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's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
At p. 6 para 2-4 that “The cited reference combination does not disclose -as set forth in amended claim 1- a beam splitter that causes "a first Raman scattered light generated by projecting the first laser light onto the sample to pass therethrough."”
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner concurred with the applicant that the camera 13 is utilized only during observation of the sample, but it does not mean to say the dichroic mirror 14 does not pass through the first Raman light to the Raman detector 23. If the camera 13 is not used, then the dichroic mirror 8 represents the beam splitter. Note that the dichroic mirror may be a beam splitter (see US9423343B2 col 19 lines 17-21).
Applicant argues:
At p. 6 para 6 to p. 7 para 2 that “The cited reference combination also does not disclose -as set forth in amended claim 1- a shutter that "blocks the first laser light by the sensor sensing that the cover is closed.”
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. P. 2 para 6 states that the “operator opens the door 14”. This means the door is still closed while the shutter is already blocking the laser from the sample. Thus, Fuminori teaches the limitation a shutter that "blocks the first laser light by the sensor sensing that the cover is closed”.
In response to the Remark in p. 6 last para, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Fuminori teaches a shutter (fig. 4, p. 2 para 3 lines 9-11).
Applicant argues:
At p. 7 para 4 that “…the shutter is disposed between the first laser light source and the beam splitter (i.e., closer to the first laser light source), such that when the shutter is closed, laser light is blocked while illumination light reflected from the sample can still reach the camera…”
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ryosuke teaches the limitation above. The control of the shutter is disclosed by Fuminori and these two arts are proper to combine because Ryosuke is an extension of Fuminori.
Applicant argues:
At p. 7 para 6 that “the stated rationale for combining Ryosuke is "to perform a strain measurement method" (Office Action, p. 7). This rationale is unrelated to the claimed configuration that is responsive to a cover sensor to block laser emission upon opening of a cover so as not to enter into the sample set unit. Because an introduction of a laser light (which is weakened by the ND filter 23) into the sample set unit 12 is an essential feature of Fuminori…”
Examiner response:
Again, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Fuminori teaches a shutter to block the laser. Ryosuke added a spectrometer to the device, which is an additional component to the device of Fuminori in order "to perform a strain measurement method" from the Raman scattering of the sample.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuminori, S. et al., JP2009188128A (hereinafter Fuminori) in view of Ryosuke, S., JP 2011247906 A (hereinafter Ryosuke), in view of Norikazu, S. et al., US 9423343 B2 (hereinafter Norikazu) and further in view of Yao, B. et al., CN 101216414 A (hereinafter Yao). Note the other references are proper to combine with Fuminori because these references are an extension of the device of Fuminori.
Regarding claim 1, Fuminori teaches a microscopic Raman device (p. 4 para 5 lines 1-7) comprising: a sample set unit (fig. 1 chamber 12, p. 2 para 3 line 7) that has a cover which is openable and closable (the cover is the door 14 in fig. 1, p. 3 para 4 lines 3-11), and that stores a sample therein (fig. 4 sample 1, p. 2 para 3); a first laser light source that generates first laser light to be projected onto the sample (fig. 4 laser oscillator 3, p. 2 para 3); “a filter disposed on a first light path which is a light path of the first laser light from the first laser light source to the sample” (p. 3 para 4 lines 3-11); a shutter drive unit that opens and closes the filter (this is the control unit 22 in fig. 1, p. 3 para 4 lines 3-11); and a sensor (fig. 1 sensor 21, p. 3 para 4 lines 3-11), “wherein the shutter drive unit is configured to move the filter by the sensor sensing that the cover is opened” (the filter is move at the standby position, p. 3 para 4 lines 3-11), and the filter blocks the first laser light by the sensor sensing that the cover is closed (p. 4 para 1; p. 2 para 3 and para 6).
Fuminori fails to disclose a shutter, the microscopic Raman device further comprising: a beam splitter disposed on the first light path; an illumination light source that generates illumination light to be projected onto the sample; and a camera, wherein the beam splitter causes the first laser light to pass therethrough, and reflects the illumination light reflected in the sample and causes the reflected illumination light to enter the camera, and the shutter is disposed on a portion of the first light path between the first laser light source than the beam splitter and causes to a first Raman scattered light generated by projecting the first laser light onto the sample to pass therethrough.
The embodiment of figure 4 of Fuminori teaches a shutter (fig. 4, p. 2 para 3 lines 9-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of the embodiment of figure 4 of Fuminori to the embodiment of figure 1 of Fuminori to have a shutter in order to completely block the laser light.
Fuminori fails to teach the microscopic Raman device further comprising: a beam splitter disposed on the first light path; an illumination light source that generates illumination light to be projected onto the sample; and a camera, wherein the beam splitter causes the first laser light to pass therethrough, and reflects the illumination light reflected in the sample and causes the reflected illumination light to enter the camera, and the shutter is disposed on a portion of the first light path between the first laser light source than the beam splitter, and causes to a first Raman scattered light generated by projecting the first laser light onto the sample to pass therethrough.
Ryosuke, from the same field of endeavor as Fuminori, teaches the microscopic Raman device further comprising: a dichroic mirror disposed on the first light path (fig. 1 element 14, p. 3 para 2 line 3); and a camera (fig. 1 element 13, p. 3 para 2 line 3), wherein the dichroic mirror causes the first laser light to pass therethrough (this is shown in fig. 1), and reflects the illumination light reflected in the sample and causes the reflected illumination light to enter the camera (fig. 1 shows element 14 reflects light to camera 13), and the shutter is disposed on a portion of the first light path between the first laser light source than the dichroic mirror (the shutters are element 26-27 in fig. 1, p. 2 second to the last para), and causes to a first Raman scattered light generated by projecting the first laser light onto the sample to pass therethrough (this is shown in fig. 1 where the first Raman light corresponds to the Raman light going to element 15 all the way to element 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ryosuke to Fuminori to have the microscopic Raman device further comprising: a dichroic mirror disposed on the first light path; and a camera, wherein the dichroic mirror causes the first laser light to pass therethrough, and reflects the illumination light reflected in the sample and causes the reflected illumination light to enter the camera, and the shutter is disposed on a portion of the first light path between the first laser light source than the dichroic mirror and causes to a first Raman scattered light generated by projecting the first laser light onto the sample to pass therethrough in order to perform a strain measurement method and a measurement apparatus for thin film semiconductor crystal layer by Raman spectroscopy (p. 1 TECHNICAL-FIELD section para 1).
Fuminori, when modified by Ryosuke, does not teach a beam splitter and an illumination light source that generates illumination light to be projected onto the sample.
Norikazu, from the same field of endeavor as Fuminori, teaches a beam splitter (fig. 15 dichroic mirror may be replaced by a beam splitter; col 19 last sentence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Norikazu to Fuminori, when modified by Ryosuke, to have a beam splitter in order to filter the selection of wavelengths reflected to the camera (col 19 last sentence).
Fuminori, when modified by Ryosuke and Norikazu, does not teach an illumination light source that generates illumination light to be projected onto the sample.
Yao, from the same field of endeavor as Fuminori, teaches an illumination light source that generates illumination light to be projected onto the sample (fig. 1 element 13, p. 3 last para line 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Yao to Fuminori, when modified by Ryosuke and Norikazu, to have an illumination light source that generates illumination light to be projected onto the sample in order to focus the illumination light to the sample (p. 3 last para lines 15-19) thus imaging the sample to the camera.
Regarding claim 3, Fuminori teach does not teach the microscopic Raman device according to claim 1, further comprising a second laser light source that generates second laser light to be projected onto the sample, wherein the shutter is disposed on a portion of the first light path that overlaps a second light path which is a light path of the second laser light from the second laser light source to the sample, and the shutter blocks the first laser light and the second laser light when closed.
Ryosuke, from the same field of endeavor as Fuminori, teaches the microscopic Raman device according to claim 1, further comprising a second laser light source that generates second laser light to be projected onto the sample (fig. 1 elements 1 and 2 are laser, p. 2 para 12 lines 2-5), wherein the shutter (fig. 1 elements 26-27, p. 2 para 13) is disposed on a portion of the first light path (fig. 1 shows both laser lights passing through element 14) that overlaps a second light path which is a light path of the second laser light from the second laser light source to the sample (laser 1 and 2 overlap each other as shown in fig. 1), and the shutter blocks the first laser light and the second laser light when closed (p. 2 para 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ryosuke to Fuminori to have the microscopic Raman device according to claim 1, further comprising a second laser light source that generates second laser light to be projected onto the sample, wherein the shutter is disposed on a portion of the first light path that overlaps a second light path which is a light path of the second laser light from the second laser light source to the sample, and the shutter blocks the first laser light and the second laser light when closed in order to obtain optime the measurement of a strained silicon crystal layer having a thickness of 10 to 30 nm (p. 2 para 11).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuminori, Ryosuke, Norikazu, and Yao as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Izzia, F. et al., US 9121755 B2 (hereinafter Izzia).
Regarding claim 2, the modified apparatus of Fuminori does not teach the microscopic Raman device according to claim 1, wherein the shutter drive unit is a solenoid.
Izzia, from the same field of endeavor as Fuminori, teaches the microscopic Raman device according to claim 1, wherein the shutter drive unit is a solenoid (col 6 lines 63-67 to col 7 line 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Izzia to the modified apparatus of Fuminori to have the microscopic Raman device according to claim 1, wherein the shutter drive unit is a solenoid in order to form a safe interlock system (col 6 lines 63-67 to col 7 line 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877