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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims status: amended claims: 29, 34, 36-38, 44-45, 49, 51; canceled claim: 31; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a new primary and secondary reference.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 29-30, 32-39, 44-45, 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2014/0146306 A1; pub May 29, 2014) in view of Zimdars et al. (US 2017/0023469 A1; pub. Jan. 26, 2017).
Regarding claim 29, Kubota discloses: A method for determining a transmission of an object (para. [0004], [0024]), which comprises at least a substrate (para. [0024]), for electromagnetic radiation in a frequency range between 30 GHz (Gigahertz) and 200 GHz (para. [0004]), comprising: determining at least a thickness of the substrate at least one location of the object for one or more measuring points (para. [0024]), using at least one measurement a) based on terahertz radiation, having a terahertz-radiation in a frequency range between 0.1 THz and 6 THz (para. [0004]), and/or based on an optical (para. [0009]) and/or a mechanical measuring principle (para. [0024])
Kubota is silent about: determining the transmission using a first model characterizing the transmission of the object for the electromagnetic radiation, based at least on the thickness of the substrate.
In a similar field of endeavor Zimdars et al. disclose: determining the transmission using a first model characterizing the transmission of the object for the electromagnetic radiation, based at least on the thickness of the substrate (para. [0058]-[0059], [0072]) motivated by the benefits for determining all parameters corresponding to each layer (Zimdars et al. para. [0059]).
In light of the benefits for determining all parameters corresponding to each layer as taught by Zimdars et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kubota with the teachings of Zimdars et al.
Regarding claim 30, Kubota and Zimdars et al. disclose: at least one layer is arranged on a first surface of the substrate, the method comprising determining a layer thickness of the at least one layer, at at least one location of the object, and determining the transmission using the first model and/or at least one further model which characterizes the transmission of the object for the electromagnetic radiation, based at least on the thickness of the substrate and on the layer thickness of the at least one layer (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 29).
Regarding 32, Kubota and Zimdars et al. do not specifically disclose: the thickness of the substrate is at least ten times greater than the layer thickness of the at least one layer. However, fig.6A -C of Kubota show multi-layers. Therefore, the claimed limitation would have been obvious with the teachings of fig.6A -C.
Regarding claim 33, Kubota discloses: the electromagnetic radiation has frequencies between 76 GHz and 81 GHz (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 34, Kubota discloses: at least one of the following: c) determining the layer thickness of the at least one layer, for one or more measuring points, using at least one measurement based on terahertz radiation; d) determining the thickness of the
substrate and the layer thickness of the at least one layer by means of at least one measurement common, to the substrate and the at least one layer, based on terahertz radiation; e) determining the thickness of the substrate, for example for one or more measuring points, based on structural data, of the object, f) determining the thickness of the substrate and/or the at least one layer thickness for one or more measuring points, based on existing thickness respectively layer thickness values of at least one other measuring point (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, plus see fig.6A-C).
Regarding claim 35, Kubota discloses: at least one of the following:
a) performing at least one measurement based on reflection of the terahertz radiation (para. [0024]); or
b) performing at least one measurement based on transmission of the terahertz radiation (para. [0024]).
Regarding claim 36, Kubota discloses: providing material data characterizing a propagation of the electromagnetic radiation in the object, in the substrate and/or in the at least one layer, wherein the material data comprises at least one of the following elements: a) dispersion relations, comprising a frequency-dependent and/or constant refractive index, and/or a frequency-dependent and/or constant absorption index, b) surface properties; and
using the material data for determining the transmission (para. [0117]).
Regarding claim 37, Kubota and Zimdars et al. disclose: at least one of the following:
a) providing the first model as an object model, which characterizes the transmission based on the thickness of the substrate and/or based on material data associated with the object; or
b) providing the at least one further model, as an object model which characterizes, the transmission based on the thickness of the substrate and a layer thickness of at least one layer and/or based on material data associated with the object, the substrate, and/or the at least one layer (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 29).
Regarding claim 38, Kubota and Zimdars et al. disclose: taking into account a dependence of a propagation of the terahertz radiation in the object using at least one of the following criteria: a) a distance of a transmitter and/or receiver for the terahertz radiation from the object; b) the thickness of the substrate and/or a layer thickness of at least one layer; or c) an angle (a) between a main beam direction of the terahertz radiation and a surface normal of at least one outer and/or inner interface of the object and/or the substrate (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 30 because the propagation of the ThZ will always be dependent on the number of layers).
Regarding claim 39, Kubota and Zimdars et al. disclose: the taking into account comprises:
characterizing, using at least one layer model, a propagation of the terahertz radiation in the region of at least one interface between two media adjoining one another in a spatial region associated with the object, the at least one layer model having a term characterizing the THz radiation, wherein the term is dependent on at least one of the following elements: a) frequency of the terahertz radiation, b) spatial extent and/or position of at least one of the two adjacent media, wherein A) the at least one layer model characterizes at least one reflection and/or transmission of the terahertz radiation at the at least one interface between the at least two media, wherein the at least one layer model characterizes several reflections and/or transmissions of the terahertz radiation at at least two interfaces between different media, and/or wherein B) the at least one layer model characterizes one respectively the plurality of reflections and/or transmissions of the terahertz radiation at a plurality of interfaces between in each case two media adjoining one another in the spatial region is characterized using a coherent superposition function, wherein the term being provided as a weighting factor for at least some components of the coherent superposition function (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 30).
Regarding claim 44, Zimdars et al. disclose: determining the layer thickness of the at least one layer and the thickness of the substrate based on the first THz signal, using a second layer model for the substrate with the at least one layer (para. [0058]-[0059], [0069] the para. teach multiple models).
Regarding claim 45, Kubota and Zimdars et al. disclose: determining the transmission for at least one measuring point of the object, and/or determining the transmission for a plurality of measuring points of the object (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 30).
Regarding claim 47, Zimdars et al. disclose: modeling a transmitter emitting the electromagnetic radiation with respect to at least one of the following elements: a) position, b) size, c) emission angle or characteristic, d) emission intensity (para. [0037) motivated by the benefits for determining all parameters corresponding to each layer (Zimdars et al. para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 48, Zimdars et al. disclose: modeling a receiver receiving the electromagnetic radiation with respect to at least one of the following elements: a) position, b) size, c) receiving characteristic (para. [0037]) motivated by the benefits for determining all parameters corresponding to each layer (Zimdars et al. para. [0059]).
Claims 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2014/0146306 A1; pub May 29, 2014) in view of Zimdars et al. (US 2017/0023469 A1; pub. Jan. 26, 2017) and further in view of Von Freymann et al. (US 2019/0265349 A1; pub. Aug. 29, 2019).
Regarding claim 40, the combined references are silent about: determining a first, time-resolved THz signal; and
determining, based on the first THz signal, using at least one temporal windowing, a first partial signal, wherein the first partial signal characterizes THz radiation which a) at a first interface between the at least one layer and the first surface of the substrate has been reflected, b) but has not been reflected at a second surface of the substrate opposite the first surface of the substrate
In a similar field of endeavor Von Freymann et al. disclose: determining a first, time-resolved THz signal; and
determining, based on the first THz signal, using at least one temporal windowing, a first partial signal, wherein the first partial signal characterizes THz radiation which a) at a first interface between the at least one layer and the first surface of the substrate has been reflected, b) but has not been reflected at a second surface of the substrate opposite the first surface of the substrate (para. [0031], [0071]) motivated by the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio (Von Freymann et al. para. [0006]).
In light of the benefits for improved signal to noise ratio as taught by Von Freymann et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kubota and Zimdars et al. with the teachings of Von Freymann et al.
Regarding claim 41, Kubota discloses: determining a second partial signal, wherein the second partial signal characterizes THz radiation which has been reflected at a second interface opposite the first interface, wherein a second surface of the substrate opposite the first surface of the substrate forms the second interface (para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 42, Kubota discloses: determining the layer thickness of the at least one layer based on the first partial signal using a or the first layer model for the at least one layer (para. [0044]).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2014/0146306 A1; pub May 29, 2014) in view of Zimdars et al. (US 2017/0023469 A1; pub. Jan. 26, 2017) in view of Von Freymann et al. (US 2019/0265349 A1; pub. Aug. 29, 2019) and further in view of Jaeschke et al. (US 2024/0393430 A1; pub. Nov. 28, 2024).
Regarding claim 43, the combined references are silent about: determining the thickness of the substrate based on the first THz signal, wherein determining the thickness of the substrate based on the first THz signal comprises at least one of the following elements: a) determining the thickness of the substrate based on a high-frequency component of a transfer function associated with the first THz signal, b) determining the thickness of the substrate based on a linear phase which characterizes a difference of a phase of a transfer function associated with the second partial signal and a phase of a transfer function associated with the first partial signal.
In a similar field of endeavor Jaeschke et al. disclose: determining the thickness of the substrate based on the first THz signal, wherein determining the thickness of the substrate based on the first THz signal comprises at least one of the following elements: a) determining the thickness of the substrate based on a high-frequency component of a transfer function associated with the first THz signal, b) determining the thickness of the substrate based on a linear phase which characterizes a difference of a phase of a transfer function associated with the second partial signal and a phase of a transfer function associated with the first partial signal (para. [0115, [0134], [0178]) motivated by the benefits for improved measurement accuracy (Jaeschke et al. para. [0017]).
In light of the benefits for improved measurement accuracy as taught by Jaeschke et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kubota, Zimdars et al. and Von Freymann et al. with the teachings of Jaeschke et al.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2014/0146306 A1; pub May 29, 2014) in view of Zimdars et al. (US 2017/0023469 A1; pub. Jan. 26, 2017) and further in view of Kubota et al. (1) (US 2014/0291524 A1; pub. Oct. 2, 2014).
Regarding claim 46, the combined references are silent about: determining whether a complexity of the object exceeds a predeterminable limit value, and
when the complexity does not exceed the predeterminable limit value, determining the transmission based on a plurality of measurement points based on averaging with respect to the plurality of measurement points; and
when the complexity exceeds the predeterminable limit value, determining the transmission using a design model of the object, wherein the design model characterizes at least one surface structure and/or coating of the object, and adapting the design model to a measured substrate thickness and/or layer thickness for one or more measuring points.
In a similar field of endeavor Kubota et al. (1) disclose: determining whether a complexity of the object exceeds a predeterminable limit value, and
when the complexity does not exceed the predeterminable limit value, determining the transmission based on a plurality of measurement points based on averaging with respect to the plurality of measurement points; and
when the complexity exceeds the predeterminable limit value, determining the transmission using a design model of the object, wherein the design model characterizes at least one surface structure and/or coating of the object, and adapting the design model to a measured substrate thickness and/or layer thickness for one or more measuring points (para. [0034], [0054]) motivated by the benefits for high accuracy measurement (Kubota et al. (1) para. [0036]).
In light of the benefits for high accuracy measurement as taught by Kubota et al. (1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kubota and Zimdars et al. with the teachings of Kubota et al. (1).
Claims 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2014/0146306 A1; pub May 29, 2014) in view of Zimdars et al. (US 2017/0023469 A1; pub. Jan. 26, 2017) in view of Asadi-Zanjani et al. (US 2023/0077838 A1; pub. Mar. 16, 2023).
Regarding claim 49, the combined references are silent about: providing an overall model for the transmission based on an object model for the object, and on at least one further model, wherein the at least one further model characterizes a transmitter and/or a receiver of the electromagnetic radiation;
configuring the overall model based on the transmission determined for at least one measuring point of the object, and/or based on determined layer thicknesses and/or substrate thicknesses and/or based on at least one frequency-dependent and/or constant refractive index and/or based on at least one frequency-dependent and/or constant absorption index;
evaluating the overall model; and
adjusting at least one component of the overall model.
In a similar field of endeavor Asadi-Zanjani et al. disclose: providing an overall model for the transmission based on an object model for the object, and on at least one further model, wherein the at least one further model characterizes a transmitter and/or a receiver of the electromagnetic radiation;
configuring the overall model based on the transmission determined for at least one measuring point of the object, and/or based on determined layer thicknesses and/or substrate thicknesses and/or based on at least one frequency-dependent and/or constant refractive index and/or based on at least one frequency-dependent and/or constant absorption index;
evaluating the overall model; and
adjusting at least one component of the overall model (para. [0071], [0078]) motivated by the benefits for reliable measurements (Asadi-Zanjani et al. para. [0103]).
In light of the benefits for reliable measurements as taught by Asadi-Zanjani et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kubota and Zimdars et al. with the teachings of Asadi-Zanjani et al.
Regarding claim 50, Asadi-Zanjani et al. disclose: determining a received intensity of the electromagnetic radiation, wherein, the evaluating and/or the determining is performed based on a ray tracing method and/or a calculation method for the propagation of the electromagnetic radiation (para. [0094]) motivated by the benefits for reliable measurements (Asadi-Zanjani et al. para. [0103]).
Regarding claim 51, Kubota discloses: at least one of the following elements: a) an interface port to at least one THz measuring system which is designed to transmit and/or receive terahertz radiation, wherein the THz measuring system having at least one transmitter and a receiver for the terahertz radiation and/or a transceiver for the terahertz radiation, b) a positioning system (fig.4 items 2 & 5).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (US 2014/0146306 A1; pub May 29, 2014) in view of Zimdars et al. (US 2017/0023469 A1; pub. Jan. 26, 2017) and further in view of Neumeister et al. (DE102020133704 A1; pub. Jun. 23, 2022).
Regarding claim 52, the combination of Kubota and Zimdars et al. disclose all the limitations of claim 52 except for a radar.
In a similar field of endeavor Neumeister et al. disclose: a radar (para. [0010], [0039]) motivated by the benefits for a reliable layer thickness measurement (Neumeister et al. para. [0004], [0006]).
In light of the benefits for a reliable layer thickness measurement as taught by Neumeister et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of and Zimdars et al. with the teachings of Neumeister et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights