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 filed 05/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments regarding rejections under 35 USC 112, some of the amendments were successful in overcoming the concerns. The current wording does not evoke 112f interpretation since all elements now have some structural component to them. However, the terms are still indefinite and further so with the added structural limitations even more so. Rejection of claims under 35 USC 112a and 112b stand as described below.
With respect to the applicants arguments regarding Shiraishi failing to disclose the function of processing the samples, the examiner disagrees. Processing samples is a very broad description and in terms of claim interpretation could be extended to the inspection being performed by Shiraishi. Arguendo the processing is limited to the field of wafers, processing still an expansive set of steps that by definition includes photolithography, etching, deposition, inspection, slicing, polishing, doping, cutting, sorting, etc. The processing laser of the current invention is not supported in the specification to perform any of those well known processing steps.
Applicant additionally argues that Shiraishi fails to disclose the scanning galvanometer “and the synchronous relationship between the scanning galvanometer and the processing scanner”. First, the claims do not disclose a synchronous relationship between the scanning galvanometer and the processing scanner. Claim 1 discloses “an information capturing unit…to synchronously receiving (sic) a piece of detection information.” This limitation in its broadest reasonable interpretation implies that the information capturing unit (camera) and the scanner are synchronized such that as the scanner sends information, the camera collects it. If applicant intends something else, the claims need to be amended to say so.
For these reasons, the rejections are provided below as updated to reflect current claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 7 fails to provide any further limitations beyond those already stated in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 1, the limitations “processing unit” and “information capturing unit” are no longer being interpreted under 35 USC 112f however, the specification still fails to define the parameters of the terms. Examples are provided, such as P,0015 discloses that the processing unit “may be a laser” and P.0019 discloses the information capturing unit “can include a lens.” The newly added limitations attempt to structurally define the terms but fail. With respect to “an information capturing unit including a light incident surface” discloses that the information capturing unit includes a light incident surface, but doesn’t help explain what the information capturing unit actually is, only that it includes a surface. The specification fails to provide any more details helpful for one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret it. With respect to “a scanning output unit comprising a scanning galvanometer” the specification discloses that the scanning output unit may be a scanning galvanometer, so it is unclear what the scanning output unit is if it comprises a scanning galvanometer. In other terms, the specification discloses that A may be B, but the claim says A has B. In this case, it suggest that A (the scanning output unit) is something more or broader than just B (scanning galvanometer), an idea that is not supported in the specification. With respect to “a processing unit disposed relative to the stage and equipped with a laser light source”, the same applies, with the specification disclosing that the processing unit may be a laser, but not that the processing unit is something broader that also has a laser light too. For this reason, the claims are considered not supported.
With respect to claim 1, additionally, the term “scanning output unit comprising a scanning galvanometer” supposedly performs the function to receive each piece of detection information and outputting the detection information. Generally, scanning galvanometers cannot perform this function. Scanning galvanometers generally are made up of a rotating mirror that deflects laser beams, converting electrical control signals into mechanical movement of the surface. So even if the scanning output unit were defined clearly in the specification, there would be an issue that the structure described cannot perform the stated function. Clarification is required.
The balance of claims dependent upon the above claims are likewise rejected.
Claims 1 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.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “a laser light source to provide processing laser” is not grammatically correct and causes confusion. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “an information capturing unit… to synchronously receiving a piece of detection information of each of the processing positions via the processing scanner” is unclear if it is a structural or method claim. More precisely, it is unclear if the apparatus is infringed upon when the structure is present, or only when the structure is present and the method of receiving detection information is performed. A claim can only cover a single statutory category. Additionally, the limitation “a scanning output unit…outputting each piece of detection information at the scanning frequency” contains the same issue. Correction and clarification is required.
The balance of claims is likewise rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi U.S. Publication 2021/0132352 in view of Mahadevan-Jansen U.S. Publication 2009/0021724.
With respect to claim 1, Shiraishi discloses an optical deflector and scanning laser microscope comprising:
A stage configured to place a sample to be processed, wherein a surface of the sample to be processed has a plurality of processing positions (Figure 1, sample table 15= stage, sample 16, it should be noted that the further limitations of a plurality of processing positions on the sample to be processed is not structurally limiting since it is an intended use and the sample itself is not part of the claimed structure)
A processing unit disposed relative to the stage and equipped with a laser light source to provide processing laser to process the sample to be processed (Figure 1, processing unit = laser light source 34, intended use of “to provide processing laser to process the sample to be processed” does not structurally limit the claim)
A processing scanner, configured to scan the sample to be processed, the processing scanner controls the processing unit to process the processing positions sequentially at a scanning frequency (Figure 1, processing scanner = optical deflector 100 + beam splitter 28 and beam splitter 23, P.0021)
At least one detection scanner comprising an information capturing unit including a light incident surface to synchronously receiving a piece of detection information of each of the processing positions via the processing scanner, wherein each piece of detection information if a light signal reflected from the surface of the sample to be processed (Figure 1, detection scanner = scanning laser microscope 10, information capturing unit = lens 27, P.0021)
A scanning output unit signally connected to the information capturing unit to receive each piece of detection information from the light incident surface and outputting each piece of detection information at the scanning frequency (Figure 1, scanning output unit = beamsplitter 28, P.0027)
At least one receiving unit connected to the scanning output unit of the detection scanner to receive each piece of detection information, wherein the receiving unit is an image sensor and has a plurality of imaging areas, each piece of detection information includes an image of one of the processing positions (P.0023, receiving unit = confocal image acquisition detector implies an image which inherently has a plurality of imaging areas, i.e. pixels. It should be noted that the limitation “each piece of detection information….” fails to structurally limit the claim since the detection information is not part of the apparatus structure)
However, Shiraishi fails to disclose the scanning output unit is a scanning galvanometer.
Mahadevan-Jansen discloses a spectroscopy system comprising:
At least one detection scanner comprising an information capturing unit synchronously receiving a piece of detection information for each of the processing positions via the processing scanner (Figure 1, information capturing device = lens 126, P.0077)
A scanning output unit, signally connected to the information capturing unit, and outputting each piece of detection information at the scanning frequency (Figure 21, scanning output unit = XY galvo pair 125, P.0078)
At least one receiving unit connected to the scanning output unit of the detection scanner to receive each piece of information (Figure 1, receiving unit = spectrograph 155, P.0080)
The receiving unit is a spectrometer, each piece of detection information includes a spectrum signal of one of the processing positions (Figure 1, receiving unit = spectrograph 155, P.0080
The receiving unit receives the pieces of detection information to generate an image data (P.0022, camera inherently means image data, P.0122)
The scanning output unit is a scanning galvanometer (Figure 1, XY galvo pair 125, P.0076)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the scanning galvanometer of Mahadevan-Jansen in Shiraishi in order to receive the returned light from various locations on the sample. Shiraishi discloses using an optical deflector to scan the surface of the sample but is silent with respect to how the detector collects the returned light at different locations. The scanning galvanometer with a small footprint of Mahadevan-Jansen allows that light at different locations can be collected to a single detector with a smaller surface collection area (P.0089).
With respect to claim 2, Shiraishi in view of MAHADEVAN-JANSEN discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. In addition, Shiraishi discloses:
The at least one detection scanner also comprises a light source module connected to the processing scanner and the information capturing unit, the light source module has a light path and the light path is controlled by the processing scanner so that the light path is coaxial with a vector of the processing unit relative to each of the processing positions, (Figure 1, light source module = white light 26, P.0022)
With respect to claim 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 15, Shiraishi discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 2 above. In addition, Shiraishi discloses:
5- The light source module emits multi-wavelength detection light (P.0022, wherein the light source module = white light which inherently means multi-wavelength)
7- Each piece of detected information is the laser light source reflected from the surface of the sample to be processed (P.0021)
11- The receiving unit is a luminance meter and each piece of detection information includes a luminance signal of one of the processing positions (P.0020, a photomultiplier collects light, or luminance, and turns it into electrical signals. It should be noted that the limitation “each piece of detection information….” cannot structurally limit the claim since the detection information is not part of the apparatus structure)
12- an optical modulator disposed between the detection scanner and the receiving unit and the optical modulator shields at least part of the detection information and transmits it to the receiving unit (Figure 1, optical modulator = beamsplitter 38, P0021)
With respect to claim 3, Shiraishi discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 and 2 above. However, Shiraishi is silent as to whether the light source module is a continuous light source or pulse light source.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a continuous or pulsed light source since these are the well-known forms of light sources used for sample detection. Continuous and pulsed are the simpler and less expensive forms of light and would have been readily available to those of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 4, Shiraishi discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 and 2 above. However, Shiraishi fails to disclose the light source is a single wavelength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a single wavelength rather than a multi wavelength since this a result effective variable. Those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that different wavelengths allow for different types of measurements and it is common to select a single wavelength for more precision and clarity in a sample response while minimizing noise.
With respect to claims 6 and 13, Shiraishi in view of MAHADEVAN-JANSEN discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 and 12 above. In addition, Shiraishi discloses:
A plurality of receiving units and the optical modulator receives a plurality of pieces of detection information and distributes them to the plurality of receiving units (Figure 1, optical modulator = beamsplitter 38, receiving units = 40 and 41, P.0021)
However, Shiraishi fails to disclose a plurality of detection scanners.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to multiply the detection scanners of Shiraishi since it has been held that multiplying working components of a device is within ordinary skill in the art. By having a plurality of detection scanners, more information can be garnered from a single test, saving time and equipment costs.
With respect to claim 10, Shiraishi in view of MAHADEVAN-JANSEN discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. However, Shiraishi fails to disclose the receiving unit is a spectrometer and each piece of detection information includes a spectrum signal of one of the processing positions.
Mahadevan-Jansen discloses a spectroscopy system comprising:
At least one detection scanner comprising an information capturing unit synchronously receiving a piece of detection information for each of the processing positions via the processing scanner (Figure 1, information capturing device = lens 126, P.0077)
A scanning output unit, signally connected to the information capturing unit, and outputting each piece of detection information at the scanning frequency (Figure 21, scanning output unit = XY galvo pair 125, P.0078)
At least one receiving unit connected to the scanning output unit of the detection scanner to receive each piece of information (Figure 1, receiving unit = spectrograph 155, P.0080)
The receiving unit is a spectrometer, each piece of detection information includes a spectrum signal of one of the processing positions (Figure 1, receiving unit = spectrograph 155, P.0080
The receiving unit receives the pieces of detection information to generate an image data (P.0022, camera inherently means image data, P.0122)
The scanning output unit is a scanning galvanometer (Figure 1, XY galvo pair 125, P.0076)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a spectrometer as in Mahadevan-Jansen for the image acquisition detector since Shiraishi uses a white light made up of a plurality of wavelengths and a spectrometer allows for separation of those wavelengths. Separating wavelengths in a spectrometer measurement as opposed to the generic image acquisition detector of Shiraishi is well known for measuring different aspects of a sample and allows for a more complete picture of the sample within a single measurement.
It should be noted that the limitation “each piece of detection information….” fails to structurally limit the claim since the detection information is not part of the apparatus structure
Conclusion
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 REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights