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 considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen-Sabban, J., US 6573998 B2 (hereinafter Sabban), in view of Wieser, R., US20120033066A1 (hereinafter Wieser), and EP 2685304 A1 (hereinafter Kento).
Regarding claim 1, Sabban teaches an inspection system (26) (this is fig. 4, col 4 lines 56-68), the inspection system comprising a projection device (32) (fig. 4 elements 101, 102, col 4 line 59), an optical detection device (28)shi (fig. 4 element 104, col 4 lines 56-68) and a processing device (element 48, col 3 lines 58-61), the projection device having at least one spectrometer member (fig. 4 element 102 is a prism) configured to split white light into its spectral components (prism 102 splits light as shown in fig. 4) and project a multichromatic light beam (37) thus formed from monochromatic light beams onto a product at an angle of incidence β (fig. 4 element 110, col 4 lines 56-68), the optical detection device having a detection unit (29) comprising an area camera (27) (col 5 lines 46-58) and an objective (2830) (col 5 lines 46-58; the objective is element 50), “the area camera being configured to detect the multichromatic light beam (37) reflected on the product in a detection plane (46) of the detection unit” (this is shown in fig. 4), the detection plane (46) being perpendicular to a product surface (38) of the product (this is shown in fig. 4), wherein the detection unit has an aperture (42) on the image side (fig. 4 element 103), the aperture being disposed in the detection plane in the objective or between the objective and the product (fig. 4 shows aperture 103 is between objective 50 and object 30, col 4 lines 65-67), the reflected multichromatic light beam being projectable onto an image plane (49) of the area camera (fig. 4 col 5 lines 1-4), “processing device being configured to derive the product surface from a spatial distribution of of the reflected multichromatic light beam in the image plane” (figs. 1 and 4, col 4 para 2), “a position of the optical detection unit relative to the product and the angle of incidence β” (this is shown in figs. 1 and 4).
Sabban, fails to teach for analyzing defects in a product, in particular a printed circuit board product, a semiconductor wafer or the like, a scan camera, a height information, saturation values, and “wherein the aperture enables imaging of two detectable areas in the image plane of the area scan camera, and wherein the inspection system is adapted to determine a distance between the two detectable areas”.
Wieser, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches for analyzing defects in a product, in particular a printed circuit board product (this is the PCB-product, Abstract lines 1-4), a semiconductor wafer or the like, a scan camera (para [0028] lines 1-2), a height information (Abstract last sentence), saturation values (para [0033] col 2 line 2).
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 Wieser to Sabban to have “for analyzing defects in a product, in particular a printed circuit board product, a semiconductor wafer or the like, a scan camera, a height information, saturation values” in order to enhance the resolution accuracy of the measurement (para [0030] last sentence).
Sabban, when modified by Wieser, fails to teach “wherein the aperture enables imaging of two detectable areas in the image plane of the area scan camera, and wherein the inspection system is adapted to determine a distance between the two detectable areas”.
Kento, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches “wherein the aperture enables imaging of two detectable areas in the image plane of the area scan camera, and wherein the inspection system is adapted to determine a distance between the two detectable areas” (fig. 4 element 36, p. 6 last para to p. 7 para 1; replacing aperture 36 to Sabban’s aperture will allow the Sabban device to be adapted to determine a distance between the two detectable areas; also fig. 4 element 60 provides information regarding the distance between the two detectable areas).
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 Kento to Sabban, when modified by Wieser, to have “wherein the aperture enables imaging of two detectable areas in the image plane of the area scan camera, and wherein the inspection system is adapted to determine a distance between the two detectable areas” in order to process the measurements at a high resolution and at a high speed (Abstract last para).
Regarding claim 2, Sabban fails to teach the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to capture line images in at least two positions in the image plane (49), each with at least two sensor lines of the area scan camera (27) that have above-average saturation values.
Wieser, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to capture line images in at least two positions in the image plane (49) (p. 2 para [0028] last sentence to p. 3 col 1 line 1), each with at least two sensor lines of the area scan camera (27) (p. 2 para [0028] last sentence to p. 3 col 1 line 1) that have above-average saturation values (para [0028] line 9, which is the higher hue resolution).
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 Wieser to Sabban to have “the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to capture line images in at least two positions in the image plane (49), each with at least two sensor lines of the area scan camera (27) that have above-average saturation values” in order to increase hue sensitivity (p. 3 col 1 line 1).
Regarding claim 3, Sabban fails to teach the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein height information of the product surface is derivable depending on a position of the spatial distribution of saturation values in the image plane (49) of the area scan camera (27).
Wieser, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein height information of the product surface is derivable depending on a position of the spatial distribution of saturation values in the image plane (49) of the area scan camera (27) (para [0033] 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 Wieser to Sabban to have “the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein height information of the product surface is derivable depending on a position of the spatial distribution of saturation values in the image plane (49) of the area scan camera (27)” in order to increase the accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding claim 4, Sabban teaches the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit (29) has a dispersive or diffractive element (31) (figs. 1 and 4, elements 44, and a prism near 104) disposed in the beam path between the objective (30) and the area scan camera (this is shown in figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, Sabban does not teach the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to derive an analysis image of the product from a plurality of line images.
Wieser, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to derive an analysis image of the product from a plurality of line images (para [0028] 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 Wieser to Sabban to have “the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the processing device is configured to derive an analysis image of the product from a plurality of line images” in order to enhance the sensitivity of the measurement (para [0028] last sentence).
Regarding claim 6, Sabban teaches the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the objective is configured to project a line image from an object plane (47) of the product surface (38) onto the image plane (49) of the camera (27) (the objective is element 50, Abstract line 19).
Sabban does not disclose the area scan camera being disposed perpendicularly to a direction of movement (39) of a product.
Wieser, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches the area scan camera being disposed perpendicularly to a direction of movement (39) of a product (this is shown in fig. 1a element 3 is the scan camera).
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 Wieser to Sabban to have “the area scan camera being disposed perpendicularly to a direction of movement (39) of a product” in order to enhance the scanning width of the product (p. 8 claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, Sabban does not teach the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the area scan camera (27) is formed by a RGB chip or a grayscale chip having 32 to 128 sensor lines, perpendicular to a direction of movement (39) of a product.
Wieser, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the area scan camera (27) is formed by a RGB chip (para [0072] line 8) or a grayscale chip having sensor lines (para [0031]), perpendicular to a direction of movement (39) of a product (this is shown in 1a).
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 Wieser to Sabban to have “the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the area scan camera (27) is formed by a RGB chip or a grayscale chip having sensor lines, perpendicular to a direction of movement (39) of a product” in order to increase measurement accuracy (para [0031]).
Sabban, when modified by Wieser, fails to explicitly disclose having 32 to 128 sensor lines.
The limitation “having 32 to 128 sensor lines” is simply a routine optimization, see MPEP 2144.05 II-A In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 “having 32 to 128 sensor lines” to the teaching of Sabban, when modified by Wieser, in order to incease the speed of the measurement.
Regarding claim 9, Sabban teaches the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the objective is configured to project an image from an object plane (47) of the product surface (38) onto the image plane (49) of the area camera (27) (the objective is element 50, Abstract line 19; also this entire limitation is shown in fig. 1a).
Sabban does not teach a line image and the area scan camera being disposed perpendicularly to a direction of movement of a product.
Wieser, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches a line image (para [0031]) and the area scan camera being disposed perpendicularly to a direction of movement of a product (this is shown in fig. 1a element 3 is the scan camera).
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 Wieser to Sabban to have “a line image and the area scan camera being disposed perpendicularly to a direction of movement of a product” in order to increase measurement accuracy (para [0031]).
Regarding claim 10, Sabban does not teach the inspection system according to claim 7, wherein the area scan camera (27) is formed by a RGB chip or a grayscale having 32 to 64 sensor lines, perpendicular to a direction of movement (39) of a product.
Wieser, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches the inspection system according to claim 7, wherein the area scan camera (27) is formed by a RGB chip (para [0072] line 8) or a grayscale having sensor lines (para [0031]), perpendicular to a direction of movement (39) of a product (this is shown in 1a).
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 Wieser to Sabban to have “the inspection system according to claim 7, wherein the area scan camera (27) is formed by a RGB chip or a grayscale having sensor lines, perpendicular to a direction of movement (39) of a product” in order to increase measurement accuracy (para [0031]).
Sabban, when modified by Wieser, fails to explicitly disclose having 32 to 64 sensor lines.
The limitation “having 32 to 64 sensor lines” is simply a routine optimization, see MPEP 2144.05 II-A In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 “having 32 to 64 sensor lines” to the teaching of Sabban, when modified by Wieser, in order to incease the speed of the measurement.
Regarding claim 12, Sabban teaches the inspection system according to claim 1, wherein the objective (30) is a telecentric objective (p. 8 claim 10).
Regarding claim 13, Sabban teaches a method for analyzing defects (this is fig. 4, col 4 lines 56-68), the method using an inspection system (26), the inspection system comprising a projection device (32) (fig. 4 elements 101, 102, col 4 line 59), an optical detection device (28) (fig. 4 element 104, col 4 lines 56-68) and a processing device (element 48, col 3 lines 58-61), a spectrometer member of the projection device (fig. 4 element 102 is a prism) splitting white light into its spectral components (prism 102 splits light as shown in fig. 4) and projecting a multichromatic light beam (37) thus formed from monochromatic light beams onto a product at an angle of incidence β (fig. 4 element 110, col 4 lines 56-68), the optical detection device having a detection unit (29) comprising an area camera (27) (col 5 lines 46-58) and an objective (230) (col 5 lines 46-58; the objective is element 50), a multichromatic light beam (37) being reflected on the product in a detection plane (46) of the detection unit (this is shown in fig. 4), the detection plane being perpendicular to a product surface of the product (this is shown in fig. 4), the area camera detecting said multichromatic light beam (this is shown in fig. 4), wherein an aperture (42) of the detection unit on the image side projects the reflected multichromatic light beam onto an image plane (49) of the area camera (fig. 4 aperture 103), the aperture being disposed in the detection plane in the objective or between the objective and the product (this is shown in figs. 1 and 4), the processing device deriving information of the product surface from a spatial distribution of of the reflected multichromatic light beam in the image plane (figs. 1 and 4, col 4 para 2), a position of the optical detection unit relative to the product and the angle of incidence β (this is shown in figs. 1 and 4).
Sabban, fails to teach a product, in particular a printed circuit board product, a semiconductor wafer or the like, a scan camera, a height information, saturation values, and further including imaging two detectable areas in the image plane of the area scan camera and determining a distance between the two detectable areas.
Wieser, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches for analyzing defects in a product, in particular a printed circuit board product (this is the PCB-product, Abstract lines 1-4), a semiconductor wafer or the like, a scan camera (para [0028] lines 1-2), a height information (Abstract last sentence), saturation values (para [0033] col 2 line 2).
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 Wieser to Sabban to have “for analyzing defects in a product, in particular a printed circuit board product, a semiconductor wafer or the like, a scan camera, a height information, saturation values” in order to enhance the resolution accuracy of the measurement (para [0030] last sentence).
Sabban, when modified by Wieser, fails to teach further including imaging two detectable areas in the image plane of the area scan camera and determining a distance between the two detectable areas.
Kento, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches “further including imaging two detectable areas in the image plane of the area scan camera and determining a distance between the two detectable areas” (fig. 4 element 36 allows two detectable areas, p. 6 last para to p. 7 para 1; replacing aperture 36 to Sabban’s aperture will allow the Sabban device to be adapted to determine a distance between the two detectable areas; also fig. 4 element 60 provides information regarding the distance between the two detectable areas).
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 Kento to Sabban, when modified by Wieser, to have “further including imaging two detectable areas in the image plane of the area scan camera and determining a distance between the two detectable areas” in order to process the measurements at a high resolution and at a high speed (Abstract last para).
Regarding claim 14, Sabban fails to teach the method according to claim 13, wherein the processing device simultaneously detects line images from at least three sensor lines of the area scan camera (27) that have the highest saturation values.
Wieser, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the processing device simultaneously detects line images from at least three sensor lines of the area scan camera (27) (p. 2 para [0028] last sentence to p. 3 col 1 line 1) that have the highest saturation values (para [0028] line 9, which is the higher hue resolution).
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 Wieser to Sabban to have “the method according to claim 13, wherein the processing device simultaneously detects line images from at least three sensor lines of the area scan camera (27) that have the highest saturation values” in order to increase hue sensitivity (p. 3 col 1 line 1).
Regarding claim 15, Sabban fails to teach the method according to claim 13 wherein a further projection device (51) of the inspection system (26) emits light, the area scan camera (27) simultaneously capturing line images of the projection device and the further projection device.
Kento, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches “the method according to claim 13 wherein a further projection device (51) of the inspection system (26) emits light, the area scan camera (27) simultaneously capturing line images of the projection device and the further projection device” (this is shown in fig. 4 element 60).
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 Kento to Sabban, when modified by Wieser, to have “the method according to claim 13 wherein a further projection device (51) of the inspection system (26) emits light, the area scan camera (27) simultaneously capturing line images of the projection device and the further projection device” in order to process the measurements at a high resolution and at a high speed (Abstract last para).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabban, in view of Wieser, Kento, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Shibata, Y. et al., US9255793B2 (hereinafter Shibata).
Regarding claim 11, Sabban does not teach the inspection system according to claim 9, wherein the further projection device (51) emits light with a different height in the detection plane (46) than the projection device (32) relative to the object plane (47).
Shibata, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches the inspection system according to claim 9, wherein the further projection device (51) emits light with a different height in the detection plane (46) than the projection device (32) relative to the object plane (47) (fig. 9 element 926, col 13 lines 12-19, this light is intended for different height; col 3 lines 13-18).
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 Shibata to Sabban to have the inspection system according to claim 9, wherein the further projection device (51) emits light with a different height in the detection plane (46) than the projection device (32) relative to the object plane (47) in order to detect defects present in the wafer, such as groove bottom defects and scratches (col 3 lines 13-18).
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabban, in view of Wieser, Kento, and further in view of Wieser, R., US 10186025 B2 (hereinafter Roman).
Regarding claim 16, the modified apparatus of Sabban does not teach the method according to claim 15, wherein the processing device derives further height information of the product surface from a spatial distribution of saturation values of the reflected multichromatic light beam (37) of the further projection device (51) in the image plane (49), a position of the optical detection unit (29) relative to the product and the angle of incidence β. Regarding claim 17, the modified apparatus of Sabban does not teach the method according to claim 13, wherein the processing device analyses the image plane (49) of the area scan camera (27) for at least one of hue, brightness and saturation. Regarding claim 18, the modified apparatus of Sabban does not teach the method according to claim 13, wherein the processing device determines at least one of a material, a material property and a geometric structure of the product from the analysis image and/or compares the analysis image to a reference image. Regarding claim 19, the modified apparatus of Sabban does not teach the method according to claim 13, wherein the processing device combines at least two or more line images of a matching product surface (38) by image processing.
Roman, from the same field of endeavor as Sabban, teaches “the method according to claim 15, wherein the processing device derives further height information of the product surface from a spatial distribution of saturation values of the reflected multichromatic light beam (37) of the further projection device (51) in the image plane (49), a position of the optical detection unit (29) relative to the product and the angle of incidence β” (this entire limitation in showon in figs. 1 and 3, col 14 claim 17, figs. 1 and 3 have two projection devices; note that multichromatic light is disclosed by Sabban), the method according to claim 13, wherein the processing device analyses the image plane (49) of the area scan camera (27) for at least one of hue, brightness and saturation (col 14 claim 18), the method according to claim 13, wherein the processing device determines at least one of a material, a material property and a geometric structure of the product from the analysis image and/or compares the analysis image to a reference image (col 9 lines 23-34), the method according to claim 13, wherein the processing device combines at least two or more line images of a matching product surface (38) by image processing (col 6 lines 25-31).
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 Roman to the modified apparatus of Sabban to have “the method according to claim 15, wherein the processing device derives further height information of the product surface from a spatial distribution of saturation values of the reflected multichromatic light beam (37) of the further projection device (51) in the image plane (49), a position of the optical detection unit (29) relative to the product and the angle of incidence β and the method according to claim 13, wherein the processing device analyses the image plane (49) of the area scan camera (27) for at least one of hue, brightness and saturation, the method according to claim 13, wherein the processing device determines at least one of a material, a material property and a geometric structure of the product from the analysis image and/or compares the analysis image to a reference image, and the method according to claim 13, wherein the processing device combines at least two or more line images of a matching product surface (38) by image processing” in order to allow reliable and quick defect analysis (col 2 lines 18-21).
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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877