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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the combination below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britting (US 20230184698 A1) in view of Borissenko (US 20200096456 A1).
With regards to claims 1, 20, and 25, Britting discloses a calibration system and method comprising:
positioning, one at a time, one or more samples with known profiles and uniform compositions in one or more positions between a radiation source and detectors [0027-0028, 0037] (Fig. 3; 302);
generating sample signals by irradiating the samples with radiation from the radiation source and detecting radiation transmitted through the samples and to the subset of detectors (Fig. 3; 302-304);
inputting the sample signals into calibration curves for each of the subset of detectors and each of the one or more samples, thereby determining values corresponding to each of the one or more samples and each of the subset of detectors [0005, 0037] (Fig. 3; 306); and
providing a pass/fail indication based on whether determined values satisfy a predefined accuracy criterion [0040] (Fig. 4; 414, 416).
Britting does not explicitly teach wherein the detectors are in a detector array linearly arranged in a first direction or that the indication compares the detector specific values with the expected values of the uniform samples. Borissenko teaches a linear detector comprising multiple radiation sensitive pixels and comparing calculated values with expected values for known calibration samples, with the calibration indicated as valid when the comparison satisfies an error threshold [0054, 0058, 0073-0078]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Britting with Borissenko’s teachings to obtain measurements across the sample simultaneously and determine whether the detector specific values agree with the expected values of Britting’s know uniform samples. Satisfying the error threshold would provide the claimed first indication that the values are consistent with the samples’ known profiles and uniform compositions.
With regards to claim 2, Britting discloses wherein each of the one or more samples has a flat and uniform profile [0027, 0028, 0033].
With regards to claim 4, Britting discloses wherein more than one sample is used, and each sample has a different thickness or basis weight [0028].
With regards to claim 6, Britting discloses wherein the sample is a semiconductor wafer or a portion thereof [0036].
With regards to claim 9, Britting discloses providing a second indication if the values corresponding to the samples are not consistent with the known profiles and uniform compositions of the samples [0040] (Fig. 4; 416).
With regards to claim 10, Britting discloses where the first indication is provided, and a prompt indicating the detector array calibrations are correct is provided [0040] (Fig. 4; 416).
With regards to claim 11, Britting discloses wherein the first indication is not provided and one or more calibrations of the detectors in the subset of detectors is adjusted so that inputting the sample signals into the adjusted calibrations provides the values corresponding to the known profiles and uniform compositions of the sample [0040] (Fig. 4; 416).
With regards to claim 12, Britting discloses wherein the one or more calibrations of each detector is adjusted by applying a correction to a polynomial fit calibration curve [0005].
With regards to claim 13, Britting discloses wherein a sample is placed in two or more positions by translating the sample in the first direction [0004].
With regards to claim 14, Britting discloses wherein the radiation forms a fan-beam emanating from the source and expanding towards the array of detectors (Fig. 1; 106).
With regards to claim 15, Britting does not teach the claimed method steps. However, Borissenko teaches a method for determining physical properties of a sample comprising: translating an object in a second direction over the detector array that are oriented in the first direction; generating object signals by irradiating the object with radiation from the radiation source and detecting radiation transmitted through the object and to the detectors while the object is translated in the second direction; inputting the object signals into the calibration curves for each of the detectors thereby determining values corresponding to the object; generating a topography map of the object; and identifying a streak in the topography map, said streak associated with one or more detectors in the array of detectors showing a peak or trough in object signals relative to adjacent detectors [0059, 0087] (Figs. 4 and 5).
With regards to claim 16, Britting discloses wherein the object is a continuous web [0024-0027].
With regards to claim 17, Britting discloses wherein the object comprises a cathode or anode of a lithium-ion battery, or a precursor thereof [0024-0027].
With regards to claim 18, Borissenko teaches wherein the first direction is not parallel to the second direction [0059, 0087] (Figs. 4 and 5).
With regards to claim 19, Britting discloses wherein the radiation source is an x-ray source and the radiation is x-rays [0025].
With regards to claim 21, Borissenko teaches a translation element configured to translate an object through the space in a second direction that is different from the first direction [0059, 0087] (Figs. 4 and 5).
With regards to claim 22, Borissenko does not specify wherein the translation element is one or more rollers. However, rollers were generally known in the art. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Britting and Borissenko with the claimed rollers as a matter of routine design choice in order to move the material since rollers are a conventional, predictable mechanism for translating a web.
With regards to claim 23, Britting does not teach wherein the holder can accommodate more than one sample simultaneously. However, such a modification would have been known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Britting with the claimed holder to allow rapid calibration across different material thicknesses and to reduce measurement time.
With regards to claim 24, Britting does not teach an xy stage. However, such a modification would have been known. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Britting with the claimed stage to allow precise positioning of standards relative to detectors and since xy stages are a conventional, predictable mechanism for translating a sample.
Claims 3, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britting in view of Borissenko and Loboda (US 20140117380 A1).
With regards to claims 3, 7, and 8 Britting does not teach the claimed thickness variation. Loboda teaches single crystal SiC wafers having a TTV of less than 10um [0022, 0033]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Britting with the teachings of Loboda to improve thickness homogeneity and measurement repeatability.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britting in view of Borissenko and Morgan (US 20070243653).
With regards to claim 5, Britting does not teach the claimed range of impurities. Morgan teaches an AlN wafer having less than 100 ppm impurities [0052]. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Britting with the claimed impurity range to provide the uniform composition taught by Britting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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 on 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
