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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jensen et al. (9620400), hereinafter referred to as “Jensen”.
Regarding claim 1, Jenson discloses a substrate comprising a substrate center (Jensen: figures 1 and 5), a power source and communication interface (Jensen: figure 63), at least three position units, wherein each of the at least three position units comprise (Jensen: figure 6, items 107a, 105a, and 144), an illumination source configured to generate illumination (Jensen: figure 6, item 112), a line sensor configured to generate a plurality of line images based on the illumiation, wherein the line sensor is aligned to the substrate center (Jensen: figure 6; column 6, lines 6-36), and a controller comprising a memory maintaining program instructions (Jensen: figures 5-6), one or more processors configured to execute the program instructions causing the processors to (Jensen: figures 5-6), receive the plurality of line images and determine a substrate-to-chuck offset between the substrate center and a chuck center based on the plurality of line images (Jensen: column 3, lines 37-55; column 6, lines 6-36; column 7, lines 34-60).
Regarding claim 3, Jensen discloses determine a substrate-to-ring offset based on the plurality of line images (Jensen: figures 1 and 7).
Regarding claim 4, Jensen discloses the substrate is a round substrate (Jensen: figures 1A-1C).
Regarding claim 5, Jensen discloses the substrate comprises at least one of: quartz, glass, silicon, silicon nitride, car fiber stabilized epoxy matrices, or a combination thereof (Jensen: claim 18).
Regarding claim 6, Jensen discloses one or more additional sensors, wherein the sensors are configured to generate sensor readings, wherein the controller is configured to detect a presence of a chuck based on the sensor readings (Jensen: figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 7, Jensen discloses the additional sensor comprise at least one of a temperature sensor (Jensen: column 14, lines 37-65).
Regarding claim 8, Jensen discloses in response to the one or more sensor readings satisfying a trigger threshold, the processors cause the illumination source to generate the illumination and case the line sensor to generate the line images (Jensen: figures 5-7).
Regarding claim 9, Jensen discloses a diffusive region disposed below the illumination source (Jensen: figures 2, 5, and 8).
Regarding claim 15, Jensen discloses each of the three position units comprise a cylindrical lens, wherein the line sensor is imaged by the cylindrical lens (Jensen: figures 1, 3, and 5).
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) 10-11, 13-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen et al. (9620400), hereinafter referred to as “Jensen” in view of Kosugi (20090009739).
Regarding claim 10, note the examiners rejection for claim 1, and in addition, claim 10 differs from claim 1 in that claim 10 further requires a collimator. Kosugi teaches that prior art measuring systems suffer from detection errors (Kosugi: paragraph 0010). To help alleviate this problem, Kosugi discloses the use of collimator (Kosugi: paragraph 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the effective filing date of the invention, to take the apparatus disclosed by Jensen and add the lens taught by Kosugi in order to help reduce the number of detection errors.
Regarding claim 11, Kosugi discloses the collimator comprises a collimated hole array (Kosugi: figures 2, 7, and 10).
Regarding claim 13, Kosugi discloses the collimator is near field to the sensor (Kosugi: figures 2, 7, and 10).
Regarding claim 14, Kosugi discloses the one or more reflectors are defined in a bottom surface of the substrate (Kosugi: figures 1-3, 7, and 10).
Regarding claim 17, although not disclosed, it would have been obvious for the position units to comprise an optical unit comprising a beam splitter, absorber, objective lens, condenser lens (Official Notice). Doing so would have been obvious as these are known pieces of an optical unit in order for the unit to operate properly.
Regarding claim 18, although not disclosed, it would have been obvious for the lens to be a meta lens (Official Notice). Doing so would have been obvious in order to properly image an object.
Regarding claims 26-27, note the examiners rejection for claims 1 and 3-4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 12, 16, and 19-25 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
20210193493 06/2021 Frost
20210131256 06/2021 Cherala
10782242 09/2020 Muhr
100048477 08/2018 Putman
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVE J CZEKAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-7327. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6:00 Monday-Thursday and every other Friday.
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, please contact Jamie Atala at 571-272-7284. 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.
/Dave Czekaj/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights