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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rohaly et al. (US 2024/0247930 A1), hereinafter “Rohaly”.
Regarding claim 1, Rohaly discloses a topographical inspection device (abstract, Fig. 1) comprising:
a device body (Fig. 1, ref 104, paragraph [0039]);
a plurality of photometric stereo light elements at spaced apart light source locations (ref 108, paragraph [0043]), each of the photometric stereo light elements configured for illuminating an inspection region of a surface (ref 130);
a dot pattern projector mounted on the device body for projecting a dot pattern onto the inspection region of the surface (paragraphs [0092]-[0093]);
a camera for capturing images of the inspection region of the surface (ref 106, paragraph [0039]); and
a controller configured to control the photometric stereo light elements and the camera for making a first topographical measurement of the inspection region and to control the dot pattern projector and the camera for making a second topographical measurement of the inspection region (ref 1206, paragraphs [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 2, Rohaly discloses wherein the topographical inspection device is configured for making the first and second topographical measurements without compressing a conforming element onto the inspection region (paragraphs [0090]-[0092]).
Regarding claim 3, Rohaly discloses wherein the controller is configured to use the second topographical measurement to correct wave form distortion in the first topographical measurement (paragraphs [0090]-[0092]).
Regarding claim 4, Rohaly discloses wherein each of the images captured by the camera includes a plurality of pixels and each of the pixels has a respective pixel location along the inspection region, wherein the controller is configured to make the first topographical measurement by calculating a surface normal vector for each pixel location based solely on light intensity in pixels of the images at the respective pixel location (paragraphs [0090]-[0092]).
Regarding claim 9, Rohaly discloses wherein the controller is configured to make the second topographical measurement by conducting a dot pattern projection routine in which the controller directs the dot pattern projector to project a dot pattern onto the inspection region, directs the camera to capture an image of the dot pattern projected on the inspection region, determine inspection region dot locations in the captured image, and determine surface heights at each of the inspection region dot locations based on the inspection region dot locations (paragraphs [0090]-[0092]).
Regarding claim 11, Rohaly discloses wherein the dot pattern projector has a projection axis and the dot pattern projector is mounted on the device body for the projection axis to define a skew angle with the surface less than or equal to 45° (paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 23, Rohaly discloses a topographical inspection device (abstract, Fig. 1) comprising:
a device body (Fig. 1, ref 104, paragraph [0039]);
a plurality of photometric stereo light elements at spaced apart light source locations along the device body (ref 108, paragraph [0043]), each of the photometric stereo light elements configured for illuminating an inspection region of a surface (ref 130);
a camera for capturing images of the inspection region of the surface, each of the images including a plurality of pixels and each of the pixels having a respective pixel location along the inspection region (ref 106, paragraph [0039]); and
a controller configured to control the photometric stereo light elements and the camera to make a topographical measurement of the inspection region by calculating a surface normal vector for each pixel location based solely on light intensity in pixels of the images at the respective pixel location (ref 1206, paragraphs [0073]-[0074]).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
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 12, 13, 15-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohaly as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Rohaly is silent regarding wherein the topographical inspection device is configured to detect discontinuities in the inspection region having a dimensions less than 0.0010″.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the topographical inspection device is configured to detect discontinuities in the inspection region having a dimensions less than 0.0010″, as it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One would configure the device to inspect at the claimed dimension by choosing a proper wavelength and in order to detect smaller defects.
Regarding claim 13, Rohaly is silent regarding wherein the device body comprises a light chamber having a distal end portion and a proximal end portion spaced apart along a light chamber axis, the light chamber having an interior and the distal end portion of the light chamber defining a distal opening to the interior of the light chamber, the topographical inspection device configured to be operatively engaged with the surface such that the distal end portion of the light chamber faces the surface and the inspection region of the surface is exposed to the interior of the light chamber through the distal opening.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the device body comprises a light chamber having a distal end portion and a proximal end portion spaced apart along a light chamber axis, the light chamber having an interior and the distal end portion of the light chamber defining a distal opening to the interior of the light chamber, the topographical inspection device configured to be operatively engaged with the surface such that the distal end portion of the light chamber faces the surface and the inspection region of the surface is exposed to the interior of the light chamber through the distal opening in order to perform the desired measurements from a housing, preventing misalignment. Furthermore, it has been held that the particular placement of an element in a measuring device is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One would choose the claimed placements in order to emit light to the sample at the proper locations.
Regarding claim 15, Rohaly is silent regarding wherein the photometric stereo light elements are mounted in the interior of the light chamber at circumferentially spaced apart locations about the light chamber axis and at axially spaced apart locations along the light chamber axis.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the photometric stereo light elements are mounted in the interior of the light chamber at circumferentially spaced apart locations about the light chamber axis and at axially spaced apart locations along the light chamber axis in order to emit light to the proper locations on the sample. Furthermore, it has been held that the particular placement of an element in a measuring device is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One would choose the claimed placements in order to emit light to the proper locations on the sample.
Regarding claim 16, Rohaly is silent regarding wherein each of the photometric stereo light elements is configured to emit light through the distal opening in the distal end portion of the light chamber for illuminating the inspection region.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein each of the photometric stereo light elements is configured to emit light through the distal opening in the distal end portion of the light chamber for illuminating the inspection region in order to light to the proper locations on the sample. Furthermore, it has been held that the particular placement of an element in a measuring device is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One would choose the claimed placements in order to emit light to the proper locations on the sample.
Regarding claim 17, Rohaly is silent regarding wherein the light chamber defines a plurality of annular light mounting segments spaced apart along the light chamber axis, each annular light mounting segment mounting a set of the photometric stereo light elements at angularly spaced apart locations about the light chamber axis.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the light chamber defines a plurality of annular light mounting segments spaced apart along the light chamber axis, each annular light mounting segment mounting a set of the photometric stereo light elements at angularly spaced apart locations about the light chamber axis in order to emit light to the proper locations on the sample. Furthermore, it has been held that the particular placement of an element in a measuring device is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One would choose the claimed placements in order to emit light to the proper locations on the sample.
Regarding claim 18, Rohaly is silent regarding wherein each annular light mounting segment extends at a respective mounting angle with respect to the light chamber axis and wherein the mounting angles of the light mounting surfaces increase toward the proximal end portion the light chamber.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein each annular light mounting segment extends at a respective mounting angle with respect to the light chamber axis and wherein the mounting angles of the light mounting surfaces increase toward the proximal end portion the light chamber in order to emit light to the proper locations on the sample. Furthermore, it has been held that the particular placement of an element in a measuring device is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One would choose the claimed placements in order to emit light to the proper locations on the sample.
Regarding claim 20, Rohaly teaches wherein the light chamber includes a dot pattern projection opening extending radially through the light chamber (paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 21, Rohaly is silent regarding wherein the device body further comprises a projector holder extending radially outward from the light chamber, the projector holder configured to hold the dot pattern projector such that the dot pattern projector is configured to project the dot pattern through the dot pattern projection opening and the distal opening onto the inspection region of the surface.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the device body further comprises a projector holder extending radially outward from the light chamber, the projector holder configured to hold the dot pattern projector such that the dot pattern projector is configured to project the dot pattern through the dot pattern projection opening and the distal opening onto the inspection region of the surface in order to properly illuminate the sample to take accurate measurements. Furthermore, it has been held that the particular placement of an element in a measuring device is an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One would choose the claimed placements in order to properly illuminate the sample to take accurate measurements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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.
Claim 28 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a topographical inspection device, the device comprising, among other essential elements, wherein before calculating the surface normal vector for each pixel location, the controller is configured to determine a response surface for each pixel location notionally representing intensity of light reflected at the respective pixel location in relation to light source location, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1, 4, and the above claim. Claims 6-8 are dependent from claim 5 and therefore are also included in the allowed subject matter.
Regarding claim 28, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a computer-implemented method of determining a topography of an inspection region of a surface, the method comprising, among other essential elements, for each stationary pixel location, fitting a response surface to the determined light intensities so that the response surface notionally represents light intensity in relation to light source location; for each pixel location, determining a response surface maximum for the respective response surface; for each pixel location, calculating a surface normal vector based on the respective response surface maximum; and constructing a pixel-location-by-pixel-location surface topography measurement based on the surface normal vector for each pixel location, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Keranen (US 2014/0376003) teaches a device for measuring the surface of an object using several light sources and a pair of camera wherein the several light sources are controlled to illuminate pattern on the object and the images from the two cameras allow to determine the shape of the object, but does not teach the above claimed limitations, and no reason exists to combine Keranen with any prior art of record to render the claims obvious
Sun (US 2015/0355101) teaches a device for determining the topography of an object wherein several sources illuminate an object and a camera captures an image for each illumination. A normal vector is then determined based on the pixel value of each pixel on each partial illumination image, but does not teach the above claimed limitations, and no reason exists to combine Sun with any prior art of record to render the claims obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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 E 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877