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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 8th, 2024 and June 10th, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105628641 in view of USPN 6,532,806.
Regarding claim 1, ‘641 teaches a method for imaging metallic patterns deposited on a surface of semiconductor materials (Abstract, Pg. 3-4), said method comprising: illuminating an apertureless atomic force microscopy (AFM) probe (Item 8, Fig. 1) with electromagnetic energy having a frequency in a Terahertz range (Item 7, Abstracts), said probe having a probe tip, said probe tip having a radius (All probe tips have a radius), wherein said electromagnetic radiation is redirected onto a sample (Fig. 1), said sample comprising a dielectric layer having a thickness greater than said radius; and detecting said electromagnetic energy that has interacted with said sample.
‘641 fails to teach a dielectric layer having a thickness greater than a radius of a probe tip.
‘806 teaches imaging metallic patterns on a surface and a dielectric sample layer thicker than a probe radius (Fig. 2, 2A, 3, 10, Col. 11, Col. 24 L 1-10).
‘806 modifies the prior art of ‘641 to provide a dielectric layer with thickness greater than a probe radius.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide such a dielectric layer because ‘806 shows that it is preferable to have a sample dielectric layer at least 5 times as thick as the probe radius (‘806, Col. 11 Ln 26-31.
Regarding claim 2, ‘641 and ‘806 teach the method of Claim 1, wherein said thickness of said dielectric layer is at least five times greater than said radius. As noted above, the rationale for obviousness is applicable to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the method of Claim 2, wherein said thickness is about 200 nm to about 400 nm.
Regarding claim 4 ‘641 in view of ‘806 discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising oscillating said probe tip such that said probe tip is between about 5nm and about 255 nm from said sample. Note ‘641 at page 4, “amplitude between 80-100nm”.
Regarding claim 5, ‘641 in view of ‘806 discloses the method of Claim 4, wherein said thickness of said dielectric layer is at least five times greater than said radius. This particular thickness of the dielectric layer is disclosed above in ‘806 as pointed out with respect to claim 1. The rationale for obviousness is similarly applicable.
Regarding claim 7, ‘641 in view of ‘806 discloses a method for non-destructive testing using an AFM probe, the probe having a probe tip, the probe tip having a radius, the method comprising the steps of: detecting terahertz electromagnetic energy reflected from a sample, said terahertz electromagnetic energy originating from a collimated light source, said sample having a dielectric layer with a thickness greater than said radius, and wherein said probe tip oscillates at a distance of between about 5 nm and about 255 nm from said sample. The citations and rationale applied to claim 1 are similarly applicable to claim 7, with the additional teaching from ‘641 pointed out with respect to claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 9, ‘641 in view of ‘806 discloses a system for scanning near-field optical microscopy comprising: a collimated light source for emitting collimated light (Item 1 of ‘641, a laser); a photoconductive antenna for converting said collimated light into electromagnetic energy having a frequency in a terahertz range (Item 4 of ‘641, Fig. 2, pg 2 “…light beam stimulates the photoconduction transmitting antenna”; an AFM probe, said probe having a probe radius (Item 8); a sample (Item 7), a detector configured to detect energy that has interacted with said sample (Item 10). As with claim 1, ‘641 fails to teach the dielectric layer having a thickness greater than a radius of a probe tip. The combination with ‘806 and motivation along with the rationale for obviousness is similarly applicable to claim 9 from claim 1.
Regarding claim 11 and 16, ‘641 in view of ‘806 discloses the system of Claim 9, wherein said probe is configured to oscillate at a distance of between about 5 nm and about 255 nm from said sample. Note the disclosure with respect to claim 4 from ‘641.
Regarding claim 13, ‘641 in view of ‘806 discloses the system of Claim 9, wherein said thickness of said dielectric layer is at least five times greater than said radius as noted above with respect to claim 2, this limitation is contained in ‘806. The rationale for obviousness above is similarly applicable to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, ‘641 in view of ‘806 discloses the system of Claim 9, further comprising a demodulator for demodulating a detected signal received from said detector at pg. 4 of ‘641, note the signal is specifically noted as being demodulated, thus showing a demodulator for the signal is present.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 16 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105628641 in view of USPN 6,532,806 and further in view of US Patent Application 20030211336.
Claims 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 16 require the further limitation of a thickness of a dielectric layer being between 200 and 400 nm. While ‘641 in view of ‘806 discloses all the limitations of their parent claims, but does not disclose the required thickness range. The limitation of claim 16 in particular is disclosed above with respect to claim 11 for example, but is rejected under this heading since it depends from claim 15.
‘336 discloses a near field detection arrangement (abstract) where the dielectric layers of the sample being interrogated are in the range of 200-400 nm. Note [0015] of ‘336.
‘336 modifies the prior art to provide a sample under test which has a dielectric layer in the thickness range of 200-400 nm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a sample with a dielectric layer of 200-400nm in an AFM probe system and method because as demonstrated in ‘336 such an arrangement is contemplated in the prior art. Furthermore, the sample being interrogated and its features is not critical to the method of interrogation or the apparatus performing the interrogation. The sample is the object to which the method and apparatus are applied, and all manner of samples are conventionally inspected with AFM probes in the field.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A VANORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 6 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
DAVID A. VANORE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID A VANORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881