaped surface elements, especially since the method of imaging is unchanged by the shape of the surface elements being imaged, since Zhao [0109] discloses the only requirement for the individual surface elements is that they must be specular structures, which are not inherently dot-shaped) “and wherein a line width of an image of the individual surface elements in the image plane of the one or more thermal imaging cameras is smaller than 1/50 of a largest diameter of the image plane” (following the same rationale from claim 19, Zhao [0115] and fig. 13 disclose the imaging of a solder bump [individual surface element – disclosed to be obvious as a line-shaped element], where the solder bump has a radius r [or an equivalent line width of a line-shaped element]; the optical numerical aperture (NA) needs to be large enough to provide optimal resolution to resolve individual bumps in an array; since the numerical aperture describes the angle of resolution (i.e. affects the size of the image plane) for an optical system, the largest diameter of the image plane is a result effective variable, dependent on the numerical aperture and also influences the resolution of the system; therefore, for a given system it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to optimize the diameter of the image plane (by optimizing the optical numerical aperture) to effectively resolve any surface elements being investigated; an optimal ratio between the line width of an individual surface element and the largest image plane diameter may well be 1/50 if found to be most effective for achieving optimal resolution; it has been held that optimization of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art – see MPEP 2144.05 II(A) and II(B))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brahm in view of Ota and Siercks to incorporate wherein the individual surface elements are line-shaped, and wherein a line width of an image of the individual surface elements in the image plane of the one or more thermal imaging cameras is smaller than 1/50 of a largest diameter of the image plane as suggested by Zhao for the advantage of optimizing the optical resolution to measure individual surface elements in an array-type layout through the optical numerical aperture (Zhao [0115]), analogous to the layout of the chronologically arranged individual surface elements of the claimed invention.
As disclosed in the preceding paragraphs, Brahm when modified by Ota, Siercks, and Zhao does not explicitly disclose line-shaped individual surface elements, though a prima facie case of obviousness has been shown to exist. Brahm when modified by Ota, Siercks, Zhao, and Ng explicitly discloses the ability for solder bumps [the individual surface elements of Zhao] to be different in shape, where the different shaped solder bumps create different effects for devices they’re incorporated into. Ng page 43 figures 2-4 show microscopic and simulation images of up to four different types of solder bump shapes, where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill for the change of shape of the solder bumps in Zhao into one of those shown in Ng. The method of inspection of Zhao would remain the same regardless of shape, since the solder bumps 9 need only be a specular structure (Zhao [0109]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brahm in view of Ota, Siercks, and Zhao to incorporate line-shaped individual surface elements as suggested by Ng for the advantage of obtaining a method of imaging unrestricted by the shape of object being imaged.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (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 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877