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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (2019/0302025) in view of Iketaki et al. (2001/0045529).
Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses an inspection apparatus comprising: pulsed light generation unit (Jung, ring-shaped light 21); light focusing unit configured to include an objective lens (Jung, objective lens 40), to focus the pulsed light on the sample through the objective lens (Jung, sample 100 on sample stage 50), and to pass, through the objective lens, light including photoluminescence light (Jung, photoluminescence 2) and Raman scattered light (Jung, scattered light 3) produced from the sample by irradiation with the pulsed light; first detection unit configured to detect the photoluminescence light passed through the objective lens (Jung, photoluminescence detecting unit 400); and second detection unit configured to detect the Raman scattered light passed through the objective lens (Jung, scattered light detecting unit 300).
Jung lacks explicit teaching of the light generation unit is configured to generate pulsed light under pulse conditions set so as to cause multiphoton excitation in the sample, wherein photon energy of a single photon corresponding to a wavelength of the pulsed light is less than a bandgap energy of the sample, and a sum of photon energies of two or more photons of the pulsed light is equal to or greater than the bandgap energy of the sample.
Iketaki teaches the light generation unit is configured to generate pulsed light under pulse conditions set so as to cause multiphoton excitation in the sample, wherein photon energy of a single photon corresponding to a wavelength of the pulsed light is less than a bandgap energy of the sample, and a sum of photon energies of two or more photons of the pulsed light is equal to or greater than the bandgap energy of the sample. (Iketaki, [0005])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use multiphoton fluorescence as taught by Iketaki in the inspection system of Jung in order to achieve a higher signal to noise ratio (Iketaki [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Jung further teaches the light focusing unit further includes a half-silvered mirror located between the objective lens and the second detection unit (Jung, dichroic mirror 80) on an optical path of the pulsed light (Jung, Fig. 4, note dichroic mirror 80 separates photoluminescence channel 400 from scattered channel 300), a first pin hole located between the half-silvered mirror and the pulsed light generation unit (Jung, diaphragm 75), and a second pin hole located between the second detection unit and the half-silvered mirror, and at least the second detection unit detects the Raman scattered light produced from a portion of the sample where the pulsed light is brought into focus. (Scattered light detection channel 300 naturally includes Raman process scattering)
Regarding claim 4, Jung further teaches the half-silvered mirror reflects the pulsed light and passes the Raman scattered light and the photoluminescence light, or passes the pulsed light and reflects the Raman scattered light and the photoluminescence light. (Jung, Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 5, Jung further teaches the light focusing unit further includes a dichroic mirror located between the half-silvered mirror and both the first detection unit and the second detection unit, and the dichroic mirror passes either one of the photoluminescence light and the Raman scattered light and reflects the other one. (Jung, dichroic mirror 80 performing both functions)
Regarding claim 6, the particular wavelength sensitivity of dichroic mirror 80 is not disclosed in Jung. However, selection of an appropriate passband to separate the channels effectively is assumed.
Regarding claim 7, Jung further teaches the light focusing unit further includes a first filter located between the dichroic mirror and the first detection unit (Jung, photoluminescence filter 410). The particular bandpass features of the filter are not disclosed, however the selection of a reasonable wavelength passband to effectively separate the respective channels is assumed to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Jung further teaches the light focusing unit further includes a second filter located between the dichroic mirror and the second detection unit, and the second detection unit detects the Raman scattered light passed through the second filter. (Jung, scattered light filter 310) The particular wavelength features of the scattered light filter are not disclosed, however the selection of a reasonable wavelength passband to effectively separate the respective channels is assumed to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Jung lacks explicit teaching of the second filter includes a filter configured to block light of less than or equal to the central wavelength of the pulsed light or more than or equal to the central wavelength of the pulsed light. However the selection of a reasonable wavelength passband to effectively separate the respective channels is assumed to be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Jung further teaches a wavelength of the pulsed light includes a wavelength in a visible light region. (Jung, implied language, “ring shaped light” absent any modifiers to indicate specifically non-visible wavelengths, usually identifies visible light, and such modifiers are not present in Jung)
Claims 11-20 are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1-10 as they have the same substantive limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims 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.
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 EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 571-272-3995. 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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights