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 .
Detailed Action
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(s) 1, 2, 7-11, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al (PGPub 2018/0347965) (Inoue) in view of Bonino et al (PGPub 2016/0370174) (Bonino).
Regarding Claims 1 & 10, Inoue discloses a thickness-distribution measurement device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a conveyor (Paragraph 316) configured to convey an object (S) including a first surface and a second surface in a conveying direction along the first surface and the second surface, the second surface facing opposite to the first surface;
a light source (20 & 22) that is disposed at a position facing the second surface of the object, and that is configured to irradiate a region (24) of the object (S) being conveyed with light, the region extending in a width direction intersecting the conveying direction (See fig. 1, Paragraph 61);
a light detector (10) that is disposed at a position facing the first surface of the object, and that is configured to detect emitted light that has transmitted through the object irradiated with the light (Paragraph 63); and
an arithmetic processor configured to obtain information on a distribution of a relative thickness of the region of the object in the width direction based on a detection result in the light detector (Paragraphs 62, 65, & 163);
wherein the light detector includes an image sensor that includes a pixel unit including a plurality of pixels arranged at least in the conveying direction, and that is configured to detect an intensity of the emitted light for each pixel to output image data (Paragraph 64). The CCD as disclosed meets this limitation;
Inoue fails to explicitly disclose a lens unit that includes a plurality of lenses having an equal magnification and arranged along the width direction, and that collects is configured to collect the emitted light and forms an image of the emitted light on the pixel unit of the image sensor;
However, Bonino teaches a system for determining the spectral transmittance of a sample comprising: a lens unit (104, Fig. 1) that includes a plurality of lenses having an equal magnification and arranged along the width direction, and that is configured to collect the emitted light and forms an image of the emitted light on the pixel unit of the image sensor (Paragraph 17). It is obvious from the disclosure that the magnification of each lens in the lens array would be equal in order to maintain the spatial relationship of each beam from the sample and the relationship of the intensity over an area of the detector of each beam. Further, in the art unless explicitly stated the magnification of the lenses in a microlens array are all equal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Inoue with a lens unit that includes a plurality of lenses having an equal magnification and arranged along the width direction, and that collects is configured to collect the emitted light and forms an image of the emitted light on the pixel unit of the image sensor because it’s functionally equivalent to the lens disclosed in Inoue with the advantage of maintaining the spatial relationship of the light as reflected from the sample with the light focused on the detector.
The method of claim 10 is also met by the disclosure.
Regarding Claims 2 & 11, Inoue as modified by Bonino discloses the aforementioned. Further, Inoue discloses wherein an optical axis of the lens unit is along a normal line to the first surface (see fig. 1). The lens of Bonino is being combined into Inoue. The orientation of the optical detection unit of Inoue would not change because of the new lens thus Inoue controls the orientation of the lens with respect to the sample.
Regarding Claims 7 & 15, Inoue as modified by Bonino discloses the aforementioned. Further, Inoue discloses a thickness measurement unit configured to locally measure an absolute thickness of the object (Model formula based on angle), wherein the arithmetic processor is configured to correct a measurement value of the relative thickness (obtained wavelength distribution characteristics) based on the absolute thickness measured by the thickness measurement unit (Paragraph 137).
Regarding Claim 8, Inoue as modified by Bonino discloses the aforementioned. Inoue fails to explicitly disclose wherein the image sensor is a line scan sensor;
However, Bonino discloses wherein the image sensor is a line scan sensor (110, Paragraph 17);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Inoue with a line scan sensor because line scan sensors have fast read out speeds suitable for use on samples that are moving quickly under the detector
Regarding Claim 9, Inoue as modified by Bonino discloses the aforementioned. Further, Bonino discloses wherein the light detector further includes a first optical filter (108) provided on some pixels among the plurality of pixels of the image sensor, and having a transmission wavelength band centered at a first wavelength, and a second optical filter (108) provided on at least some other pixels among the plurality of pixels of the image sensor, and having a transmission wavelength band centered at a second wavelength different from the first wavelength (Fig. 2, Paragraph 26);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Inoue with wherein the light detector further includes a first optical filter provided on some pixels among the plurality of pixels of the image sensor, and having a transmission wavelength band centered at a first wavelength, and a second optical filter provided on at least some other pixels among the plurality of pixels of the image sensor, and having a transmission wavelength band centered at a second wavelength different from the first wavelength because the spectrophotometer of Bonino is functionally equivalent to the one shown in Inoue and would be used based upon availability and cost.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 12, & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Bonino and further in view of Kobayashi et al (PGPub 2009/0288754) (Kobayashi).
Regarding Claims 3 & 12, Inoue as modified by Bonino discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein an optical axis of the lens unit is inclined with respect to a normal line to the first surface;
However, Kobayashi discloses an optical sensor for detecting properties of a thin film on a production line wherein an optical axis of the lens unit is inclined with respect to a normal line to the first surface (Fig. 2, Paragraph 54);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Inoue as modified by Bonino with wherein an optical axis of the lens unit is inclined with respect to a normal line to the first surface with because this may be done where a restriction on installing locations of a light source and imaging unit interfere with a perpendicular installation of the detection apparatus.
Regarding Claims 4 & 13, Inoue as modified by Bonino and Kobayashi discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein an inclination angle of the optical axis of the lens unit with respect to the normal line is 5° or more and 80° or less;
However, Kobayashi does disclose the detector being inclined with respect to the sample surface. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to use or combine Kobayashi in the range as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Inoue as modified by Bonino and Kobayashi with wherein an inclination angle of the optical axis of the lens unit with respect to the normal line is 5° or more and 80° or less because this is a working range for adjusting the angle of the optical apparatus with respect to a sample where a restriction on installing locations of a light source and imaging unit interfere with a perpendicular installation of the detection apparatus.
Claim(s) 5 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Bonino and further in view of Kagawa et al (PGPub 2023/0175973) (Kagawa).
Regarding Claims 5 & 14, Inoue as modified by Bonino discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the image sensor is configured to be able to switch a gain value for amplifying signals output from the plurality of pixels;
However, Kagawa teaches an optical apparatus for detecting properties of a thin film wherein the image sensor is configured to be able to switch a gain value for amplifying signals output from the plurality of pixels (Paragraph 98);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Inoue as modified by Bonino with wherein the image sensor is configured to be able to switch a gain value for amplifying signals output from the plurality of pixels because it will allow the device to function with a wider range of materials with varying transmissivity while still maintaining a good signal-to-noise ratio.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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:
As to Claim 6 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the gain value of the image sensor when irradiation with the light from the another light source is performed is different from the gain value of the image sensor when irradiation with the light from the light source is performed, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
While adjusting the gain value of detectors is known the examiner finds having two light sources and adjusting the gain value to be different between the two in combination with a thickness measurement apparatus to be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 3, 2026
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877