DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation is: “an analysis unit” in claim 16.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 11 and 14 are 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.
The claim 11 recites “the library profile samples are coated with a highly reflective layer,” but highly is a subjective term and indefinite. The claim 14 recites” preferred refractive index value or model from data from a set of calibration samples,” but the limitation “preferred” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
6. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “referring to a profile library containing at least one profile sample to obtain a correction factor based on the curvature of the sample, applying the correction factor to the sample response to obtain a corrected reflection,” is an abstract idea, as it involves mental process. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. Additionally, the limitation “extrapolation and interpolation,” and “using a polynomial fit for each profile library sample,” are abstract ideas, as they recite mathematical concept. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “measuring a curvature of the sample, irradiating the said sample with THz radiation, said THz radiation comprising a
plurality of frequencies in the range from 0.01 THz to 10 THz, detecting the reflected radiation to produce a sample response said sample response being derived from the reflected radiation,” “a sensor,” and “a detector,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity. The claims also recite “outputting the thicknesses of the layers using the corrected reflection,” but said limitation is merely an insignificant post-solution activity. The claims also recite “analysis unit,” but said limitation is merely a general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of any machines. The claims also do not improve technology under the practical application, as the claimed invention is at most an improvement in the abstract idea itself of determining the thickness of the layers. However, improved or new abstract idea is still an abstract idea, and not eligible under the 101. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In step 2B, the claims additionally recite “measuring a curvature of the sample, irradiating the said sample with THz radiation, said THz radiation comprising a
plurality of frequencies in the range from 0.01 THz to 10 THz, detecting the reflected radiation to produce a sample response said sample response being derived from the reflected radiation,” “a sensor,” and “a detector,” but said limitations, recited at high level of generality, are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims also recite “outputting the thicknesses of the layers using the corrected reflection,” but said limitation is merely an insignificant post-solution activity, that is also well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims also recite “analysis unit,” but said limitation is merely a general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that is also well-understood, routine and conventional. In short, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otake et al., JP5783408 (hereinafter Otake) (cited by the Applicant) (as best understood) (machine English translated version)
Regarding Claims 1 and 16. Otake discloses determining the thickness of a plurality of coating layers on a curved surface of a sample (Abstract; Fig. 1; Paragraph [0032]; Fig. 13), comprising:
measuring a curvature of the sample (Paragraph [0022], curved sample; Fig. 13),
irradiating the said sample with THz radiation, said THz radiation comprising a
plurality of frequencies in the range from 0.01 THz to 10 THz (Paragraph [0083]);
detecting the reflected radiation to produce a sample response said sample response
being derived from the reflected radiation (Paragraph [0012], waves reflected);
referring to a profile library containing at least one profile library sample to obtain a
correction factor based on the curvature of the sample (Paragraph [0018], storing multiple types of reference signals); applying the correction factor to the sample response to obtain a corrected reflection (Paragraph [0012], correcting the detection signal using the reference signal), outputting the thicknesses of the layers using the corrected reflection (Paragraphs [0066], [0070], displaying the calculated film thickness)
Regarding Claim 2. Otake disclose the at least one profile library sample having a curvature similar to the sample (Paragraph [0018], storing multiple types of reference signals).
Regarding Claim 3. Otake discloses there is provided the plurality of profile library samples forming a range of curvatures, the range of curvatures for interpolation or extrapolation to obtain a resultant curvature, the resultant curvature being similar to the sample (Paragraph [0018], storing multiple types of reference signals for different samples).
Regarding Claim 4. Otake discloses correction factor is obtained from the comparison of the parameters of the profile library samples to the parameters of a nominal profile library sample (Paragraph [0047], reference based on CAD information)
Regarding Claim 5. Otake discloses profile library samples have a structure the same as that of said sample (Paragraph [0018], storing multiple types of reference signals; Paragraph [0079]).
Regarding Claim 6. Otake discloses profile library contains the magnitude and phase of the waveform for reflected radiation for the profile library samples (Paragraphs [0075]-[0078])
Regarding Claim 9. Otake discloses profile is measured using the curvature that is a single value parameter (Paragraph [0009]).
Regarding Claim 11. Otake discloses the library profile samples are coated with a highly reflective layer (Paragraph [0012], reflective surface)
Regarding Claim 12. Otake discloses delay of detecting the reflected radiation is measured for outputting the thickness of the layers (Paragraphs [0003], [0012], [0089]-[0090], [0096], thickness calculated based on time difference)
Regarding Claim 13. Otake discloses refractive index for each of the plurality of layers is used for outputting the thickness of the layers (Paragraphs [0032], [0090], [0092], [0094], [0096])
Regarding Claim 15. Otake discloses the curvature is measured using a laser gauge (Paragraph [0002]-[0003], [0022]).
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.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otake, JP JP5783408 in view of Schallmoser et al., US-PGPUB 2011/0125442 (hereinafter Schallmoser)
Regarding Claim 7. Otake discloses a magnitude error and a phase error is calculated as a function of frequency across the 0.01 THz to 10 THz range for the measured curvature (Paragraphs [0075]-[0078])
Otake does not disclose the correction factor is interpolated for the measured curvature of the sample.
Schallamoser disclose interpolating the correction factors for measuring a thickness (Abstract; Paragraphs [0037]; [0063])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Schallamoser in Otake and calculate a magnitude error and a phase error as a function of frequency across the 0.01 THz to 10 THz range for the measured curvature, wherein the correction factor is interpolated for the measured curvature of the sample, so as to accurately determine the thicknesses of the layers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otake, JP JP5783408 in view of Tang, US-PGPUB 2004/0105097 (hereinafter Tang) and Van Mechelen-1, US-PGPUB 2015/0211989.
Regarding Claim 8. Otake does not disclose magnitude error and phase errors are calculated using a polynomial fit for each profile library sample.
Tang discloses measuring thickness, which includes using the weighted least square fitting technique to minimize errors in calculation, including phase errors (Paragraph [0032], [0024])
Van Mechelen-1 discloses using polynomial fitting for the errors in response signals (that has phase and magnitude errors) in determination of the layer thickness (Abstract; Paragraph [0046]-[0048]; [0118]-[0121], [0130]-[0131]; [0149]-[0152], Claim 2)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Tang and Van Mechelen-1 in Otake and use a polynomial fit for each profile library sample to minimize the magnitude and phase errors and thereby obtain accurate thicknesses of the layers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otake, JP JP5783408 in view of Van Mechelen, US-PGPUB 2015/0211934 (hereinafter Van Mechelen-1).
Regarding Claim 10. Otake does not disclose library profile samples are uncoated.
Van Mechelen-1 discloses determining the thickness of a wet paint layer using Thz radiation (Abstract; Paragraph [0008]-[0015]), including obtaining the reference waveform by measurement from an uncoated THz reflector (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0114])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Van in Otake and have library profile samples that are also uncoated, so that the measured signal was not distorted but kept is original waveform.
----------------- rejection based on Van Mechelen-2 ----------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 9, 12, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Mechelen et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0190478 (cited by the Applicant) (hereinafter Van Mechelen-2)
Regarding Claims 1 and 16. Van Mechelen-2 discloses determining the thickness of a plurality of coating layers on a curved surface of a sample (Abstract; Paragraph [0021]; Paragraph [0077], one or more coating layers on target surface), comprising:
measuring a curvature of the sample (Paragraph [0029], scanning curvatures; Paragraphs [0022]; [0063]),
irradiating the said sample with THz radiation, said THz radiation comprising a
plurality of frequencies in the range from 0.01 THz to 10 THz (Paragraph [0065]; Fig. 2);
detecting the reflected radiation to produce a sample response said sample response
being derived from the reflected radiation (Figs. 3s and 4; Paragraphs [0074]-[0078]),
referring to a profile library containing at least one profile library sample (Paragraph [0028], [0031], reference profiles) to obtain a correction factor based on the curvature of the sample, applying the correction factor to the sample response to obtain a corrected reflection, outputting the thicknesses of the layers using the corrected reflection (Paragraph [0030]; [0077]- [0078], compensation and accuracy of determining thicknesses of the one or more layers; Paragraphs [0088]-[0095], where Van Mechelen-2 does not explicitly disclose outputting, it would have been obvious to output the determined thicknesses for visualization for quality control Paragraphs [0002]-[0003])
Regarding Claim 2. Van Mechelen-2 disclose the at least one profile library sample having a curvature similar to the sample (Paragraph [0038], same or identicial)
Regarding Claim 3. Van Mechelen-2 discloses there is provided the plurality of profile library samples forming a range of curvatures, the range of curvatures for interpolation or extrapolation to obtain a resultant curvature, the resultant curvature being similar to the sample (Paragraph [0031], [0044]-[0045], profiles for interpolation or extrapolation, where for is interpreted as intended language)
Regarding Claim 4. Van Mechelen-2 discloses correction factor is obtained from the comparison of the parameters of the profile library samples to the parameters of a nominal profile library sample (Paragraphs [0035]-[0037], theoretical reference profiles; Paragraphs [0088]-[0095])
Regarding Claim 5. Van Mechelen-2 discloses profile library samples have a structure the same as that of said sample (Paragraph [0038])
Regarding Claim 9. Van Mechelen-2 discloses profile is measured using the curvature that is a single value parameter (Paragraph [0033])
Regarding Claim 12. Van Mechelen-2 discloses delay of detecting the reflected radiation is measured for outputting the thickness of the layers (Paragraph [0070], Fig 6’s)
Regarding Claim 15. Van Mechelen-2 discloses the curvature is measured using a laser gauge (Paragraphs [0022]; [0063], laser).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Mechelen-1, US-PGPUB 2021/0190478 in view of Van Mechelen-2, US-PGPUB 2015/0211934.
Regarding Claim 10. Van Mechelen-1 does not disclose library profile samples are uncoated.
Van Mechelen-2 discloses determining the thickness of a wet paint layer using Thz radiation (Abstract; Paragraph [0008]-[0015]), including obtaining the reference waveform by measurement from an uncoated THz reflector (Fig. 5, Paragraph [0114])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Van Mechelein-2 in Van Mechelen-1 and have library profile samples that are also uncoated, so that the measured signal was not distorted but kept is original waveform.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gregory et al., US-PGPUB 2019/0383599
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights