DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation 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 broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“light source to emit an interrogating beam” and “light source is configured to emit” in claims 1, 7 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
6. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
7. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 17-20 are directed to a “computer-readable medium.” Where the computer-readable medium can be transitory (i.e., not explicitly limited as disclosed as only being non-transitory computer readable media), it fails to fall within a statutory category of invention. Applicant should note that adding "non-transitory" to the claim to limit the claimed computer-readable medium to being statutory would be acceptable (i.e. “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”).
A claim directed to a computer program is non-statutory, where the computer program can be a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, which are non-statutory as noted, infra.
A claim directed to a computer program itself, a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure is non-statutory because it is not:
• A process occurring as a result of executing the program, or
• A machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program, or
• A manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the program in a manner which enable the program to act as a computer component and realize its functionality, or
• A composition of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Pub. No. 2002/0140949 A1 by Sasaki et al. (hereinafter Sasaki).
Regarding Claim 1, Sasaki teaches an apparatus to measure a characteristic of a surface feature on a substrate with improved speed (Fig. 19, Abstract, Par. [0030, 0058, 0184]), comprising:
a light source (Fig. 19 @ 41) to emit an interrogating beam (Fig. 19 @ LB) onto a surface of the substrate (Fig. 19 @ 31a) comprising at least one surface feature (Fig. 19 @ 33), wherein the interrogating beam (Fig. 19 @ LB) is configured to interact with the at least one surface feature (Fig. 19 @ 33) to form a plurality of reflections, each reflection being derived from a different portion of the interrogating beam (Fig. 8, 9, 10A, 19, Par. [0084, 0089], the laser beam LB is obliquely irradiated onto a curved surface of the solder ball 33 and multiple reflection points along the curved surface of the solder ball 33 are generated);
a sensor (Fig. 19 @ 42) to capture the plurality of reflections (Par. [0084, 0089]), wherein the plurality of reflections form a captured image (Fig. 10A, 10B, Par. [0069,0070, 0100]); and
one or more processors (inspector, Abstract) configured to analyze the captured image to determine a measurable characteristic (Par. [0052, 0094) of the at least one surface feature (Fig. 19 @ 33).
Regarding Claim 2, Sasaki teaches the measurable characteristic of the at least one surface feature comprises a height of the at least one surface feature with respect to a plane of the surface (Par. [0013, 0052, 0094).
Regarding Claim 3, Sasaki teaches the measurable characteristic of the at least one surface feature comprises a shape of an exposed surface on a top of the at least one surface feature (Par. [0013, 0052, 0094).
Regarding Claim 5, Sasaki teaches a plurality of captured images are derived from reflections of the interrogating beam from an exposed surface on a top of the at least one surface feature (Fig. 19. Also see Claim 1 rejection), and the one or more processors are configured to determine a shape of the exposed surface based on the plurality of captured images (See Claim 3 rejection).
Regarding Claim 8, Sasaki teaches the sensor includes a plurality of cameras (Par. [0094]: CCD camera).
Regarding Claim 9, Sasaki teaches the one or more processors is a component of the sensor (Abstract, Par. [0052, 0094]: inspector).
Regarding Claim 10, Sasaki teaches the one or more processors is remote from the sensor (Abstract, Par. [0052, 0094]: inspector).
Regarding Claim 11, Sasaki teaches the one or more processors is configured to apply image pattern analysis (Par. [0022, 0081]: light cutting method, i.e. the image pattern analysis) to determine the measurable characteristic of the at least one surface feature (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 12, Sasaki teaches a method for determining a characteristic of a surface feature on a surface of a substrate faster (See Claim 1 rejection. Note: an apparatus claim can be used to implement a method claim), the method comprising:
shining the surface with at least one light source, wherein the at least one light source emits an interrogating beam that interacts with the surface feature to form a plurality of reflections, wherein each reflection is derived from a different portion of the interrogating beam (See Claim 1 rejection);
capturing the plurality of reflections to generate a plurality of captured images, wherein each captured image is derived from a unique sample position relative to the interrogating beam (See Claim 1 rejection); and
processing at least a portion of the plurality of captured images to determine a measurable characteristic of the surface feature (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 15, Sasaki teaches the measurable characteristic comprises a shape of an exposed surface on a top of the surface feature (See Claim 3 rejection).
Regarding Claim 17, Sasaki teaches a computer-readable medium containing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations (Abstract: inspector, inherently teaches the limitation) comprising:
moving at least one light source with respect to a surface of a substrate (Par. [0016, 0053, 0084, 0088, 0104, 0116]), wherein the at least one light source emits an interrogating beam that interacts with a surface feature on the surface to form a plurality of reflections, and wherein each reflection is derived from a different portion of the interrogating beam (See Claim 1 rejection);
capturing the plurality of reflections to generate a plurality of captured images, wherein each captured image is derived from a unique sample position relative to the interrogating beam (See Claim 1 rejection); and
processing at least a portion of the plurality of captured images to determine a measurable characteristic of the surface feature (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 20, Sasaki teaches the measurable characteristic comprises a shape of an exposed surface on a top of the surface feature (See Claim 3 rejection).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 4, 13-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of JP2026085045A by Kususe et al. (hereinafter Kususe).
Regarding Claim 4, Sasaki teaches the surface feature (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach a first captured image is derived from a first set of reflections corresponding to an onset of a shadow of a leading edge of the surface feature and a second captured image is derived from a second set of reflections corresponding to a disappearance of a shadow of a trailing edge of the surface feature, and the one or more processors are configured to determine a height of the surface feature with respect to a plane of the surface based on the first captured image and the second captured image.
However, Kususe teaches a wafer and bumps are moved in the Y-direction and scanned, and the bump blocks the specularly reflected light, thereby forming a shadow image as viewed from the direction of specular reflection, which is used to calculate the height of the bump (Fig. 3, Part. [0022-0024]).
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 Sasaki by Kususe as taught above such that a first captured image is derived from a first set of reflections corresponding to an onset of a shadow of a leading edge of the surface feature and a second captured image is derived from a second set of reflections corresponding to a disappearance of a shadow of a trailing edge of the surface feature, and the one or more processors are configured to determine a height of the surface feature with respect to a plane of the surface based on the first captured image and the second captured image is accomplished in order to calculate the height of the bump (Kususe, Par. [0024]).
Regarding Claim 13, Sasaki as modified by Kususe teaches the capturing comprises generating a first image comprising an onset of a shadow of a leading edge of the surface feature and a second image comprising a disappearance of a shadow of a trailing edge of the surface feature (See Claim 4 rejection).
Regarding Claim 14, Sasaki as modified by Kususe teaches the processing comprises determining a height of the surface feature with respect to a plane of the surface based on a first captured image of a first set of reflections and a second captured image of a second set of reflections (See Claim 4 rejection).
Regarding Claim 18, Sasaki as modified by Kususe teaches the capturing comprises generating a first image comprising an onset of a shadow of a leading edge of the surface feature and a second image comprising a disappearance of a shadow of a trailing edge of the surface feature (See Claim 4 rejection).
Regarding Claim 19, Sasaki as modified by Kususe teaches the processing comprises determining a height of the surface feature with respect to a plane of the surface based on a first captured image of a first set of reflections and a second captured image of a second set of reflections (See Claim 4 rejection).
12. Claims 6-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki.
Regarding Claim 6, Sasaki teaches the light source comprises a plurality of lasers, and wherein the plurality of lasers include continuous wave (CW) lasers, pulsed lasers, or combinations thereof (Par. [0017, 0087]: lights thus teaches a plurality of lasers) but does not explicitly teach a plurality of lasers.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (a plurality of lasers), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (a single laser or a plurality of lasers), and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a plurality of lasers to obtain a predictable result.
Regarding Claim 7, Sasaki teaches the interrogating beam (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach is a first interrogating beam having a first color or spot size,
wherein the light source is configured to emit a second interrogating beam with a second color or spot size.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (multiple interrogation beam with multiple color or spot size), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (a single interrogation beam with a single color or spot size or multiple interrogation beam with multiple color or spot size), and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a multiple interrogation beam with multiple color or spot size to obtain a predictable result.
Regarding Claim 16, Sasaki teaches the interrogating beam is a first interrogating beam having a first color or spot size, and wherein the at least one light source is configured to emit a second interrogating beam with a second color or spot size (See Claim 7 rejection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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 on 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877