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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on March 5, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no reasonable search and examination burden exists because a search of the claims of Group I would be similarly applicable to the claims of Group II and a search of the claims of Species A would be similarly applicable to the claims of Species B. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the restriction requirement of January 28, 2026:
Regarding Group I and Group II refer to the boldfaced reasons below:
‘Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).’
Regarding Species A and Species B refer to the following boldfaced reasons:
‘There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different CPC classification symbol main group / sub group or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species.’
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
3. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 5, 2026.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to because in FIG. 3C it appears that ‘201S’ should read -202S-. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 2 it appears that ‘lens’ should read -lenses-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 4-7 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.
As for claim 4, on lines 4-6 ‘the first collimator lens configured to collimate a diverging beam of light from the optical fiber along an optical axis and focus the collimated beam at a front focal plane of the first collimator lens’ is indefinite, for it unclear how a collimator lens can simultaneously focus and collimate the same beam at a front focal plane of the first collimator lens.
Claims 5-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 4.
As for claim 7, ‘consists of a series of lenses and mechanical elements designed to correct optical aberrations‘ is indefinite, for it is unclear what are the metes and bounds of the claim because ‘consists’ is a closed term (see MPEP 2111.03) and what constitutes ‘a series of lenses and mechanical elements designed to correct optical aberrations’ is unclear. The multi-objective can only have a series of lenses and mechanical elements? Are both the lenses and mechanical elements designed to correct optical aberrations or just the mechanical elements?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (2022/0138921).
As for claim 1, Lu in a method and apparatus for inspecting pattern collapse defects discloses/suggests the following: an optical inspection system (FIG. 1: 100 and FIG. 2: 200), comprising: a stage having a surface on which a sample to be inspected is placed (FIG. 1: note location of 114 with paragraph 0095; FIG. 2: note location of 206 with paragraph 0103), the surface of the sample having a two dimensional (2D) periodic pattern and defects (FIG. 1: 114 and FIG. 206 with abstract and paragraph 0007 noting: FIG. 5A); an optical fiber (FIG. 1: 203 with paragraph 0095: fiber-coupled and FIG. 2: 2-2 with paragraph 0100: fiber-coupled); a transmissive spatial light modulator (SLM) (FIG. 1: noting 122 with paragraph 0097 and FIG. 2: 218 with paragraph 0109);a measurement lens configured to transmit a beam of light transmitted through the transmissive SLM (FIG. 1: 124 and FIG. 2: 220); a detector configured to detect the transmitted beam of light from the measurement lens (FIG. 1: 126 and FIG. 2: 222); and a measuring beam path through which a beam of light from the optical fiber is incident on and reflected at the surface of the sample on the stage, and transmitted to the transmissive SLM (FIG. 1: 102 to 114 to 122; FIG. 2: 202 to 206 to 218); wherein the transmissive SLM is configured to block the beam of light reflected by the 2D periodic pattern on the surface of the sample (paragraphs 0021, 0097, and 0109).
As for the phrase ‘for pre-bonding inspection’ in line 1, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
As for a camera configured to detect the transmitted beam of light from the measurement lens, Lu does not explicitly state this for the embodiments of FIGS. 1 and 2: 126 and 222. However, he does not seem to limit the type of detector that may be used such as a multi-pixel sensor (paragraph 0096) and even refers to a camera with imaging lens may be positioned in an embodiment (paragraph 0112). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the detector be a camera configured to detect the transmitted beam of light from the measurement lens to capture images of the defects on the surface inspected.
As for claim 2, Lu discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). As for the optical fiber being a single-mode fiber, Lu is silent. The examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to have single mode fibers to be used as point sources. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical fiber be a single mode fiber to provide a point source for illumination.
As for claim 3, Lu discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Lu discloses/suggests the transmissive SLM comprises a translucent opto-electronic display (paragraph 0097).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 4-7 appear to be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2025/0076216 to Voleti et al.
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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 at 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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights