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 .
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 5 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gladnick et al. (US 20200209519 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gladnick, and if further view of Ritter et al. “A landmark-based 3D calibration strategy for SPM”, hereinafter referred to as Ritter.
Regarding claim 1, Gladnick teaches wherein the calibration is performed using a calibration structure being a spatial structure including features at different Z-levels relative to a Z-axis (fig. 3 as annotated below), the Z-axis being perpendicular to the surface of the substrate (fig. 3 as annotated below), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
PNG
media_image1.png
699
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
obtaining, with the optical microscope, at least two images of at least a part of the calibration structure, wherein the at least two images are focused in at least two different levels of the Z-levels (fig. 15 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image2.png
520
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and determining a lateral shift, in a direction perpendicular to the Z-axis, of the calibration structure as depicted in the at least two images focused in the at least two different levels (fig. 12 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
626
1225
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Gladnick does not explicitly teach the following context of the preamble: a method of calibrating, in a scanning probe microscopy system, an optical microscope configured for providing a reference data for positioning a probe tip on a surface of a substrate.
Ritter teaches a method of calibrating, in a scanning probe microscopy system, an optical microscope configured for providing a reference data for positioning a probe tip on a surface of a substrate, (The advantage of this system is that it allows switching between the optical and AFM modes by simply turning the turret. The cantilever probe can be aligned with the optical axis, e.g., of the 50× optical objective, with a precision of just a few micrometres; the region of interest can thus be easily located and precisely addressed by the probe after sample alignment by means of the optical mode (page 408, para. [0004])).
Both Gladnick and Ritter teach a method of calibrating an optical microscope. Ritter teaches the use of calibrating an optical microscope for positioning a probe tip on a substrate. 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 the method of Gladnick to position a probe tip on the surface of a substrate, as is taught in Ritter. Doing so means “the region of interest can thus be easily located and precisely addressed by the probe after sample alignment by means of the optical mode (Ritter; pg. 408, para. [0004])”
PNG
media_image4.png
512
1372
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Gladnick teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining at least two images is performed by obtaining a series of images of the calibration structure during a refocusing of the optical microscope across a range of Z-levels (fig. 12 as annotated below), and wherein the step of determining a lateral shift is performed by detecting a moving of the calibration structure across the series of images (fig. 12 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 3, Gladnick teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining at least two images includes the steps of: focusing the optical microscope on a first level of the Z-levels, such as to obtain a first image of one or more first features at the first level, and obtaining from the first image a first reference position based on a location of at least one of the first features; focusing the optical microscope on a second level of the Z-levels, such as to obtain a second image of one or more second features at the second level, and obtaining from the second image a second reference position based on a location of at least one of the second features (fig. 15 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image5.png
775
707
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As shown above, Gladnick teaches acquiring a plurality of images of a calibration object at different z heights by adjusting the focus of an optical microscope and using the features (FSRRs) on each z-height of the calibration object as reference points for obtaining calibration data.
PNG
media_image6.png
566
1193
media_image6.png
Greyscale
and wherein the step of determining the lateral shift comprises comparing the first reference position with the second reference position to determine a deviation indicative of the lateral shift (fig. 12 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 4, Gladnick teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein determining the deviation comprises determining, from the first and second reference positions (The FSRRs may have respective known relative reference region image locations (RRILs) in calibration object images and that are fixed at a different respective relative reference region focus distances or positions. As a result, a camera image that includes a best-focus image of a particular FSRR may define a system focus reference state associated with that particular FSRR (para. [0065])), deviation data representative of a distance and direction of the lateral shift (fig. 12 as annotated below), wherein the method further comprises storing of the deviation data as calibration data associated with the second level (In various implementations, calibration data determined through such processes may be stored and utilized for subsequent measurement operations by the system. (para. [0061])).
PNG
media_image7.png
517
1193
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Gladnick fails to teach the method according to claim 3 wherein the calibration structure comprises a plurality of concentric structures at the different- levels, such as concentric rings, squares, triangles or polygons, and wherein determining the first and second reference position comprises determining a centroid of the structure at the respective first or second level.
However, Ritter teaches wherein the calibration structure comprises a plurality of concentric structures at the different- levels, such as concentric rings, squares, triangles or polygons (fig. 5 as annotated below), and wherein determining the first and second reference position comprises determining a centroid of the structure at the respective first or second level (In the experiments performed here, averaging or centroiding a 3 × 3 matrix of measurement points has then been used to determine the corresponding z-values of the circle or ringshaped nanomarker centre coordinates (page 409, para [0001])).
PNG
media_image8.png
269
670
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Gladnick to include the teachings of Ritter such that the structure comprises a plurality of concentric squares. “This design allows the creation of nanomarkers not only across the reference field, but also at multiple height levels. Thereby, the SPM measurement volume is optimally covered, both laterally and vertically. Additionally, the angle of the pyramidal-cascade step slopes with respect to the surface plane is designed to be smaller than the aperture angle of a regular AFM (atomic force microscope) tip, in order to allow safe probing of the pyramidal bodies by AFM with as little influence of tip geometry and distance control artefacts as possible (Ritter, page. 407-408, para [0010]).”
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Gladnick, to include the teachings of Ritter, such that determining the first and second reference position comprises determining a centroid of the structure at the respective first or second level. Doing so allows for accurate determination of the coordinates of the features (landmarks).
Regarding claim 6, Gladnick teaches the method according to claim 3 wherein the step of determining the lateral shift further comprises: determining, from a calibration structure data in a data repository, corresponding actual positions of the first and second reference positions obtained from the first and second image (image stack (para. [0009])) (The FSRRs have known geometric relationships relative to the planar tilted pattern surface. For example, in an implementation where the planar tilted pattern surface comprises a grating, and for which the FSRRs correspond to features of the gratings (e.g., grating lines/edges), the known geometric relationships may correspond to the grating having a known alignment relative to the plane of the planar tilted pattern surface and/or each grating line/edge having a known constant height across the planar tilted pattern surface and/or other known geometric relationships of the grating lines/edges relative to the planar tilted pattern surface. (para. [0008]));
determining from the corresponding actual positions an actual difference vector data between the actual position of the first reference position and the actual position of the second reference position (The FSRRs also have known region relationships relative to one another. For example, for a grating, the known region relationships may correspond to the grating having a known grating pitch and/or the grating lines/edges having known spacings relative to one another and/or other known region relationships of the grating lines/edges relative to one another. (para. [0008]));
determining from the first and second reference positions as obtained from the first and second image, an imaged difference vector data between the first reference position and the second reference position (fig. 12 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image9.png
609
1073
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and comparing the actual difference vector data with the imaged difference vector data to determine the deviation indicative of the lateral shift (In various implementations, the determining of the calibration data may include performing an alignment process which comprises utilizing an alignment image and at least one of the known region relationships or the known geometric relationships to at least one of determine or compensate for an alignment of the calibration object relative to the VFL lens system (para. [0010])).
PNG
media_image10.png
548
1332
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Gladnick teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining at least two images includes focusing the optical microscope on a plurality of different levels and obtaining at each level a reference position based on a location of at least one feature (FSSRs) at the respective level (fig. 12 as annotated below), and wherein the step of determining the lateral shift comprises: calculating from the reference positions, for each respective level, deviation data indicative of an associated lateral shift at that respective level (fig. 12 as annotated below);
and storing the deviation data associated with each level as calibration data in a data repository accessible by the scanning probe microscopy system (In various implementations, calibration data determined through such processes may be stored and utilized for subsequent measurement operations by the system (Para. [0061)).
Regarding claim 8, Gladnick teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein for obtaining the at least two images (image stack (para. [0069])), the optical microscope comprises a camera cooperating with a focusing objective (The optical assembly portion 205 includes a camera system 260, an interchangeable objective lens 250 (Para. [0036])), wherein the camera and focusing objective are set such as to obtain a field of view by the camera wherein the field of view includes at least a part of an outermost periphery of the calibration structure (In various implementations, the calibration object imaging configuration may include the calibration object 320 being located on a stage (e.g., 210) of the system or otherwise in a field of view of the objective lens 350 (para. [0066])).
Regarding claim 10, Gladnick teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the calibration structure comprises one or more structural features providing the features at different Z-levels (the [focus state reference regions] (FSRRs) (e.g., see FIG. 11), determining pixel locations and corresponding effective focus positions (Z-heights) for each of the FSRRs (para. [0011])), wherein at least one of the edges comprises a contrasting colour.
The calibration structure (calibration object) disclosed in Gladnick inherently possesses a color, and any color inherently contrast other colors. Therefore, Gladnick teaches wherein at least one of the edges comprises a contrasting colour.
However, Gladnick fails to teach wherein the structural features include one or more elevated faces at the respective Z-levels, and wherein the elevated faces include edges defining a periphery of the elevated faces.
Ritter teaches, wherein the structural features include one or more elevated faces at the respective Z-levels, and wherein the elevated faces include edges defining a periphery of the elevated faces (fig. 5 as annotated below),
PNG
media_image11.png
269
670
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Gladnick to include the teachings of Ritter by replacing the calibration structure (calibration object; (para. [0007]) in Gladnick with the calibration structure (reference structure; fig. 5) taught by Ritter, such that the structure comprises three elevated faces at the respective Z-levels, and wherein the elevated faces include edges defining a periphery of the elevated faces. “This design allows the creation of nanomarkers not only across the reference field, but also at multiple height levels. Thereby, the SPM measurement volume is optimally covered, both laterally and vertically. Additionally, the angle of the pyramidal-cascade step slopes with respect to the surface plane is designed to be smaller than the aperture angle of a regular AFM (atomic force microscope) tip, in order to allow safe probing of the pyramidal bodies by AFM with as little influence of tip geometry and distance control artefacts as possible (Ritter, page. 407-408, para [0010]).”
Regarding claim 11, Gladnick teaches the calibration structure (calibration object (para. [0007])) being a spatial structure including structural features at different Z-levels relative to a Z-axis (the [focus state reference regions] (FSRRs) (e.g., see FIG. 11), determining pixel locations and corresponding effective focus positions (Z-heights) for each of the FSRRs (para. [0011])), for enabling the steps of:
obtaining, with the optical microscope, at least two images of at least a part of the calibration structure, wherein the at least two images are focused in at least two different levels of the Z-levels (fig. 15 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image2.png
520
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and determining a lateral shift, in a direction perpendicular to the Z-axis, of the calibration structure as depicted in the at least two images focused in the at least two different levels (fig. 12 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image12.png
524
1230
media_image12.png
Greyscale
However, Gladnick fails to teach a substrate carrier for use in a scanning probe microscopy device, the substrate carrier comprising a carrier surface for supporting a substrate to be examined with the scanning probe microscopy device,
Ritter teaches, a substrate carrier for use in a scanning probe microscopy device, the substrate carrier comprising a carrier surface for supporting a substrate to be examined with the scanning probe microscopy device (The cantilever probe can be aligned with the optical axis, e.g., of the 50× optical objective, with a precision of just a few micrometres; the region of interest can thus be easily located and precisely addressed by the probe after sample alignment by means of the optical mode (page 408; para [0004]).)
Ritter discloses a sample configured for examination by a scanning probe microscope. Therefor Ritter inherently possesses a substrate (sample) carrier with a carrier surface for supporting the substrate (sample).
Both Gladnick and Ritter teach a method of calibrating an optical microscope. Ritter teaches the use of calibrating an optical microscope for positioning a probe tip on a substrate. 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 the device described in Gladnick, to incorporate the teachings of Ritter, by including a substrate carrier with a substrate to be examined by a scanning probe microscope. The inclusion of Ritter’s teachings would allow the use of the method disclosed in Gladnick, to position a probe tip on the surface of a substrate, as taught by Ritter. Doing so means “the region of interest can thus be easily located and precisely addressed by the probe after sample alignment by means of the optical mode (Ritter; pg. 408, para. [0004])”
Regarding claim 15, Gladnick does not teach the method according to claim 5, wherein the concentric structures are concentric rings, squares, triangles or polygons.
However, Ritter teaches wherein the concentric structures are concentric rings, squares, triangles or polygons (fig. 5 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image13.png
269
670
media_image13.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed in Gladnick to include the teachings of Ritter by replacing the calibration structure (calibration object (Gladnick; para. [0007])) with the calibration structure (reference structure (Ritter; fig. 5)). “This design allows the creation of nanomarkers not only across the reference field, but also at multiple height levels. Thereby, the SPM measurement volume is optimally covered, both laterally and vertically. Additionally, the angle of the pyramidal-cascade step slopes with respect to the surface plane is designed to be smaller than the aperture angle of a regular AFM (atomic force microscope) tip, in order to allow safe probing of the pyramidal bodies by AFM with as little influence of tip geometry and distance control artefacts as possible (Ritter, page. 407-408, para [0010]).”
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gladnick and Ritter, and in further view of Kornilov et al. (US 20200141972 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kornilov.
Regarding claim 9, Gladnick teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the calibration structure comprises one or more structural features providing the features at different Z-levels (the [focus state reference regions] (FSRRs) (e.g., see FIG. 11), determining pixel locations and corresponding effective focus positions (Z-heights) for each of the FSRRs (para. [0011])),
However, Gladnick does not teach wherein the structural features include one or more side walls for supporting elevated faces of the structural features at the respective Z-levels
Ritter teaches wherein the structural features include one or more side walls for supporting elevated faces of the structural features at the respective Z-levels (fig. 5 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image14.png
123
349
media_image14.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Gladnick to include the teachings of Ritter such that the calibration structure (calibration object (para. [0007])) disclosed in Gladnick, is replaced with the calibration object (reference structure (fig. 5)) disclosed in Ritter, such that it is a square pyramid with three supporting sidewalls for the elevated faces of the structural features at the respective z-levels. “This design allows the creation of nanomarkers not only across the reference field, but also at multiple height levels. Thereby, the SPM measurement volume is optimally covered, both laterally and vertically. Additionally, the angle of the pyramidal-cascade step slopes with respect to the surface plane is designed to be smaller than the aperture angle of a regular AFM (atomic force microscope) tip, in order to allow safe probing of the pyramidal bodies by AFM with as little influence of tip geometry and distance control artefacts as possible (Ritter, page. 407-408, para [0010]).”
Gladnick also fails to teach wherein at least one of the side walls includes a lateral retracted portion with respect to the respective elevated face such as to be hidden from a view of the optical microscope.
However, Kornilov teaches wherein at least one of the side walls includes a lateral retracted portion with respect to the respective elevated face such as to be hidden from a view of the optical microscope (The test structure 730 comprises a shaft 735 with two indented or undercut structure elements 740 and 745, wherein the structure element 745 disposed at the tip of the test structure 730 has a greater diameter than the structure element 740 situated there below (para. [0167])) (fig. 7 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image15.png
387
440
media_image15.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Gladnick in view of Ritter to include the teachings of Kornilov such that the calibration object includes an undercut or retracted feature with respect to the elevated face. The modification is known to one of ordinary skill in the art to allof for more precise detection of a deviation of the probe tip and contour localization .
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gladnick and Ritter, and in further view of Fonoberov et al. (US20150241469), hereinafter referred to as Fonoberov.
Regarding claim 12, Gladnick fails to teach the scanning probe microscopy device comprising a substrate carrier for supporting a substrate to be examined, the scanning probe microscopy device comprising a probe head including probe comprising a cantilever and a probe tip.
However, Ritter teaches the scanning probe microscopy device comprising a substrate carrier for supporting a substrate to be examined, the scanning probe microscopy device comprising a probe head including probe comprising a cantilever and a probe tip (The cantilever probe can be aligned with the optical axis, e.g., of the 50× optical objective, with a precision of just a few micrometres; the region of interest can thus be easily located and precisely addressed by the probe after sample alignment by means of the optical mode (page. 408, para. [0004])),
Ritter discloses a sample configured for examination by a scanning probe microscope. Therefor Ritter inherently possesses a substrate (sample) carrier with a carrier surface for supporting the substrate (sample).
Both Gladnick and Ritter teach a method of calibrating an optical microscope. Ritter teaches the use of calibrating an optical microscope for positioning a probe tip on a substrate. 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 the device described in Gladnick, to incorporate the teachings of Ritter, by including a substrate carrier with a substrate to be examined by a scanning probe microscope. The inclusion of Ritter’s teachings would allow the use of the method disclosed in Gladnick, to position a probe tip on the surface of a substrate, as taught by Ritter. Doing so means “the region of interest can thus be easily located and precisely addressed by the probe after sample alignment by means of the optical mode (Ritter; pg. 408, para. [0004])”
Glanick further fails to teach the probe head further including an optical beam detector arrangement for monitoring a deflection of the probe tip during scanning.
However, Fonoberov teaches the probe head further including an optical beam detector arrangement for monitoring a deflection of the probe tip during scanning (The probe tip is brought very near to or into contact with a surface of a sample to be examined, and the deflection of the cantilever in response to the probe tip's interaction with the sample is measured with an extremely sensitive deflection detector such as an optical lever system (para. [0004])), wherein the scanning probe microscopy device further comprises an optical microscope configured for providing a reference data for enabling positioning of the probe tip in a desired measurement location on the surface of the substrate (In one embodiment, the SPM system can utilize both the optical-based positioning system and the SPM coordinate system for more precise positioning or adjustment between the probe and the sample to optimize probe-sample interaction (para. [0024])),
Fonoberov teaches a method of repositioning AFM probes onto features of interest. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Gladnick, in view of Ritter, to incorporate the teachings of Fonoberov, by including an optical beam detector for monitoring the deflection of a probe tip (scanning probe microscope (Ritter; page 404, para [0001])) during scanning. With these inclusions, the method of calibrating an optical microscope using a calibration object disclosed in Gladnick could be used to position a probe tip on the surface of a substrate, as taught by Ritter and Fonoberov. Doing so means “the amount of time spent looking for a particular feature of interest to be scanned is significantly reduced (Fonoberov; para. [0024])”
Gladnick teaches, wherein the optical microscope comprises a focusing objective for focusing the an image obtained with the microscope at a desired Z-level in relation to a Z-axis, the Z-axis being perpendicular to the surface of the substrate, and wherein the substrate carrier comprises, for calibrating the optical microscope, a calibration structure for use in the method according to claim 1, for cooperating with an optical microscope of a scanning probe microscopy system, the calibration structure being a spatial structure including structural features at different Z-levels relative to a Z-axis (fig. 3 as annotated below),
PNG
media_image16.png
897
739
media_image16.png
Greyscale
for enabling the steps of: obtaining, with the optical microscope, at least two images of at least a part of the calibration structure, wherein the at least two images are focused in at least two different levels of the Z-levels (fig. 15 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image2.png
520
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and determining a lateral shift, in a direction perpendicular to the Z-axis, of the calibration structure as depicted in the at least two images focused in the at least two different levels (fig. 12 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image12.png
524
1230
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gladnick, Ritter, Fonoberov, and in further view of Breytman et al. (US 20040118921 A1), hereinafter referred to as Breytman.
Regarding claim 13, Gladnick teaches the scanning probe microscopy device in accordance with claim 12, wherein for focusing the optical microscope, the focusing objective cooperates with a precision actuator for moving the focusing objective along an optical axis (The optical assembly portion 205 is controllably movable along a Z axis that is generally orthogonal to the X and Y axes by using a controllable motor 294 that drives an actuator to move the optical assembly portion 205 along the Z axis to change the focus of the image of a workpiece 20′ or a calibration object 20 (para. [0038])),
Although Gladnick does not teach a “precision actuator” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Gladnick to replace the actuator with a precision actuator. Breytman teaches “ piezo actuator assembly 335 to move lens assembly 310 in a direction which will achieve a desired focus of a target image (Breytman; para. [0055]).” One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the actuator for a precision actuator to achieve the predictable of allowing for “very precise changes [to] be made to piezo actuator 325 which translate into precise focus adjustments through lens assembly 310 (Breytman; para. [0060]).”
Further, Gladnick teaches and wherein the scanning probe microscopy device further comprises a controller for controlling the precision actuator for performing the focusing (controllable motor 294 that drives an actuator to move the optical assembly portion 205 along the Z axis to change the focus of the image of a workpiece 20′ or a calibration object 20. The controllable motor 294 is connected to an input/output interface 130 via a signal line 296 (para. [0038])) (The input/output interface 130 includes an imaging control interface 131, a motion control interface 132, a lighting control interface 133, and the lens control interface 134 (para. [0041])), the controller cooperating with a camera (The input/output interface 130 includes an imaging control interface 131 (para. [0041])) for receiving images obtained using the optical microscope (one or more display devices 136 (e.g., the display 16 of FIG. 1) and one or more input devices 138 (e.g., the joystick 22, keyboard 24, and mouse 26 of FIG. 1) may be connected to the input/output interface 130. The display devices 136 and input devices 138 may be used to … view the images captured by the camera system 260 (para. [0046])), and wherein controller is configured for performing the steps of (fig. 1 as annotated below):
PNG
media_image17.png
649
745
media_image17.png
Greyscale
obtaining, with the optical microscope, at least two images of at least a part of the calibration structure, wherein the at least two images are focused in at least two different levels of the Z-levels (fig. 15 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image2.png
520
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and determining a lateral shift, in a direction perpendicular to the Z-axis, of the calibration structure as depicted in the at least two images focused in the at least two different levels (fig. 12 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image12.png
524
1230
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Gladnick discloses a computer controlling system 14 capable of controlling all the operations of Gladnick’s method for calibrating a variable focal length lens system using a calibration object. Therefore, the controlling system disclosed in Gladnick inherently controls obtaining, with the optical microscope, at least two images of at least a part of the calibration structure, wherein the at least two images are focused in at least two different levels of the Z-levels and determining a lateral shift, in a direction perpendicular to the Z-axis, of the calibration structure as depicted in the at least two images focused in the at least two different levels.
Regarding claim 14, The scanning probe microscopy device in accordance with claim 13 wherein the controller is further configured for:
focusing the optical microscope on a plurality of different levels (VFL lens controller (para. [0007])) and obtaining at each level a reference position based on a location of at least one feature at the respective level (The machine vision inspection system 10 includes a vision measuring machine 12 that is operably connected to exchange data and control signals with a controlling computer system 14) (fig. 15 as annotated below),
PNG
media_image2.png
520
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and wherein, for determining the lateral shift, the controller is configured for: calculating from the reference positions, for each respective level, deviation data indicative of an associated lateral shift at that respective level (The machine vision inspection system 10 includes a vision measuring machine 12 that is operably connected to exchange data and control signals with a controlling computer system 14. The controlling computer system 14 is further operably connected to exchange data and control signals with a monitor or display 16, a printer 18, a joystick 22, a keyboard 24, and a mouse 26 (para. [0032])) (fig. 12 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image18.png
524
1328
media_image18.png
Greyscale
and storing the deviation data associated with each level as calibration data in a data repository accessible by the scanning probe microscopy system (In various implementations, calibration data determined through such processes may be stored and utilized for subsequent measurement operations by the system (para. [0061])).
Gladnick discloses a computer controlling system 14 capable of controlling all the operations of Gladnick’s method for calibrating a variable focal length lens system using a calibration object. Therefore, the controlling system 14 inherently controls determining the lateral shift, the controller is configured for: calculating from the reference positions, for each respective level, deviation data indicative of an associated lateral shift at that respective level and storing the deviation data associated with each level as calibration data in a data repository accessible by the scanning probe microscopy system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881