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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner suggests separating each element (e.g. light source, array mask, etc.) of claim 1 by an indented line. "Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation." 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i).
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites a limitation that is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. Claim 1 recites "intervals between the plurality of micro-reflectors are set up according to gaps between the adjacent stacked sheets in the stacked sheet to be measured." The gaps is not sufficiently limited nor is there a standard for the gap and therefore the gap can by of any size, rendering the intervals to be of any size, rendering the claim limitation indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II). Furthermore the "set up according to" does not define how the intervals are set in relation to the gaps (e.g. larger, smaller, equal, proportional, etc.). The same applies to claim 2's "a distance between pinhole arrays corresponds to a contact interval of the multi-contact micro- reflector." Claims 3-10 are rejected for the same reason by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites "the contact" and it is not clear which of the " the plurality of contacts" is being referred to.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 is drawn to the structure of measurement device but only further limits the object to be measured. The object to be measured does not further limit the structure of the measurement device. See MPEP 2115 regarding objects worked upon by an apparatus. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frisken.
With respect to claim 1, Frisken shows an interferometer as follows:
1. A stacked sheet curved surface deformation measurement device based on a multi-contact micro-reflector, the measurement device comprising a light source (Para. [0097]: "the optical source 104"), an array mask (Para. [0096]: "spatial sampling element 110 in the form of a 2-D lenslet array"), an optical splitter (Para. [0096]: "optical splitter 112"), a reflector (Para. [0121]: "reference path reflector 170"), a multi-contact micro-reflector (Para. [0098]: "wavelength comb generator 122"; Note that the term has not been defined and no evidence is before the examiner that the term is recognized in the art as the name for structure. As such the term is interpreted by the words making up the name), and a camera (Para. [0105]: "detection system 176"), wherein:
the optical splitter is disposed behind the light source (see Fig. 1A), the array mask is disposed between the optical splitter and the light source (see Fig. 1A), the reflector and the multi-contact micro-reflector are both disposed behind the optical splitter (see Fig. 1A), and a stacked sheet to be measured is disposed behind the multi-contact micro-reflector (the stacked sheet is not an element of the claimed measurement system and is an object intended to be operated on by the measurement system and thus the limitation does not serve to structurally distinguish from the interferometer of Frisken. See MPEP 2115);
the array mask is configured to divide light emitted by the light source into a plurality of beams of parallel incident light according to a distribution of the array mask (Para. [0096]: "split into a 2-D grid of beamlets 108"), and one beam of light is configured to detect a curved surface deformation of a single stacked sheet (this limitation describes the purpose of one beam and does not impart any particular structure to differentiate from Frisken), a plurality of micro-reflectors (wavelength comb generator 122 with relay system 156; Para. [0097]: "a wavelength dispersive element 124 in the form of a transmissive diffraction grating" or "wavelength interleaver 128 in the form of a retro-reflector prism array") are disposed at a front end of the multi-contact micro-reflector, a single micro-reflector extends between adjacent stacked sheets to be measured for detection during a measurement process (this limitation describes how the measurement device is intended to be operated and does not impart any particular structure to differentiate from Frisken), and intervals between the plurality of micro-reflectors are set up according to gaps between the adjacent stacked sheets in the stacked sheet to be measured (the gaps can be of any/indefinite size and therefore in interval between the gratings 138 are "according" to gaps of the indefinite size);
the light emitted by the light source is divided into several beams of parallel light by the array mask (Para. [0096]: "split into a 2-D grid of beamlets 108"), and one of the beams of the parallel light is divided into two beams of light in different directions by the optical splitter, one beam enters the reflector to be reference light, and the other beam enters a micro-reflector of the multi-contact micro-reflector to be measurement light (Para. [0096]: " The grid of beamlets is divided with an optical splitter 112 …to provide a sample beam 114…and a reference beam 116"), the measurement light is reflected by the multi-contact micro-reflector (Para. [0098]: "each dispersed beamlet 134 extending across a plurality of the retro-reflective prisms 138"), irradiates a surface of the stacked sheet to be measured, and is reflected by the stacked sheet to be measured (this limitation describes how the measurement device is intended to be operated and does not impart any particular structure to differentiate from Frisken), and the reflected light returns to the optical splitter along an original path, the reference light is reflected by the reflector and meanwhile enters the optical splitter, and the reference light and the measurement light are reflected by the optical splitter and enter the camera to merge to form an interference pattern (Para. [0105]: "The combined beamlets 166 enter a detection system 176").
3. The stacked sheet curved surface deformation measurement device based on the multi-contact micro-reflector according to claim 1, wherein the multi-contact micro-reflector comprises a substrate (Para. []: "the wavelength interleaver 128 comprises a block of transparent material 136") and a plurality of contacts (Para. [0098]: "an array of retro-reflective prisms 138") disposed on the substrate, the substrate is made of a light-transmitting material (Para. [0098]: "the wavelength interleaver 128 comprises a block of transparent material 136"), and a bottom surface of each of the plurality of contacts is in contact with a surface of the substrate (See Figs. 1A-1C).
4. The stacked sheet curved surface deformation measurement device based on the multi-contact micro-reflector according to claim 3, wherein the contact is a micro rectangular prism (Para. [0098]: "each prism 138 is preferably 90°"), a hypotenuse of the micro rectangular prism is a micro-reflector, light is incident from a side of the substrate, enters the micro-reflector from a right-angle edge of the micro rectangular prism (Para. [0098]: "each prism 138 is preferably 90°"), is reflected by the micro-reflector, and irradiates the surface of the stacked sheet to be measured, and the reflected light after being reflected by the surface of the stacked sheet to be measured irradiates the micro-reflector and returns along an original path (the stacked sheet is not an element of the claimed measurement system and is an object intended to be operated on by the measurement system and thus the limitation does not serve to structurally distinguish from the interferometer of Frisken).
5. (Currently amended) The stacked sheet curved surface deformation measurement device based on the multi-contact micro-reflector according to claim 3, wherein the contact [[(14)]] is a micro-channel prism (Para. [0098]: "each prism 138 is preferably 90°"), the micro-channel prism comprises two micro-channels, a connection section between the two micro-channels is a right-angled slope (See Figs. 1A-1C), the right-angled slope is a micro-reflector (See Figs. 1A-1C), light incident from the bottom surface of the substrate enters one of the two micro-channels, enters the other one of the two micro-channels after being reflected by the micro-reflector (See the light paths in Figs. 1A-1C), and reaches the surface of the stacked sheet to be measured after propagating in the other one of the two micro-channels, and the reflected light after being reflected by the surface of the stacked sheet to be measured irradiates the micro-reflector and returns along an original path (See discussion above regarding the stacked sheet. Frisken shows light reaching the object 132 to be measured).
8. (Currently amended) The stacked sheet curved surface deformation measurement device based on the multi-contact micro-reflector according to claim 1, wherein the stacked sheet [[(11)]] to be measured is a stacked sheet object comprising a stacked semiconductor wafer, a stacked metal sheet, or a stacked chip (Claim 8 is drawn to the structure of measurement device but only further limits the object to be measured. The object to be measured does not further limit the structure of the measurement device and thus does not serve to structurally distinguish from Frisken).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frisken as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Official notice.
With respect to claim 2, Frisken shows all the elements of claim 1 as discussed above but shows the use of a lenslet array instead of a pinhole array. Official notice is taken that the use of an array of pinholes and a lens to be functionally equivalent as a lenslet array was well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a pinhole array in Frisken for the predictable function of creating an array of beamlets.
With respect to claim 9, Frisken shows all the elements of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not show a translation stage below each of the reflector, the multi-contact micro-reflector, and the stacked sheet to be measured. Official notice is taken that translation stages were well known for optical elements. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to place a translation stage below each of the reflector, the multi-contact micro-reflector, and the stacked sheet to be measured in order properly maintain and adjust their position for optical alignment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, and 10 would 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights