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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 14-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites the limitation "the predetermined condition" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 3-6, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi (US2017/0167974) in view of Choi et al. (KR101996234), Maruyama (JP2017032284) and Hamada et al. (JP2004069571).
To claim 1, Koizumi teach a terahertz-wave inspection system for inspecting an object including a base and a coating layer that coats the base (Fig. 5; paragraph 0104), the inspection system comprising:
an emission unit configured to irradiate the object with a terahertz wave (113 of Fig. 1; paragraph 0012), wherein a frequency of the terahertz wave is greater than or equal to 10 GHz and is less than or equal to 100 THz (paragraph 0002, 30GHz; paragraph 0063, 1THz; paragraph 0118, 1.3THz), wherein when the terahertz wave irradiates the object, the terahertz wave forms a reference pattern on the object, wherein the object occupies a three-dimensional space (paragraph 0099);
a support unit configured to adjust a relative position between the emission unit and the object (Fig. 3; paragraphs 0018, 0060);
a detection unit configured to detect the terahertz wave reflected from the object and generate a terahertz image (103 of Fig. 1; paragraphs 0035, 0101).
Paragraph 0040, reference is obtained in advance
But, Koizumi do not expressly disclose wherein the reference pattern is a spatial intensity distribution of the terahertz wave formed on the object, wherein the reference pattern is defined in a two-dimensional space, and wherein the three-dimensional space includes the two-dimensional space; wherein the terahertz image depicts at least part of the reference pattern as a spatial intensity distribution based on the terahertz wave reflected from the subject; and a determination unit configured to determine, from a shape of the at least part of the reference pattern depicted as the spatial intensity distribution in the terahertz image, whether an incident angle of the terahertz wave on the object is a predetermined incident angle.
However, Koizumi does teach adjusting incident angle (paragraph 0012), which obviously indicates there is a determination unit to determine incident angle. Also, measuring an object with a spatial intensity distribution of reference pattern is a well-known practice in the art.
Choi teach using terawaves scanner (paragraph 0059) to scan and model an object in three-dimensional space with reference to a two-dimensional reference image (abstract, paragraphs 0015, 0025), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the system of Koizumi, in order to further implementation in object scan modeling.
Maruyama teach an inspection system measuring object at a predetermined angle of incidence (paragraph 0002), wherein an incident angle can be determined from a shape of pattern of output image (abstract, paragraphs 0006-0007).
Hamada teach using terahertz wave (paragraph 0020) to form a reference pattern on an object, wherein the reference pattern is a spatial intensity distribution of the terahertz wave formed on the object (abstract, paragraph 0006, measure surface shape and moving mechanism of measured object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Maruyama and Hamada into the system of Koizumi and Choi, in order to implement reference wave pattern with desired angle.
To claim 16, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach an inspection system (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 17, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach a method for controlling an inspection system including: an emission unit configured to oscillate a terahertz wave; a detection unit configured to detect the terahertz wave; and a support unit configured to support an object (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 3, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach claim 1.
Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach wherein the emission unit includes one or more generation elements and an optical unit configured to collimate the terahertz wave by forming a pair with the one or more generation elements, and the one or more generation elements are a surface light source formed by combining, as an array, a plurality of oscillation elements that oscillate the terahertz wave (Koizumi, Figs. 1-3; Maruyama, paragraphs 0020-0022).
To claim 4, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach claim 3.
Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach wherein the reference pattern is defined in accordance with an arrangement of a set of the one or more generation elements and the optical unit, and the terahertz wave that forms the reference pattern is composed of light beams that are parallel to an optical axis of the emission unit, and the reference pattern exhibits a predetermined shape on a plane perpendicular to the optical axis, wherein the two-dimensional space is the plane perpendicular to the optical axis (Maruyama, paragraphs 0006, 0010, 0016, 0020, 0027-0028, 0035, 0046, 0059; wherein 2D plane being perpendicular to optical axis would be essential).
To claim 5, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach claim 1.
Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach wherein the determination unit infers the incident angle from a correlation between the reference pattern and the shape of the at least part of the reference pattern on the object that is depicted in the terahertz image (Maruyama, abstract, paragraphs 0006-0007, obviously there is a correlation, so that incident angle can be determined based on image output).
To claim 6, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach claim 1.
Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach further comprising a distribution measurement unit configured to, if the determination unit determines that the incident angle is the predetermined incident angle, acquire an intensity distribution image of the terahertz wave from the terahertz image acquired by the detection unit (Maruyama, paragraphs 0055, 0058, 0070).
To claim 18, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach claim 1.
Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach wherein a frequency of the terahertz wave is greater than or equal to 30GHz and is less than or equal to 30THz (Koizumi, paragraph 0002, 30GHz; paragraph 0063, 1THz; paragraph 0118, 1.3THz).
To claim 19, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach claim 1.
Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach wherein the determination unit is further configured to correct respective intensities of pixels in the terahertz image based on the intensity correction data (Koizumi, obvious in paragraphs 0035-0036, wherein intensity correction is well-known in the art, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate to remove unwanted spatial variations, hence Official Notice is taken).
Claim(s) 2, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi (US2017/0167974) in view of Choi et al. (KR101996234), Maruyama (JP2017032284), Hamada et al. (JP2004069571) and Takahashi (US2013/0321823).
To claim 2, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach claim 1.
But, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada do not expressly disclose wherein the reference pattern includes a shape having at least two sides.
Nevertheless, it is obvious because a signal would have at least two sides if the signal is not a flat or straight line.
Takahashi teach an inspection system (abstract, Fig. 2) irradiates an electromagnetic waveform in terahertz (paragraph 0158) with at least two sides (Fig. 3), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the system of Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada for irradiation signal pattern by design preference.
To claim 14, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach claim 1.
But, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada do not expressly disclose wherein the reference pattern is rectangular.
Takahashi teach an inspection system (abstract, Fig. 2) irradiates an electromagnetic waveform in terahertz (paragraph 0158) in rectangular pattern (paragraphs 0166-0167), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the system of Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada for irradiation signal pattern by design preference.
To claim 15, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach claim 1.
But, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada do not expressly disclose wherein the reference pattern is a lattice form.
Takahashi teach an inspection system (abstract, Fig. 2) irradiates an electromagnetic waveform in terahertz (paragraph 0158) in lattice form (paragraph 0129, grating pattern), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the system of Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada for irradiation signal pattern by design preference.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi (US2017/0167974) in view of Choi et al. (KR101996234), Maruyama (JP2017032284), Hamada et al. (JP2004069571) and Amano et al. (JP2019158820).
To claim 20, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach claim 1.
But, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada do not expressly disclose further comprising an inspection unit configured to determine whether the object satisfies a predetermined condition based on the terahertz image.
Amano teach using terahertz wave to inspect surface condition of an object (abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0039-0040, thickness of coating film, presence or absence of sagging), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the system of Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada, in order to implement surface coating inspection.
To claim 21, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada teach claim 1.
But, Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada do not expressly disclose wherein the predetermined condition is a thickness of a coating layer of the object that satisfies one or more criteria.
Amano teach an inspection unit configured to determine whether the object satisfies a predetermined condition based on the terahertz image, wherein the predetermined condition is a thickness of a coating layer of the object that satisfies one or more criteria (abstract, Figs. 4-5, paragraphs 0001, 0039-0041), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the system of Koizumi, Choi, Maruyama and Hamada, in order to implement surface coating inspection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights