DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
INSPECTION APPARATUS COMPRISING A FIRST IMAGER IMAGING FLUORESCENCE HAVING A WAVELENGTH LONGER THAN A FIRST WAVELENGTH AND A SECOND IMAGER IMAGING FLUORESCENCE HAVING A WAVELENGTH SHORTER THAN A SECOND WAVELENGTH, AND INSPECTION METHOD
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(Proposed Amendments) An inspection apparatus for inspecting an object, the inspection apparatus comprising:
an excitation light source configured to generate excitation light to irradiate the object;
an optical element configured to separate fluorescence from the object into first fluorescence having a wavelength longer than a reference wavelength and second fluorescence having a wavelength shorter than the reference wavelength;
a first imager configured to image the first fluorescence having the wavelength longer than the reference wavelength;
a second imager configured to image the second fluorescence having the wavelength shorter than the reference wavelength, the second fluorescence having a wavelength comprised in a normal fluorescence spectrum of the object; and
a determining processor configured to determine a quality of the object based on a first fluorescence image acquired by the first imager and a second fluorescence image acquired by the second imager.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
2. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determining processor further determines the quality of the object based on a bright spot contained in at least the first fluorescence image.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
5. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising:
a monitor on which is displayed a quality determination result of each light-emitting element formed on the object,
wherein the determining processor further identifies a portion of the bright spot and outputs a position of the bright spot so as to display the position on the monitor.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
3. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determining processor further determines the quality of the object by deriving a number of bright spots contained in at least the first fluorescence image.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
4. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the determining processor further determines whether or not a certain number or more of the number of bright spots is contained, and the determining processor further determines that a light-emitting element formed on the object not containing the certain number or more of the number of bright spots is a non-defective product, and that a light-emitting element formed on the object containing the certain number or more of the number of bright spots is a defective product.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
7. (Proposed Amendments) An inspection method of inspecting an object, the inspection method comprising:
irradiating the object with excitation light;
imaging first fluorescence of fluorescence from the object that is separated by an optical element into the first fluorescence having a wavelength longer than a reference wavelength and second fluorescence of the fluorescence having a wavelength shorter than the reference wavelength
imaging the second fluorescence of the fluorescence from the object
determining a quality of the object based on a first fluorescence image acquired in the imaging the first fluorescence from the object and a second fluorescence image acquired in the imaging the second fluorescence from the object.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
8. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection method according to claim 7, wherein the quality of the object is further determined based on a bright spot contained in at least the first fluorescence image.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
9. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection method according to claim 7, wherein the quality of the object is further determined by deriving a number of bright spots contained in at least the first fluorescence image.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (Proposed Amendments) The inspection method according to claim 9, wherein whether or not a certain number or more of the number of bright spots is contained is further determined, and a light-emitting element formed on the object not containing the certain number or more of the number of bright spots is further determined as a non-defective product, and a light-emitting element formed on the object containing the certain number or more of the number of bright spots is further determined as a defective product.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 7-11, Abe (U. S. Patent No. 9,395,406 B2) disclosed an inspection method of inspecting an object, the inspection method comprising:
irradiating the object with excitation light (column 7, lines 28-58);
imaging first fluorescence of fluorescence from the object that is separated by an optical element (23) into the first fluorescence having a wavelength longer than a reference wavelength (excitation light having a shorter wavelength) and second fluorescence of the fluorescence having a wavelength shorter than the reference wavelength (column 7, line 59 - column 8, line 9); and
determining a quality of the object based on a first fluorescence image acquired in the imaging the first fluorescence from the object (column 15, line 23 - column 16, line 30).
However, the prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggested that the inspection method further comprising:
imaging the second fluorescence of the fluorescence from the object, the second fluorescence having a wavelength comprised in a normal fluorescence spectrum of the object; and
determining a quality of the object based on a first fluorescence image acquired in the imaging the first fluorescence from the object and a second fluorescence image acquired in the imaging the second fluorescence from the object.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,289. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 2, and 6 are anticipated by claims 1-3 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,289.
With respect to claim 1, claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,289 claim an inspection apparatus for inspecting an object, the inspection apparatus comprising:
an excitation light source configured to generate excitation light to irradiate the object;
an optical element configured to separate fluorescence from the object into first fluorescence having a wavelength longer than a reference wavelength (a first wavelength = a second wavelength) and second fluorescence having a wavelength shorter than the reference wavelength;
a first imager configured to image the first fluorescence having the wavelength longer than the reference wavelength;
a second imager configured to image the second fluorescence having the wavelength shorter than the reference wavelength, the second fluorescence having a wavelength comprised in a normal fluorescence spectrum of the object; and
a determining processor configured to determine a quality of the object based on a first fluorescence image acquired by the first imager and a second fluorescence image acquired by the second imager (claim 3).
With respect to claim 2, claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,289 claims the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determining processor further determines the quality of the object based on a bright spot contained in at least the first fluorescence image.
With respect to claim 6, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,289 claims the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the optical element is a dichroic mirror.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakamura (U. S. Patent No. 12,228,515 B2) disclosed an inspection apparatus and an inspection method.
Nakamura (U. S. Patent No. 12,072,289 B2) disclosed an inspection system comprising a first imager and a second imager, and an inspection method.
Levene et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,677,730 B1) disclosed a fast-multi-photon microscope.
Matsumoto et al. (U. S. Patent No. 10,605,731 B2) disclosed a fluorescence image analyzing apparatus, an image-processing method of a fluorescence image, and a computer program.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, David J. Makiya, can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov