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 Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “the determining comprises processing the second signal is processed to determine a mode spectrum.” It appears “is processed” should be deleted for grammatical correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 24 recites the limitation " the curved substrate " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As the preamble and the rest of the claim recites “the substrate”, it is unclear if the claim intends to claim “a curved substrate”, which is recited in independent claims 1 and 18 or merely “a substrate” as in claim 9.
As Claim 29 recites “substrate comprises a curved substrate”, it is assumed that claim 24 should be “a substrate”.
Claims 25-30 are rejected based upon dependency on claim 24.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-13 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Andrews et al. (US 2022/0276106 A1), hereinafter “Andrews”.
Regarding claim 9, Andrews discloses an apparatus for determining at least one stress-related characteristic of a substrate (abstract, Figs. 6A-7), the apparatus comprising:
a sample holder (Fig. 7, ref 80) comprising a cavity configured to receive the substrate (ref 10), the sample holder comprising a viewing aperture (ref 72, paragraph [0237]);
a prism (ref 42B) positioned such that a measurement beam is configured to impinge the prism and the viewing aperture, the prism comprising a first surface, a second surface, an end surface, and a coupling surface, the coupling surface facing the viewing aperture (as shown in Figs. 6A-6D, paragraph [0236]);
a light-scattering polarimetry sub-system (Figs. 2B, 4A, ref 200) comprising a first beam source (ref 210) and a first detector (ref 246), the first beam source configured to transmit a first beam of the measurement beam that impinges the end surface of the prism and the viewing aperture, the first detector configured to detect at least a portion of the first beam, and the at least a portion of the first beam configured to impinge the first surface of the prism (paragraphs [0216]-[0223]); and
an evanescent prism coupling spectroscopy sub-system (ref 100) comprising a second beam source (ref 110) and a second detector (ref 140), the second beam source configured to transmit a second beam of the measurement beam that impinges the first surface of the prism and the viewing aperture, the second detector of the evanescent prism coupling spectroscopy sub-system is configured to detect at least a portion of the second beam, and the at least a portion of the second beam configured to impinge the second surface of the prism (paragraphs [0200]-[0203], [0232]-[0235]).
Regarding claim 10, Andrews discloses wherein the first beam and the second beam are configured to impinge substantially the same location of the viewing aperture (paragraph [0275]).
Regarding claim 11, Andrews discloses wherein the second surface of the prism faces the second detector (as shown in Fig. 6D).
Regarding claim 12, Andrews discloses wherein the first surface of the prism faces at least one of the first detector or the second beam source (as shown in Fig. 6D).
Regarding claim 13, Andrews discloses wherein the first beam source is configured to emit the first beam with a first wavelength that is different than a second wavelength of the second beam that the second beam source is configured to emit (paragraph [0277]).
Regarding claim 24, Andrews discloses a method of determining at least one stress-related characteristic of a substrate (abstract, Figs. 6A-6D, 7, 20) comprising:
disposing the substrate (ref 10), on a sample holder (Fig. 7, ref 80), a coupling liquid (Fig. 20, ref 5A, paragraph [0233])positioned between a coupling surface of a prism (ref 42B) and a first surface of the substrate in a viewing aperture of the sample holder (ref 72, paragraphs [0236]-[0237]);
transmitting a first beam from a first beam source (ref 210) that impinges an end surface of the prism, the coupling liquid, and the first surface of the substrate at a measurement location (paragraphs [0216]-[0223]);
detecting at least a portion of the first beam with a first detector (ref 246) to generate a first signal, the at least a portion of the first beam impinges a first surface of the prism in traveling from the first surface of the substrate to the first detector (paragraphs [0216]-[0223]);
transmitting a second beam from a second beam source (ref 110) that impinges the first surface of the prism, the coupling liquid, and the first surface of the substrate at the measurement location (paragraphs [0200]-[0203], [0232]-[0235]);
detecting at least a portion of the second beam with a second detector (ref 140) to generate a second signal, the at least a portion of the second beam impinges a second surface of the prism in travelling from the first surface of the substrate to the second detector paragraphs [0200]-[0203], [0232]-[0235]); and
determining the at least one stress-related characteristic based on at least one of the first signal or the second signal (paragraph [0214]).
Regarding claim 25, Andrews discloses wherein the first beam source emits the first beam with a first wavelength that is different than a second wavelength of the second beam emitting by the second beam source (paragraph [0277]).
Regarding claim 26, Andrews discloses wherein the transmitting a first beam and the transmitting the second beam occur simultaneously (paragraph [0266]).
Regarding claim 27, Andrews discloses wherein a light-scattering polarimetry sub- system (Figs. 2B, 4A, ref 200) comprises the first beam source (ref 210) and the first detector (ref 246), and the determining comprises processing the first signal to form an optical retardation versus depth curve (paragraphs [0180], [0216]-[0223]).
Regarding claim 28, Andrews discloses wherein an evanescent prism coupling spectroscopy sub- system (ref 100) comprises the second beam source (ref 110) and the second detector (ref 140), and the determining comprises processing the second signal is processed to determine a mode spectrum ((paragraphs [0195], [0200]-[0203], [0232]-[0235]).
Regarding claim 29, Andrews discloses wherein the evanescent prism coupling spectroscopy sub-system further comprises a lens (Fig. 20, ref f1) with an adjustable focal length (paragraph [0344]) positioned between the prism and the second detector (as shown in Fig. 20), the substrate comprises a curved substrate (paragraph [0353]), and the method further comprises adjusting a focal length of the lens in response to at least a configuration of the curved substrate or a curvature of the curved substrate (paragraph [0344]).
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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews, as applied to claims 24, 28, and 29 above.
Regarding claim 30, Andrews is silent regarding wherein the focal length f of the lens is adjusted in accordance with
PNG
media_image1.png
70
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where L is a distance between the lens and the first detector, R1 is a radius of curvature describing the curvature of the curved substrate at the measurement location, α is an angle of incidence of the first light beam when impinging the coupling surface of the prism, np is a refractive index of the prism, and γ is a parameter based on the configuration of the curved substrate.
However, 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). In this case, one would include wherein the focal length f of the lens is adjusted in accordance with
PNG
media_image1.png
70
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where L is a distance between the lens and the first detector, R1 is a radius of curvature describing the curvature of the curved substrate at the measurement location, α is an angle of incidence of the first light beam when impinging the coupling surface of the prism, np is a refractive index of the prism, and γ is a parameter based on the configuration of the curved substrate in order to produce a sharp image for a specific range of warp/curvature of the CS substrate, paragraph [0353].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 18-23 are allowed.
Claims 14-17 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:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an apparatus for determining at least one stress-related characteristic of a curved substrate, the apparatus comprising, among other essential elements, a sample holder comprising a cavity configured to receive the curved substrate, the sample holder is translatable in a first direction between a first configuration and a second configuration, the sample holder comprising: a first set of supports configured to restrain movement of the curved substrate in the first direction; a second set of supports configured to restrain movement of the curved substrate in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; a plurality of devices configured to hold a curvature of the curved substrate in a fixed configuration, the plurality of devices positioned within an area defined by the first set of supports and the second set of supports; and, a measurement beam to travel between the first prism and the cavity configured to receive the curved substrate when the sample holder is in the first configuration and a measurement beam to travel between the second prism and the cavity configured to receive the curved substrate when the sample holder is in the second configuration, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim. Claims 2-8 are dependent from claim 1 and therefore are also included in the allowed subject matter.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of determining at least one stress-related characteristic of a curved substrate, the method comprising, among other essential elements, transmitting a first beam from a first beam source that impinges the first prism, the coupling liquid, and the first surface of the curved substrate at a measurement location; detecting at least a portion of the first beam with a first detector to generate a first signal; translating the sample holder from the first configuration to the second configuration in a first direction, the coupling liquid positioned between a second coupling surface of a second prism and the first surface of the curved substrate; transmitting a second beam from a second beam source that impinges the second prism, the coupling liquid, and the first surface of the curved substrate at the measurement location, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim. Claims 19-23 are dependent from claim 18 and therefore are also included in the allowed subject matter.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an apparatus for determining at least one stress-related characteristic of a substrate, the apparatus comprising, among other essential elements, wherein a first internal angle between the first surface and the coupling surface is greater than a second internal angle between the second surface and the coupling surface, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 9 and the above claim.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an apparatus for determining at least one stress-related characteristic of a substrate, the apparatus comprising, among other essential elements, a frustum surface of the prism extending between the first surface and the second surface, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 9 and the above claim.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an apparatus for determining at least one stress-related characteristic of a substrate, the apparatus comprising, among other essential elements, wherein the first surface comprises a first portion and second portion, the first beam configured to impinge the first portion of the first surface of the prism, the at least a portion of the second beam configured to impinge the second portion of the first surface of the prism, and the first portion and the second portion are non-parallel, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 9 and the above claim. Claim 17 is dependent from claim 16 and therefore is also included in the allowed subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andrews (US 2020/0300615) teaches stress measurement and appears to render obvious at least claims 9 and 24.
Shang (US 11060930) teaches stress measurement using two prisms, but does not teach the above inventive steps.
Liu (US 2015/0066393) teaches stress measurement of a curved substrate using a prism, but does not teach the above inventive steps.
Roussev et al (US 2015/0308897 A1) teaches stress measurement using a prism and a coupling liquid and could be combined with prior art of record to render claim 24 obvious.
Furnas (US 2021/0156674) teaches stress measurement of a substrate using two sub-systems, and could be combined with prior art of record to render claims 9 or 24 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