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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the restriction of claims 1-7 to Group I and claims 8-19 to Group II is not proper because (1) the inventions of Groups I and II are allegedly not distinct, (2) searching and examining the claims of both groups allegedly does not impose a serious search or examination burden on the examiner, (3) the record allegedly does not support that the inventions of the groups have separate utility, and (4) that there are allegedly linked claims that should be examined together. The restriction requirement is withdrawn and therefore these arguments are deemed moot.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The BRI of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification. In the following, some of the terms in the claims have been given BRIs in light of the specification. These BRIs are used for purposes of searching for prior art and examining the claims, but cannot be incorporated into the claims. Should Applicant believe that different interpretations are appropriate, Applicant should point to the portions of the specification that clearly support a different interpretation.
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.
Claim 4 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.
Claim 4 recites that “at least one of the first axis and one of the second axis is approximately 45 degrees”. Claim 4 depends from claim 3, which recites that the second axis is perpendicular to the first axis, which means there is a 90 degree angle between them. It is unclear from the language of claim 4 what the 45 degree angle is relative to since it cannot be the angle between the first and second axis and no other reference frame is recited. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
The only mention of a 45-degree angle in the present specification is on page 11, lines 9-22, which refers to the tilt angle of the cross-sections being 45 degrees relative to the surface of the circuit board. For purposes of examination, the BRI for this claim, as best as can be understood, is that it means that the tilt angle of the cross-sections is 45-degree relative to the first axis and/or the second axis.
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.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2022/0392793 A1 to Buxbaum et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Buxbaum”) in view of an article entitled “Fabrication of 45-Degree Integrated Mirrors for
Three-Dimensional Board-Level Optical Interconnects Realizing Efficient Light Coupling”, by Liu et al., published August 8, 2023 in 24th International Conference on Electronic Packaging Technology (ICEPT) (2023, Page(s): 1-5) (hereinafter referred to as “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, Buxbaum discloses a method comprising:
slicing a circuit substrate (a semiconductor wafer) at multiple parallel cross-sections of the substrate (paras. [0108]-[0114], Figs. 1-3 disclose that focused ion beam milling is used to focus an ion beam 51 onto the wafer surface 55 at an angle GF relative to the surface 55 to slice the wafer into multiple parallel cross-sections 52-54; charged particle beam (CPB) imaging of the cross-sections is then performed to perform optical inspection of the circuit elements of the substrate), each slice of the substrate taken in a respective slice plane substantially non-perpendicular and substantially non-parallel to a surface of the substrate (paras. [0108]-[0114], Figs. 1-3 disclose that the angle GF is slant angle of, for example, 30°, relative to the wafer surface 55 such that the cross-sectional surfaces 52-54 are parallel to one another and are non-perpendicular and substantially non-parallel to the surface 55 of the substrate 8; Fig. 3 of Buxbaum duplicated below shows the parallel cross-sections 52-54 that are non-parallel and non-perpendicular to substrate surface 55).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Buxbaum does not explicitly disclose that the substrate 55 is a circuit board. Liu, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a system and method for slicing an optical printed circuit board (OPCB) at angles that are non-perpendicular and non-parallel to a surface of the circuit board (e.g., 45° relative to the surface of the circuit board) in order to create 45° mirrors in the circuit board (see Abstract; see also section II.B discussing using a diamond blade to slice the board to generate 45° angled surfaces that will be used for up-turned mirrors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to adapt the systems and methods of Buxbaum based on the teachings of Liu to cross-section a circuit board into parallel cross-sections that are non-perpendicular and non-parallel to a surface of the circuit board (e.g., 45°).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to allow the optical inspection technology of Buxbaum to be used to inspect circuit boards.
The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success because making the modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (constructing a system that uses the cross-sectioning and imaging inspection concepts and principles of Buxbaum to cross-section and inspect circuit boards).
Regarding claim 2, Buxbaum discloses that the respective slice planes (Fig. 3, planes of cross-sections 52-54) are each approximately 45 degrees relative to the surface (para. [0131] discloses that “a slant angle GF between 25° and 60° can be used”).
Regarding claim 3, Buxbaum discloses that the surface 55 of the substrate defining a reference plane has a first axis (Fig. 3, X-axis) and a second axis (Fig. 3, Y-axis) perpendicular to the first axis, each respective slice plane is tilted a substantially non-perpendicular and substantially non-parallel first angle from the first axis and rotated a substantially non-perpendicular and substantially non-parallel second angle from the second axis (para. [0110], Fig. 3 shows that each of the slice planes of the respective cross-sections 52-54 is tilted at the angle GF relative to the top surface 55; Figs. 25A-25C and para. [0211] disclose an embodiment in which the slice plane is rotated a substantially non-perpendicular and substantially non-parallel second angle from the second axis: “The second cross section surface 51.2 is again generated under angle GF, but rotated with respect to the first cross section surface 51.1 by a predetermined angle around the z-axis. In this example, the predetermined angle is 90°, but other angles are possible as well”).
Regarding claim 4, the BRI for this claim is provided above in the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Buxbaum discloses that the respective slice planes (Fig. 3, planes of cross-sections 52-54) are each approximately 45 degrees relative to the surface 55, which is in the X-Y plane shown in Fig. 3 (para. [0131] discloses that “a slant angle GF between 25° and 60° can be used”). Therefore, Buxbaum discloses that the surfaces of the cross-sections 53-54 are at 45 degrees relative to the surface 55 of the substrate.
Regarding claim 5, Buxbaum discloses imaging each cross-sectional slice of the circuit board to generate a respective image for each cross-sectional slice (para. [0042]: “[i]n some embodiments, the disclosure comprises an algorithm and a method to generate a 3D volume image of the inspection volume. In a first step, cross-section image features can be detected in the plurality of cross-section image slices, for example by methods of object detection known in the art….”).
Regarding claim 6, the BRI for the limitation “overlaying the respective images to create a three-dimensional image of the circuit board”, based on page 12, lines 8-23 of the present specification, is that it means connecting the slices through interpolation to generate the three-dimensional (3D) image.
Buxbaum discloses processing the cross-sectional image slices with an interpolation process that generates a 3D inspection volume from the cross-sectional image slices (para. [0042]: “[i]n a first step, cross-section image features can be detected in the plurality of cross-section image slices, for example by methods of object detection known in the art. The cross-section image features can be further classified in a feature classification, and the cross-section image features are classified into first cross-section image features and second cross-section image features. In a second step, a depth map can be generated for each cross-section image slice from second cross-section image features representing features of known or reference depth as described above…From the depth maps together with the plurality of first cross-section image features of the plurality of cross-section image slices, a 3D volume image of the inspection volume can be generated for example by projection and interpolation of virtual cross section images slices.”).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the rejections of claims 1 and 5 apply mutatis mutandis to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 2 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 3 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 4 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 6 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 7 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claims 1 and 5 apply mutatis mutandis to claim 14. Buxbaum discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause a processor to perform the operations recited in claims 1 and 5 (claims 26 and 31 of Buxbaum).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 2 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 3 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 4 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 6 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 7 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2018/0247793 A1 discloses systems and methods for glancing milling including milling a first surface at least in the local area of a feature of interest using an ion beam directed at a first angle to make the first surface at least in the local area of the feature of interest substantially planar, wherein the first angle between the ion beam and the first surface is equal to or less than ten degrees; subsequent to milling the first surface, milling the sample using the ion beam directed at a second angle to expose a second surface, the second surface comprising a cross-section of the feature of interest; and forming an image of the second surface by directing an electron beam to the second surface and detecting the interaction of the electron beam with the second surface.
An article entitled “New reconstruction method for x-ray testing of multilayer printed circuit board”, by Yang et al., published in May 2010 in Optical Engineering 49(5), 056501 discloses a new reconstruction method is proposed for the nondestructive testing of plate-like objects. With this method, x rays irradiate the surface of the reconstructed object at an oblique angle, and a series of projection images are obtained while the object is rotating. Then, through a relevant preprocessing method on the projections and a special reconstructing algorithm, cross sections of the scanning region are finally obtained slice by slice. The experimental results prove that this method satisfactorily addresses the challenges of nondestructive testing of plate-like objects such as PCB.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-2867. 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, Matt Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL J. SANTOS/
Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667