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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objection
The objection to claim 13 is overcome by amendment.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d)
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) are overcome by amendment.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s first argument is that Gruhn, a secondary reference, teaches a moving scanning head rather than a stationary system, however, this argument is moot. Neither Gruhn nor any other reference is relied on to teach stationarity, as such a feature is not claimed.
Applicant’s second argument is that the secondary reference, Gruhn, does not teach imaging the sample after the first fluid stream is applied but before the second fluid stream, however, this argument is moot. Gruhn is relied on to teach imaging the sample after the second fluid stream is applied, while Ohtsuki is relied on to teach imaging the sample after the first fluid stream and for providing a rationale for imaging the sample more than once with different conditions.
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.
Claims 16-18 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 16 recites “to deliver at least one of the fluid streams”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the fluid streams”. Does this refer specifically to the first and second fluid streams or are there other fluid streams as well? The term is interpreted as referring to the first fluid stream and the second fluid stream, the only two fluid streams introduced up to that point.
Claims 17 and 18 are indefinite due to depending on indefinite claim 16, as well as for reciting “the fluid stream”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claims, as the only fluid streams introduced by that point are the first fluid stream, the second fluid stream, and the additional fluid stream. Given the comparison (claim 17) or contrast (claim 18) with the additional fluid stream, “the fluid stream” is interpreted as referring to either the first fluid stream or the second fluid stream.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, and 11-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtsuki (US Patent Document 20220375062) in view of Koo (Foreign Patent Document KR 20140130820 A) and Gruhn (US Patent Publication 20150233708).
Regarding claim 1, Ohtsuki teaches a method of comprising: positioning a sample (FIG. 2, uninspected battery 1X) including one or more reflective components on a stage (FIG. 2, conveyer BC), wherein the one or more reflective components comprise one or more reflective surfaces (FIG. 6, difficult-to-detect region HGE, see paragraph 15);
treating the one or more reflective components of the sample one or more reflective surfaces with a first fluid stream having a first temperature (a first fluid stream will inherently have a first temperature) to temporarily adsorb a material on a surface (FIG. 6, minute droplets LQP of volatile liquid LQ in minute droplets distributed layer LQL) of the one or more reflective components of the sample one or more reflective surfaces to cause temporary (paragraph 22) enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective components of the sample one or more reflective surfaces (FIG. 2, diffuse reflection lights DL); and
imaging the one or more reflective surfaces during the first temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective surfaces (FIG. 2, photographing portion CAM, as described, for example, in paragraph 21).
Ohtsuki does not explicitly teach that the reflective surfaces are spherical.
In the same field of endeavor of optical measurements of diffuse surface reflectivity enhanced by liquid droplets, Koo does explicitly teach the use of a method similar to the claimed invention that does use spherical reflective surfaces (FIG. 8, solder ball 14. Note that a sphere is the outer surface of a ball.). By performing the method on samples comprising spherical reflective surfaces, Koo is able to inspect solder balls, as this type of inspection is applicable to multiple kinds of articles under test.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ohtsuki with the spherical surface-containing samples inspected by Koo in order to gain the benefit of inspecting the quality of solder balls instead of a different kind of sample.
While Ohtsuki does teach “spraying liquid in a mist shape” (paragraph 19), Ohtsuki does not explicitly use the word “nozzle” to describe the means by which this is accomplished. Ohtsuki is, in fact, silent as to the exact means by which the fluid is applied.
While Ohtsuki does teach using two detection steps (FIG. 9, step S31, before the detection enabling process, and S34, after the detection enabling process) and determining the appearance data from both when making the determination (FIG. 9, S35. Also see paragraph 89, second sentence), Ohtsuki does not explicitly teach treating the one or more reflective spherical surfaces with a second fluid stream having a second temperature from a second fluid nozzle, the second temperature being greater than the first temperature, to temporarily adsorb a material on a surface of the one or more reflective spherical surfaces to cause a second temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective spherical surfaces; and
imaging the one or more reflective spherical surfaces during the second temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective spherical surfaces.
In the same field of endeavor of employing plural small liquid droplets one a surface to cause diffuse reflection of irradiated light, Gruhn does teach that the fluid stream is supplied by a fluid nozzle (paragraph 24), as well as treating the one or more reflective surfaces with a second fluid stream (FIG. 5, humid air 9 is an additional fluid stream that follows cold air 13, where the cold air 13 may be regarded as a first fluid stream) having a second temperature (a second fluid stream will inherently have a second temperature) from a second fluid nozzle (FIG. 5, first gas processor 25a), the second temperature being greater than the first temperature (paragraph 56 teaches that the cold air 13 cools the surface 22, while paragraph 58 indicates that the surface is much cooler than the surface 22, causing moisture to condense, indicating that humid air 9 is warmer than the cold air 13), to temporarily adsorb a material on a surface of the one or more reflective surfaces to cause a second temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective spherical surfaces (paragraph 48 describes the increase in diffuse reflection due to small liquid droplets on a surface); and
imaging the one or more reflective spherical surfaces during the second temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective spherical surfaces (FIG. 5, both the first fluid stream (cold air 13) and the additional fluid stream (humid air 9) precede imaging of the surface with condensation). By using a nozzle, Gruhn allows spraying the liquid droplets onto the surface, and by using a second fluid stream, Gruhn does not need to rely on a particular level of humidity in the ambient air in the inspection facility.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glossy surface inspection method of Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo, with the nozzle of Gruhn as the means of applying fluid in order to have a specific means by which to apply the fluid to increase the diffuse reflection from the surface and with a second fluid stream to increase the enhancement of diffuse reflection and an additional imaging step to provide an additional image to use in determining the quality of the item under test (see Ohtsuki, paragraph 89, second sentence), with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that at least one of the first temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering or the second temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective components of the sample comprises: increasing an amount of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective components relative to an amount of specular scattering from the one or more reflective components (paragraph 62, detection enabling step).
Regarding claim 4, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that at least one of the first the fluid stream or the second fluid stream comprises an ambient fluid stream (paragraph 23, compressed air).
Regarding claim 5, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 4 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that the ambient fluid stream cools the one or more reflective components to cause water adsorption on a surface of the one or more reflective components (paragraph 68, using a cooling gas do cool the sample).
Regarding claim 6, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 5 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that the ambient fluid stream cools the one or more reflective components via adiabatic expansion of the ambient fluid surrounding the reflective components (paragraph 68. Note that high-pressure gas being blown into a room that isn’t at high pressure will expand adiabatically, which causes the gas to get cooler. Blowing gas cooled in such a manner across a sample will cool the sample.).
Regarding claim 7, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that at least one of the first fluid stream or the second fluid stream contains a gas and a liquid (paragraph 69 describes the use of a fluid in a mist shape. Note that a mist consists essentially of small droplets of liquid mixed with a gas).
Regarding claim 8, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that at least one of the first fluid stream or the second fluid stream comprises a fluid stream delivery fluid different from an ambient fluid surrounding the sample (paragraphs 24 describes spraying a volatile liquid in mist shape, which requires the ambient fluid not be the same fluid as the liquid forming a mist).
Regarding claim 11, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
While Ohtsuki does not explicitly teach that the second fluid stream delivers the same fluid as the first fluid stream, mere duplication of parts is generally insufficient to render a claimed invention nonobvious over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glossy surface inspection method of Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, by merely duplicating the first fluid stream when designing the second fluid stream to achieve the same predictable result (creating a layer of minute droplets to increase diffuse reflection on a glossy surface) with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 1 (as described above).
Ohtsuki does not explicitly teach that the second fluid stream delivers a different fluid than the first fluid stream.
In the same field of endeavor of employing plural small liquid droplets one a surface to cause diffuse reflection of irradiated light, Gruhn does teach that second fluid stream delivers a different fluid than the first fluid stream (FIG. 5, cold air 13 and humid air 9 are fluids that are substantively different in the relevant context, as cold air cools a surface in a way that allows humidity to condense on the surface (from ambient air or from a second fluid stream), while humid air provides extra moisture to condense on the cooled surface.). By using the two different fluid streams, Gruhn is able to enhance the deposition of fine droplets compared to just using cool air (and relying on ambient humidity, which can vary) or just using humid air (which may need to have a dew point higher than room temperature to ensure condensation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glossy surface inspection method of Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, with the different second fluid stream of Gruhn in order to not need to rely on particular levels of humidity or temperature in the room to ensure adequate condensation.
Regarding claim 13, Ohtsuki teaches an inspection system comprising:
a stage (FIG. 2, conveyer BC), wherein the stage is configured to secure a sample (FIG. 2, uninspected battery 1X) including one or more reflective components (FIG. 6, difficult-to-detect region HGE, see paragraph 15);
an optical sub-system, wherein the optical sub-system includes an illumination source (FIG. 2, line light source LT), one or more optical elements (paragraph 49, used to process the inspection line light LIL so that it irradiates a linear shape), and a camera (FIG. 2, photographing portion CAM);
a first fluid delivery means located at a first position that is proximate to the stage configured to deliver a first fluid (FIG. 6, minute droplets LQP of volatile liquid LQ in minute droplets distributed layer LQL) having a first temperature (a first fluid stream will inherently have a first temperature) to the one or more reflective surfaces of the one or more reflective components of the sample via a first stream to temporarily cause absorption of a material on a surface of the one or more reflective surfaces (paragraph 22) to cause a first temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective spherical surfaces (FIG. 2, diffuse reflection lights DL);
wherein the camera is configured to image the one or more reflective surfaces during the first temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective components of the sample (FIG. 2, photographing portion CAM, as described, for example, in paragraph 21).
Ohtsuki does not explicitly teach that the reflective surfaces are spherical.
In the same field of endeavor of optical measurements of diffuse surface reflectivity enhanced by liquid droplets, Koo does explicitly teach the use of a system similar to the claimed invention that does use spherical reflective surfaces (FIG. 8, solder ball 14. Note that a sphere is the outer surface of a ball.). By using the system on samples comprising spherical reflective surfaces, Koo is able to inspect solder balls, as this type of inspection system is applicable to multiple kinds of articles under test.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ohtsuki with the spherical surface-containing samples inspected by Koo in order to gain the benefit of inspecting the quality of solder balls instead of a different kind of sample. Also note that the material or article worked upon (such as reflective surfaces of one shape or another) upon by apparatus (such as a system for inspecting reflective surfaces) does not generally limit claims to the apparatus (MPEP 2115).
While Ohtsuki does teach “spraying liquid in a mist shape” (paragraph 19), Ohtsuki does not explicitly use the word “nozzle” to describe the means by which this is accomplished. Ohtsuki is, in fact, silent as to the exact means by which the fluid is applied.
While Ohtsuki does teach using two detection steps (FIG. 9, step S31, before the detection enabling process, and S34, after the detection enabling process) and determining the appearance data from both when making the determination (FIG. 9, S35. Also see paragraph 89, second sentence), Ohtsuki does not explicitly teach a second fluid delivery nozzle located at a second position that is proximate to the stage configured to, after the first temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering is completed, deliver a second fluid having a second temperature to the one or more reflective spherical surfaces of the one or more reflective components of the sample via a second stream to temporarily cause absorption of a material on the surface of the one or more reflective spherical surfaces to cause a second temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective spherical surfaces,
wherein the camera is configured to image the one or more reflective spherical surfaces during the second temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective components of the sample.
In the same field of endeavor of employing plural small liquid droplets one a surface to cause diffuse reflection of irradiated light, Gruhn does teach that the fluid stream is supplied by a fluid nozzle (paragraph 24), as well as a second fluid delivery nozzle (FIG. 5, first gas processor 25a) located at a second position that is proximate to the stage configured to, after the first temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering is completed, deliver a second fluid (FIG. 5, humid air 9 is an additional fluid stream that follows cold air 13, where the cold air 13 may be regarded as a first fluid stream) having a second temperature (a second fluid stream will inherently have a second temperature) to the one or more reflective spherical surfaces of the one or more reflective components of the sample via a second stream to temporarily cause absorption of a material on the surface of the one or more reflective spherical surfaces to cause a second temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective spherical surfaces (paragraph 48 describes the increase in diffuse reflection due to small liquid droplets on a surface),
wherein the camera is configured to image the one or more reflective spherical surfaces during the second temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective components of the sample (FIG. 5, both the first fluid stream (cold air 13) and the additional fluid stream (humid air 9) precede imaging of the surface with condensation). By using a nozzle, Gruhn allows spraying the liquid droplets onto the surface, and by using a second fluid stream, Gruhn does not need to rely on a particular level of humidity in the ambient air in the inspection facility.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glossy surface inspection system of Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo, with the nozzle of Gruhn as the means of applying fluid in order to have a specific means by which to apply the fluid to increase the diffuse reflection from the surface and with a second fluid stream to increase the enhancement of diffuse reflection and an additional imaging step to provide an additional image to use in determining the quality of the item under test (see Ohtsuki, paragraph 89, second sentence), with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 13 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches a controller including one or more processors and memory, wherein the memory stores program instructions (FIG. 2, controller CT).
Regarding claim 15, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 14 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that the program instructions are configured to control fluid flow through each of the first fluid delivery nozzle and the second fluid delivery nozzle (paragraph 77, when the difficult-to-detect region HGE is specified dynamically, the deployment of the fluid is controlled to apply to that difficult-to-detect region HGE).
Regarding claim 16, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 15 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that the program instructions are configured to cause each of the first fluid delivery nozzle and the second fluid delivery nozzle to deliver at least one of the fluid streams or an additional fluid stream to the one or more reflective components (paragraph 77, the detection enabling process is carried out on the difficult-to-detect region HGE.).
Regarding claim 17, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 16 (as described above).
While Ohtsuki does not teach three distinct fluid streams, so does not explicitly teach that the additional fluid stream delivers the same fluid as the fluid stream, mere duplication of parts is generally insufficient to render a claimed invention nonobvious over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glossy surface inspection system of Ohtsuki by merely duplicating the fluid stream to achieve the same predictable result (creating a layer of minute droplets to increase diffuse reflection on a glossy surface) with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 16 (as described above).
Ohtsuki does not explicitly teach that the additional fluid stream delivers a different fluid than the fluid stream.
In the same field of endeavor of employing plural small liquid droplets one a surface to cause diffuse reflection of irradiated light, Gruhn does teach that the additional fluid stream delivers a different fluid than the fluid stream (FIG. 5, warm, dry air 15 is substantially a different fluid from cold air 13 and humid air 9 in the relevant context, as cold air cools a surface in a way that allows humidity to condense on the surface (from ambient air or from a second fluid stream) and humid air provides extra moisture to condense on the cooled surface, while the warm, dry air applied afterward dries off the condensed moisture.). By using different fluids, Gruhn is able to both add the fine droplets before imaging and remove them after imaging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glossy surface inspection system of Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, with the additional, different fluid stream of Gruhn in order to not leave the volatile liquid droplets on the surface after measuring it, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 13 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that at least one of the first fluid stream or the second fluid stream contains a gas and a liquid (paragraph 69 describes the use of a fluid in a mist shape. Note that a mist consists essentially of small droplets of liquid mixed with a gas).
Regarding claim 20, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 13 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that the program instructions are configured to control the camera to acquire images during the temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective components of the sample (paragraph 83).
Regarding claim 21, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 13 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that the program instructions are configured to cause the one or more processors to control movement of at least one of the stage or an imaging head of the optical sub-system to cause relative scanning motion between the stage and the imaging head of the optical sub-system (FIG. 2, conveyer BC moves with velocity BCV relative to inspection device II including photographing portion CAM).
Regarding claim 22, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 13 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that each of the first and second temporary enhancement of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective components of the sample comprises: increasing the amount of diffuse scattering from the one or more reflective components relative to the amount of specular scattering from the one or more reflective components (note that the description in paragraphs 82-83 applies equally to both enhancements performed by the system of Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn).
Regarding claim 23, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 13 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that at least one of the first fluid stream or the second fluid stream comprises an ambient fluid stream (paragraph 23, compressed air).
Regarding claim 24, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 23 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that the ambient fluid stream cools the one or more reflective components cools the one or more reflective components to cause water adsorption on a surface of the one or more reflective components (paragraph 68).
Regarding claim 25, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 24 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that the ambient fluid stream cools the one or more reflective components via adiabatic expansion of the ambient fluid surrounding the reflective components (paragraph 68. Note that high-pressure gas being blown into a room that isn’t at high pressure will expand adiabatically, which causes the gas to get cooler. Blowing gas cooled in such a manner across a sample will cool the sample.).
Regarding claim 26, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 13 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that at least one of the first fluid stream or the second fluid stream comprises a fluid stream different from an ambient fluid surrounding the sample (paragraphs 24 describes spraying a volatile liquid in mist shape, which requires the ambient fluid not be the same fluid as the liquid forming a mist).
Claim(s) 9 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtsuki (US Patent Document 20220375062) in view of Koo (Foreign Patent Document KR 20140130820 A), Gruhn (US Patent Publication 20150233708), and WebElements (Non-Patent Literature “Hydrogen: Physical Properties”).
Regarding claim 9, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the method of claim 8 (as described above).
Ohtsuki further teaches that While Ohtsuki does teach that a cooling gas used “only has to be a gas that can cool down the difficult-to-detect region” (paragraph 23) exemplified by a wide variety of options, Ohtsuki does not explicitly teach that at least one of the first fluid stream or the second fluid stream comprises a carbon monoxide fluid stream or a hydrogen fluid stream.
In the same field of endeavor of gaseous chemicals, WebElements does teach that hydrogen is a gas that can be cooled and/or compressed (page 1, only paragraph), which would allow its use to cool the difficult-to-detect region either directly or through adiabatic expansion and the associated cooling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glossy surface inspection method of Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, with the hydrogen of WebElements to choose hydrogen as a gas to use to cool the surface of the sample to allow water condensation to form to temporarily create diffuse reflection on the glossy surface under test.
Regarding claim 27, Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, teaches or renders obvious the system of claim 26 (as described above).
While Ohtsuki does teach that a cooling gas used “only has to be a gas that can cool down the difficult-to-detect region” (paragraph 23) exemplified by a wide variety of options, Ohtsuki does not explicitly teach that at least one fluid stream different from the ambient fluid comprises a carbon monoxide fluid stream or a hydrogen fluid stream.
In the same field of endeavor of gaseous chemicals, WebElements does teach that hydrogen is a gas that can be cooled and/or compressed (page 1, only paragraph), which would allow its use to cool the difficult-to-detect region either directly or through adiabatic expansion and the associated cooling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the glossy surface inspection method of Ohtsuki, as modified by Koo and Gruhn, with the hydrogen of WebElements to choose hydrogen as a gas to use to cool the surface of the sample to allow water condensation to form to temporarily create diffuse reflection on the glossy surface under test.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877