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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-7, 12, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP1004005B1 by Webb et al. (hereinafter Webb).
Regarding Claim 1, Webb teaches a method of determining a peak position measurement offset in a two-dimensional optical spectrum (Fig. 1B, 3), the method comprising:
identifying a plurality of peaks (Fig. 1B @ 50A: Argon lines, Par. [0008]: peaks) that appear in both:
a spectrum obtained from a reference material at known conditions (Fig. 1A @ 25); and
a spectrum obtained from a sample of interest (Fig. 1B @ 50A); and
determining the peak position measurement offset by a comparison of a pattern formed by peak positions of the plurality of identified peaks in the spectrum obtained from the sample of interest against the spectrum obtained from the reference material (Fig. 1B @ 55, Par. [0014, 0023]).
Regarding Claim 2, Webb teaches the plurality of identified peaks comprise at least three peaks and/or wherein positions of the plurality of identified peaks in the two-dimensional optical spectrum define vertices of an asymmetric polygon (Par. [0023]: Evaluate the group of argon lines for outliers, and reject the one, or some small number which are furthest removed from the average indicated shift and employ those remaining if their scatter is sufficiently small to establish an adopted value for the shift thus teaches least three peaks).
Regarding Claim 3, Webb teaches the plurality of identified peaks are characteristic of a plasma chemistry of the reference and sample materials (Par. [0008]: ICP).
Regarding Claim 4, Webb teaches an area of the spectrum surrounded by the plurality of identified peaks is at least 10% of the two-dimensional optical spectrum (Par. [0023]: an alternative method of searching the focal plane adjacent to the line of interest in order to find a calibration fine. Therefore, the calibration lines span a significant area of the spectrum).
Regarding Claim 5, Webb teaches the pattern is formed by peak positions taking account of intensities and/or shapes of the plurality of identified peaks (Par. [0011]: the three highest amplitude points are fit to a quadratic to extract the peak maximum coordinate of wavelength).
Regarding Claim 6, Webb teaches determining the peak measurement offset comprises establishing the comparison using an image registration algorithm and/or a machine learning algorithm (Par. [0023]: intelligent software thus an image registration algorithm and/or a machine learning algorithm can be anticipated).
Note: image registration and/or machine learning algorithms are two well-known classes of algorithms that the skilled person would use according to his needs.
Regarding Claim 7, Webb teaches the peak position measurement offset is determined using a peak-specific offset for each of the plurality of peaks (Par. [0023]).
Regarding Claim 12, Webb teaches establishing a position for each of the identified peaks based on intensities of the two-dimensional optical spectrum around the respective identified peaks, the pattern being based on the established positions for the identified peaks (Par. [0011]: fitting the position of the lines based on the three highest amplitude points, i.e. the position is established based on intensities around the identified peak).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Webb teaches training a machine learning image registration algorithm, for each peak, using at least portion of the two-dimensional optical spectrum centered on each peak; and
determining a peak-specific offset for each of the plurality of peaks using the trained machine learning image registration algorithm and the machine learning image registration algorithm is semi-supervised (Par. [0023]: intelligent software thus training a machine learning image registration algorithm and determining a peak-specific offset for each of the plurality of peaks using the trained machine learning image registration algorithm and the machine learning image registration algorithm is semi-supervised can be anticipated).
Note: training a machine learning image registration algorithm is well-known class of algorithm that the skilled person would use according to his needs.
Regarding Claim 18, Webb teaches a computer program, comprising instructions that are configured to perform the method when executed by a computer (inherently teaches).
Regarding Claim 19, Webb teaches a semiconductor memory, comprising instructions that are configured to perform the method when executed by a processor (inherently teaches).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb.
Regarding Claim10, Webb teaches the comparison uses the plurality of identified peaks (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach with one or more of:
a baseline level removed;
a logarithmic transformation applied; and
an intensity normalization.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (a baseline level removed, a logarithmic transformation applied and an intensity normalization), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (linear least square, gaussian, a baseline level removed, a logarithmic transformation and an intensity normalization), 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 baseline level removed, a logarithmic transformation applied and an intensity normalization in order to process raw data into a form that is suitable for reliable interpretation and statistical modeling.
6. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb in view of US Patent No. 5175775 by Iwaki et al. (hereinafter Iwaki).
Regarding Claim 11, Webb teaches each of the identified peaks in the two-dimensional optical spectrum (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach is normalized according to a number indicative of the relative maximum of the respective peak compared with the other identified peaks in the two-dimensional optical spectrum.
However, Iwaki teaches the computer receives the correlation signal to measure values of correlation peaks so that the correlation peaks are normalized according to the maximum peak value to calculate relative correlation peak values (Col. 16, line 1-3).
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 Webb by Iwaki as taught above such that each of the identified peaks is normalized according to a number indicative of the relative maximum of the respective peak compared with the other identified peaks in the two-dimensional optical spectrum is accomplished in order to calculate relative correlation peak values (Iwaki, Col. 16, line 2-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 8-9, 13-14 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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