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 2, 9 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 3 recites “the arithmetic processor configured to calculate” is grammatically incorrect and should read “the arithmetic processor is configured to calculate”.
Claim 9, lines 1-4 recites “A film thickness distribution measurement device comprising: the refractive index distribution measurement device according to claim 1” for obtaining a film thickness distribution of the polymer film which is redundant as both the refractive index distribution and the film thickness distribution are obtained by the same device. The limitation should read “A refractive index distribution measurement device according to claim 1”.
Claim 15, lines 1-4 recites “A film thickness distribution measurement method comprising: the refractive index distribution measurement method according to claim 10” for obtaining a film thickness distribution of the polymer film which is redundant as both the refractive index distribution and the film thickness distribution are obtained using the same method.
Claim 15, last two lines recites “acquired in the acquiring the light intensity and on the refractive index distribution obtained in the obtaining the refractive index distribution” which is grammatically incorrect and should read “acquired and on the refractive index distribution obtained”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “light intensity acquisition unit” in claims 1-5 and 9 and “optical unit(s)” in claims 4-5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1, 4, 6-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. (JP 2015/141176 A) in view of Sakuma et al. (JP 2005/351790 A).
Regarding claim 1, Otsuka discloses a refractive index distribution measurement device (1A) comprising:
a conveyor (110) configured to convey a polymer film (100) in a first direction (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, lines 6-25);
a light intensity acquisition unit (10, 20A) configured to irradiate (via a light irradiation unit 10 which comprises a light source 11, a light guide member 12, and a light emitting unit 13) a surface on the polymer film being conveyed with light (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, lines 26-38), and to acquire (via a light detection unit 20A which comprises a light incident unit 21a, a light guide member 22a, and a spectral detection unit 23a), a light intensity of reflected light from the surface irradiated with the light (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, line 39 – Pg. 4, line 16); and
an arithmetic processor (30A) configured to calculate a reflectance at the surface from the light intensity of the reflected light acquired by the light intensity acquisition unit, and to obtain a refractive index distribution of the polymer film based on the reflectance (Fig. 1; Pg. 4, lines 17-22; Pg. 5, lines 20-30; Pg. 7, lines 3-10).
Otsuka does not explicitly disclose an irradiation unit configured to irradiate a plurality of spots, the plurality of spots being arranged in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and to acquire a light intensity of reflected light from a plurality of spots irradiated with the light; and
an arithmetic processor configured to calculate a reflectance at each of the plurality of spots from the light intensity of the reflected light acquired by the light intensity acquisition unit; and to obtain a refractive index distribution of the polymer film in the second direction based on the reflectance.
However, Sakuma, in the same field of endeavor of optical film thickness measurement systems, discloses
an irradiation unit (8) configured to irradiate a plurality of spots, the plurality of spots being arranged in a second direction intersecting a first direction, and to acquire a light intensity of reflected light from a plurality of spots irradiated with the light (Fig. 20-21, 28; Pg. 11, lines 26-42; Pg. 12, lines 13-19; Pg. 15, lines 17-26; Abstract); and
an arithmetic processor (12a) (Fig. 7; Pg. 7, lines 21-25) configured to calculate a reflectance at each of the plurality of spots from the light intensity of the reflected light acquired by the light intensity acquisition unit (Fig. 20-21, 28; Pg. 11, lines 26-42; Pg. 12, lines 13-19; Pg. 15, lines 17-26; Abstract); and to obtain a refractive index distribution of the polymer film in the second direction based on the reflectance (Pg. 4, lines 14-27; Pg. 10, lines 14-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Otsuka with a system which is able to measure the reflectance in a plurality of spots across the thin film in a second direction, where such measurements allow for a mapping of the thickness and refractive index variation across the thin film, improving the quality of the production process and the functionality of the measurement system.
Regarding claim 4, Otsuka in view of Sakuma discloses the refractive index distribution measurement device according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses
wherein the light intensity acquisition unit includes a plurality of optical units respectively corresponding to the plurality of spots (Sakuma: Fig. 20-21, 28; Pg. 11, lines 26-42; Pg. 12, lines 13-19; Pg. 15, lines 17-26), and
each of the plurality of optical units includes a light-emitting portion configured to emit the light and a light incident portion configured to receive the reflected light (Sakuma: Fig. 20-21, 28; Pg. 11, lines 26-42; Pg. 12, lines 13-19; Pg. 15, lines 17-26).
Regarding claim 6, Otsuka in view of Sakuma discloses the refractive index distribution measurement device according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses
wherein the arithmetic processor is configured to obtain the refractive index distribution further based on an extinction coefficient of the polymer film (Otsuka: Pg. 6, line 29 – Pg. 7, line 2).
Regarding claim 7, Otsuka in view of Sakuma the refractive index distribution measurement device according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses
wherein a wavelength band of the light is in a visible wavelength range, or is a wavelength band ranging from the visible wavelength range to a near-infrared wavelength range (Otsuka: Pg. 3, lines 26-32).
Regarding claim 8, Otsuka in view of Sakuma discloses the refractive index distribution measurement device according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses
wherein a wavelength band of the light includes a near-infrared wavelength range (Otsuka: Pg. 3, lines 26-32).
Regarding claim 9, Otsuka in view of Sakuma discloses a film thickness distribution measurement device comprising: the refractive index distribution measurement device according to claim 1,
wherein the arithmetic processor is configured to further obtain a film thickness distribution of the polymer film in the second direction based on the light intensity of the reflected light at each of the plurality of spots acquired by the light intensity acquisition unit and on the refractive index distribution (Sakuma: Fig. 20-21, 28; Pg. 4, lines 14-27; Pg. 10, lines 14-23; Pg. 11, lines 26-42; Pg. 12, lines 13-19; Pg. 15, lines 17-26; Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Otsuka discloses a refractive index distribution measurement method comprising:
starting to convey (via rollers 110) a polymer film (100) in a first direction (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, lines 6-25);
irradiating (via a light irradiation unit 10 which comprises a light source 11, a light guide member 12, and a light emitting unit 13) a surface on the polymer film being conveyed with light (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, lines 26-38), and acquiring (via a light detection unit 20A which comprises a light incident unit 21a, a light guide member 22a, and a spectral detection unit 23a) a light intensity of reflected light from the surface irradiated with the light (Fig. 1; Pg. 3, line 39 – Pg. 4, line 16); and
calculating (via 30A) a reflectance at the surface from the light intensity of the reflected light acquired in the step of acquiring, and obtaining a refractive index distribution of the polymer film (Fig. 1; Pg. 4, lines 17-22; Pg. 5, lines 20-30; Pg. 7, lines 3-10).
Otsuka does not explicitly disclose irradiating a plurality of spots on the polymer film being conveyed with light, the plurality of spots being arranged in a second direction intersecting the first direction, and acquiring a light intensity of reflected light from each of the plurality of spots irradiated with the light; and
calculating a reflectance at each of the plurality of spots from the light intensity of the reflected light acquired in the step of acquiring, and obtaining a refractive index distribution of the polymer film in the second direction based on the reflectance.
However, Sakuma, in the same field of endeavor of optical interference measurement systems for film thickness measurements, discloses
irradiating a plurality of spots on a polymer film being conveyed with light, the plurality of spots being arranged in a second direction intersecting a first direction, acquiring a light intensity of reflected light from each of the plurality of spots irradiated with the light (Fig. 20-21, 28; Pg. 11, lines 26-42; Pg. 12, lines 13-19; Pg. 15, lines 17-26; Abstract); and
calculating a reflectance at each of the plurality of spots from the light intensity of the reflected light acquired in the step of acquiring (Fig. 20-21, 28; Pg. 11, lines 26-42; Pg. 12, lines 13-19; Pg. 15, lines 17-26; Abstract); and obtaining a refractive index distribution of the polymer film in the second direction based on the reflectance (Pg. 4, lines 14-27; Pg. 10, lines 14-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Otsuka with a system which is able to measure the reflectance in a plurality of spots across the thin film in a second direction, where such measurements allow for a mapping of the thickness and refractive index variation across the thin film, improving the quality of the production process and the functionality of the measurement system.
Regarding claim 12, Otsuka in view of Sakuma discloses the refractive index distribution measurement method according to claim 10, as outlined above, and further discloses
wherein in the obtaining the refractive index distribution, the refractive index distribution is obtained further based on an extinction coefficient of the polymer film (Otsuka: Pg. 6, line 29 – Pg. 7, line 2).
Regarding claim 13, Otsuka in view of Sakuma discloses the refractive index distribution measurement method according to claim 10, as outlined above, and further discloses
wherein a wavelength band of the light is in a visible wavelength range, or is a wavelength band ranging from the visible wavelength range to a near-infrared wavelength range (Otsuka: Pg. 3, lines 26-32).
Regarding claim 14, Otsuka in view of Sakuma discloses the refractive index distribution measurement method according to claim 10, as outlined above, and further discloses
wherein a wavelength band of the light includes a near-infrared wavelength range (Otsuka: Pg. 3, lines 26-32).
Regarding claim 15, Otsuka in view of Sakuma discloses a film thickness distribution measurement method comprising:
the refractive index distribution measurement method according to claim 10; and
obtaining a film thickness distribution of the polymer film in the second direction based on the light intensity of the reflected light at each of the plurality of spots acquired in the acquiring the light intensity and on the refractive index distribution obtained in the obtaining the refractive index distribution (Sakuma: Fig. 20-21, 28; Pg. 4, lines 14-27; Pg. 10, lines 14-23; Pg. 11, lines 26-42; Pg. 12, lines 13-19; Pg. 15, lines 17-26; Abstract).
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. (JP 2015/141176 A) in view of Sakuma et al. (JP 2005/351790 A) further in view of Soga et al. (JP 2001/133227 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Otsuka in view of Sakuma discloses the refractive index distribution measurement device according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses
wherein the arithmetic processor (12a) configured to calculate the reflectance at each of the plurality of spots and acquiring a light intensity of reflected light by the light intensity acquisition unit (8) (Sakuma: Fig. 7, 20-21, 28; Pg. 7, lines 21-25; Pg. 11, lines 26-42; Pg. 12, lines 13-19; Pg. 15, lines 17-26; Abstract).
Otsuka in view of Sakuma does not explicitly disclose wherein the arithmetic processor is configured to calculate the reflectance based on a ratio of the light intensity of the reflected light to a reference light intensity obtained by irradiating a reference reflective surface, of which a reflectance is known, with the light from the light intensity acquisition unit, and acquiring a light intensity of reflected light from the reference reflective surface in the light intensity acquisition unit.
However, Soga, in the same field of endeavor of optical film thickness measurement systems, discloses calculating a reflectance based on a ratio of a light intensity of a reflected light to a reference light intensity obtained by irradiating a reference reflective surface, of which a reflectance is known, with a light from a light intensity acquisition unit, and acquiring the light intensity of reflected light from the reference reflective surface in the light intensity acquisition unit (Abstract; Pg. 2, line 36 - Pg. 3, line 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Otsuka in view of Sakuma with a measurement which utilizes a reference reflective surface for establishing a baseline reflectance, allowing the acquisition unit to accurately determine sensitivity characteristics of the measurement system and improving overall accuracy (Soga: Pg. 5, line 27 – Pg. 6, line 3).
Regarding claim 11, Otsuka in view of Sakuma discloses the refractive index distribution measurement method according to claim 10, as outlined above, and further discloses
calculating the reflectance at each of the plurality of spots and acquiring a light intensity of reflected light by the light intensity (Sakuma: Fig. 7, 20-21, 28; Pg. 7, lines 21-25; Pg. 11, lines 26-42; Pg. 12, lines 13-19; Pg. 15, lines 17-26; Abstract).
Otsuka in view of Sakuma does not explicitly disclose
wherein in the obtaining the refractive index distribution, the reflectance at each of the plurality of spots is calculated based on a ratio of the light intensity of the reflected light from each of the plurality of spots to a reference light intensity obtained by irradiating a reference reflective surface, of which a reflectance is known, with the light, and acquiring a light intensity of reflected light from the reference reflective surface.
However, Soga, in the same field of endeavor optical film thickness measurement systems, discloses calculating a reflectance based on a ratio of a light intensity of a reflected light to a reference light intensity obtained by irradiating a reference reflective surface, of which a reflectance is known, with a light from a light intensity acquisition unit, and acquiring the light intensity of reflected light from the reference reflective surface in the light intensity acquisition unit (Abstract; Pg. 2, line 36 - Pg. 3, line 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Otsuka in view of Sakuma with a measurement which utilizes a reference reflective surface for establishing a baseline reflectance, allowing the acquisition unit to accurately determine sensitivity characteristics of the measurement system and improving overall accuracy (Soga: Pg. 5, line 27 – Pg. 6, line 3).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. (JP 2015/141176 A) in view of Sakuma et al. (JP 2005/351790 A) in view of Soga et al. (JP 2001/133227 A1) further in view of Yamauchi et al. (US 2023/0296500 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Otsuka in view of Sakuma and Soga discloses the refractive index distribution measurement device according to claim 2, as outlined above, but does not disclose
wherein the light intensity acquisition unit includes the reference reflective surface, and a mechanism for changing a position of the reference reflective surface between a position on an optical path of the light emitted from the light intensity acquisition unit and a position avoiding the optical path.
However, Yamauchi, in the field of endeavor of spectroscopic measurement systems using reflectance measurements, discloses wherein a light intensity acquisition unit (3) includes a reference reflective surface (25), and a mechanism (26) for changing a position of the reference reflective surface between a position on an optical path of the light emitted from the light intensity acquisition unit and a position avoiding the optical path (Fig. 1; [0060]-[0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Otsuka in view of Sakuma and Soga to include a reference reflective surface for establishing a baseline reflectance, allowing the acquisition unit to accurately determine sensitivity characteristics of the measurement system and improving overall accuracy.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. (JP 2015/141176 A) in view of Sakuma et al. (JP 2005/351790 A) further in view of Hirata et al. (JP 2002/277217 A).
Regarding claim 5, Otsuka in view of Sakuma discloses the refractive index distribution measurement device according to claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses
wherein the light intensity acquisition unit (10, 20A) includes an optical unit including a light- emitting portion (10) configured to emit the light, and a light incident portion (20A) configured to receive the reflected light (Otsuka: Fig. 1; Pg. 3, lines 26-38, Pg. 3, line 39 – Pg. 4, line 16).
Otsuka in view of Sakuma does not explicitly disclose a scanning portion configured to scan the optical unit in a direction intersecting the first direction.
However, Hirata, in the same field of endeavor of optical film thickness measurement systems, discloses a scanning portion (6) configured to scan an optical unit (7) in a direction intersecting a first direction (Pg. 4, lines 30-33; Pg. 5, lines 21-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Otsuka in view of Sakuma with a scanning apparatus across the thin film, simplifying the complexity of the measurement system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER YAZBACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/MAHER YAZBACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877