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 Amendment
The amendment filed 12/30/2025 was entered. With entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1-6 and 8-16 are presented for examination. Support for the new claims can be found throughout the application (as filed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Li fails to expressly disclose - determining a surface thickness for each position on the surface based on determining a difference between the first wavelength and the second wavelength of the radiated light for that position. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
See Li et al., wherein Li teaches “The controller 107 then normalizes a difference between a pair of the signals to generate a normalized result” [0034]. Furthermore, Li teaches “Based on the normalized result, the controller 107 determines a value of a layer on the wafer 105, such as the layer 109. The value may be, for example, a thickness, a surface roughness, a material concentration, and/or a critical dimension.”, Thus, thickness is taught as one of many values of interest [0034].
Li further teaches directions or angles of light as broadly claimed by teaching “optimize the system performance or control total intensity of the beam 102 emerging to the surface 108.” [0035].
Li further teaches “Use of additional qualified numbers per point from the apparatus can improve determination accuracy of the value of the layer on the wafer. This can involve more wavelengths, such as using multiple lasers and pre-combining the incident beam paths directed toward the wafer using a wavelength multiplex technique. This may be separate wavelengths in the detector, time-multiplex that can modulate a laser and synchronize detection of the signal from each laser, or use a wavelength de-multiplex technique to send each wavelength to one of multiple sets of the sensor 106 seen in FIG. 1. More measurable signals per point per wavelength can be used to improve determination precision of the value of the layer on the wafer.” [0043] – [0045].
Notice how Shortt teaches “each data point can be parameterized in three dimensions. This will result in a complicated three-dimensional parameterization curve. It is very unlikely that such parameterized curves will have 3-D crossing points. Therefore, in such a three beam (three axis) approach the thickness can be more easily determined. Referring, for example, to FIG. 4, the third axis (beam) can simply extend into (or out of) the page.” and also “In addition to using two (or more) light beams at different wavelengths, the illuminating light beams can be directed onto the surface at two (or more depending on the number of beams) different angles of incidence” [0042] -[0045];[0048], [0050], [0052], [0058] – [0060] (Claim 1).
In this instance, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Looking at the rejection from the combined teachings of the references, as per the examiners understanding, determining a difference between first and second wavelengths of the radiated light for the position of each position on the surface in regards to a thickness seems to be taught by the combination as discussed above.
As such, as per the examiners understanding, the previous rejection stands as proper.
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 – 6, 8 – 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (GB 2524829 A) and Shortt et al. (2005/0018183) in view of Li et al. (US Patent 9,658,150 B2 also published as US Pub. No. 20160202177 A1) The examiner uses the Pub of Li for citations.
With regards to claim 1, Clark discloses a method for detecting artifacts in a surface of a composite component, the composite component comprising reinforcement material, matrix material interspersed with the reinforcement material and matrix material forming the surface of the composite component (Figure 2a and 2b)., the method comprising:
directing incident light on to the surface of the composite component, the incident light having a first wavelength (Page 2, Line 2) (Page 4, Lines 3 – 4);
recording radiated light originating from positions on the surface (i.e. surface of element 2), the radiated light being generated in response to the incident light being directed on to the surface and the radiated light having respective second wavelengths for each position (i.e., recording scattered/reflected light) (page 2, Lines 15 – 19); and
detecting one or more artifacts in the matrix material forming the surface based on the volume fraction at least one position on the surface matching at least one artifact criteria (Page 1, Lines 7 – 22).
Notice the processor device adapted to determine a ratio of the intensity of the detected light relative to the predetermined intensity, and for measuring the volume fraction of reinforcement at the surface of the composite material by comparing the determined intensity ratio to the calibration scale and also measuring device having a light emitter 1 (such as a high-power LED or a laser) and an adjacent light detector 2 (such as a photo diode) (Pages 4 - 5).
Clark further teaches that emitting light of a predetermined intensity from the light emitter into the surface; with the light detector, detecting an intensity of the portion of the emitted light returned by diffusion or backscattering to the surface; determining a ratio of the intensity of the detected light relative to the predetermined intensity; and measuring the volume fraction of reinforcement at the surface of the composite material by comparing the determined intensity ratio to a calibration scale which relates volume fraction of reinforcement at the surface of the composite material to intensity ratio obtained by the measuring device (Top of page 2) but fails to expressly discloses determining a surface thickness for each position on the surface based on the second wavelength of the radiated light for that position.
Shortt discloses an inspection tool includes an illumination element for directing light beams onto a workpiece at differing wavelengths or at differing angles of incidence or combinations thereof (Abstract). Shortt discloses a first and second wavelengths and determining thicknesses [0039] – [0044].
Li discloses teaches the determining a difference between first and second wavelengths and relating such differences to thickness among many other parameters [0020] [0034] [0046] – [0053].
In view of the utility, to improve its process and quickness, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Clark to include the teachings such as that taught by Short and Li.
With regards to claim 2, Clark discloses the incident light is ultraviolet light (Page 3; Lines 17 – 18, Page 4, Lines 15-19).
With regards to claim 3, Clark discloses the first wavelength is between 1Onm and 400nm (Page 3; Lines 17 – 18, Page 4, Lines 15-19).
With regards to claim 4, Clark discloses the first wavelength is between 315nm and 400nm (Page 3; Lines 17 – 18, Page 4, Lines 15-19).
With regards to claim 5, Clark modified discloses recording radiated light originating from positions on the surface comprises recording one or more images of the surface using an image recording device 2 (Page 4).
With regards to claim 6, Clark discloses the radiated light is generated by scattering (i.e., scattering to the surface) of the incident light within the surface of the composite component (Page 4).
With regards to claim 8, Clark discloses the claimed invention according to claim 7 but fails to expressly disclose determining a surface thickness for each position on the surface comprises comparing the difference between the first wavelength and the second wavelength of the radiated light for that position to a line of best fit of surface thickness against light wavelength differences.
Li teaches the missing parts [0011] [0016] [0049].
Notice that Li teaches that a controller can be configured to determine the value of the layer by fitting the pair of the signals or the normalized result with a nonlinear least square optimization algorithm [0011] [0012] [0017] [0049]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Clark to include the teachings such as that taught by Li in order to have the data fit in a way that improves the outcome.
With regards to claim 9, Clark discloses the claimed invention according to claim 7 but fails to expressly disclose determining a surface thickness for each position on the surface comprises comparing the second wavelength to a line of best fit of surface thickness against radiated light wavelengths.
Li teaches the missing parts [0011] [0012] [0017] [0049]. Notice how Li teaches the values of, for example, the surface, thickness, concentration, and/or roughness are determined by fitting the measured signals with a model of the system using, for example, nonlinear least square optimization algorithms.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Clark to include the teachings such as that taught by Li to improve the efficiency.
With regards to claim 10, Clark discloses the claimed invention according to claim 7 but fails to expressly disclose determining a surface thickness for each position on the surface comprises selecting the surface thickness from the line of best fit that has a radiated light wavelength that matches the second wavelength.
Li teaches the missing parts [0011] [0012] [0017] [0049].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Clark to include the teachings such as that taught by Bradford to provide more feedback as needed.
With regards to claim 14, Clark modified discloses system for detecting artifacts in a surface of a composite component such as that claimed in claim 1, but fails to expressly disclose a programming thickness computation.
Li discloses a controller setting up position and thickness computation within detection [0034]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Clark to include the teachings such as that taught by Li to improve the efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 11 -13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 11, the prior art of record failed to disclose or render obvious wherein the artifact criteria comprise the surface thickness being less than a threshold thickness, and detecting one or more artifacts comprises detecting an artifact when the surface thickness is less than the threshold thickness, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
With regards to claim 12, the prior art of record failed to disclose or render obvious wherein the artifact criteria comprise a region of positions having a surface thickness being less than a threshold thickness, and detecting one or more artifacts comprises detecting an artifact when a region of surface thicknesses is less than the threshold thickness, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
With regards to claim 13, the prior art of record failed to disclose or render obvious wherein the artifact criteria comprise a region of positions having a surface thickness being less than a threshold thickness surrounded by a region of positions that have a surface thickness greater than an expected thickness, and detecting one or more artifacts comprises detecting an artifact when a region of positions having a surface thickness being less than a threshold thickness is surrounded by a region of positions that have a surface thickness greater than an expected thickness, in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 6,252,237 B1 to Ramthun teaches a method of measuring the thickness of a coated surface and a system for performing such measurements. In one aspect of the present invention, the coated surface has fluorescent properties. A first wavelength of light is directed from a light source onto the coated surface such that the coated surface absorbs the light and fluoresces to emit light of a second wavelength. The intensity of the light of the second wavelength is measured by use of a solid-state array of light-sensitive elements. The measured intensity of the light of this second wavelength is used to determine the thickness of the coating, and is substantially proportional to the thickness of the coating on the coated surface.
US Patent 7,903,265 B2 to Clayson teaches a method of determining thickness uniformity of a coating, the coating being formed on the surface of an object, the method comprising determining coating thickness data within portions of the surface, the portions including at least one generally concave portion and at least one generally convex portion, and presenting the coating thickness data as a graphical representation for each portion.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571)272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571.272.3995 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights