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 .
Claim Objections
With respect to claim 1, the preamble states “An optical monitoring method for controlling coating thicknesses using the optical monitoring device according to claim 1”. Claim 1 cannot refer to itself. There is no device of claim 1 previously disclosed. The examiner believes this to be an accidental error. For the purposes of examination, Claim 1 will be interpreted to read “An optical monitoring method for controlling coating thicknesses comprising operations of:”. Correction is required.
With respect to claim 1, per MPEP 608.01(m) there should only be one sentence per claim. Claim 1 contains two sentences with a period and capital letter indicating the beginning of a second sentence in line 16. Correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 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.
With respect to claim 1, the limitations "each layer" in 5, “the test substrate” in line 3, “recalculating actual refractive index of a coating layer” in line 13 lack antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “with the coating thickness in a coating procedure” is unclear as to if there is an additional step of a coating procedure that is not claimed as part of the method or is intended to be part of the method. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “simulating curves of changing transmissivity of the test substrate for laser light of different wavelengths along with the coating thicknesses in a coating procedure” is unclear. There are transmissivity curves based on different wavelengths however the relationship to the coating thickness is unclear. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation “recording the transmissivity Tm of the test substrate to the monitoring laser light” doesn’t make sense. It is unclear how one records a transmissivity measurement to a laser light, since a laser light beam is not known for having information recorded thereon. The examiner believes this to be a translation error. Correction is required.
With respect to claim 1, the preamble states a method “for controlling coating thicknesses” but fails to actually disclose any step of controlling the coating thickness. Correction is required.
With respect to claim 2, “a deposited optical interference filter is a multi-layer film”, “recalculating a spectrum of the interference filter”, and “design of the interference filter” lacks antecedent basis or any structural relationship to the previously disclosed structure. There is no indication that an optical interference filter is deposited, designed, or has a spectrum calculated to begin with. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 2, the limitations “a design target” and “a coating spectrum requirement” are indefinite as to if they are the same (both describing goals for the interference filter) or different (called differently). Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 2, the limitation “the thicknesses of the uncoated layers are optimized in real time to enable the spectrum of the interference filter to meet a coating spectrum requirement” is unclear as to how the thicknesses “enable” the interference filter to reach certain requirements. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 2, the limitation “for the coating procedure” lacks antecedent basis since previously no coating procedure was positively recited as a step in the method. Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 2, the limitations “using time monitoring as auxiliary monitoring” and “using a quartz monitor as auxiliary monitor” are confusing if this is an additional method step or a side note about a step outside of the claimed method. Method steps should be positively and definitely recited with an active voice (i.e. “use time monitoring”). Clarification is required.
With respect to claim 2, the limitation “depositing the second to the last sublayers by a same method as the operations (3)-(5)” is firstly confusing as to how a plurality of sublayers can be the second to last and secondly there is no depositing of layers in steps (3)-(5), only measuring and calculating. Correction is required.
With respect to claims 1-4, it is generally unclear what limitations are method steps. Method steps should be positively recited in an active voice. Claims 1-4 disclose many various forms of verbs, making it unclear what the actual steps to be performed are. Clarification is required.
With respect to claims 1-4, the claims are replete with grammatical errors and confusing terms. The examiner has done her best to point out the most important of these issues but the applicant is responsible for ensuring that each and every claim limitation is clearly worded. Claims 3-4 are likewise rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies in claims upon which they depend.
Citation of Prior Art
It should be noted that because of the extreme number of issues under 35 USC 112 and the lack of general understanding of the intent of the method, the examiner is not able to evaluate the claims with respect to prior art for a complete examination. A prior art search has been performed to the best of the examiner’s ability based on the broadest understanding of the claim. The art considered most relevant is listed below:
Inui et al. U.S. Patent #11,761,752 discloses a device and method for measuring oxide film thicknesses
Chalmers U.S. Patent #10,948,284 discloses an optical profilometer with color outputs measuring different thicknesses and layers with different wavelengths
Xiao et al. U.S. Publication 2022/0009124 discloses monitoring coating layer thicknesses in situ.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 5712723995. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877