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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner alerts the applicant that there was a foreign reference and a non patent literature document received on 12/27/2024; however, these are not indicated on the IDS received on 12/27/2024. Similarly for US 10161885 B2 which is mentioned in the specification but is not included on the IDS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
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 1, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Claveau (Local inspection of refractive index and thickness of thick transparent layers using spectral reflectance measurements in low coherence scanning interferometry), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Claveau in view of Barak (US 20170016835 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 13, Claveau teaches a spectral interference (SI) system, method, and medium for evaluating a thick transparent layer (title), the SI system/method/medium (title) comprising:
an interferometer is configured to illuminate the thick transparent layer and to provide measurements of a spectrometer (optical detection system that measures spectra, so the examiner considers it a spectrometer) of the interferometer (figure 1; for definition of thick, see section 2; section 3-4.1); and
an processing circuit (implied by computing time and processing on pages 101-103) that is configured to:
(a) generate information about relationships between the measurements of the spectrometer and optical path difference (OPD) values of the interferometer that are associated with the measurement (pages 101-103)
(b) determine one or more thick transparent layer reflection parameters, based on the information about the relationship (pages 101-103); and
(c) determine one or more structural properties (thickness and refractive index) of the thick transparent layer based on the one or more thick transparent layer reflection parameters (thickness and refractive index on pages 101-103).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For the reasons given above, the examiner considers Claveau teaching the above limitations. Alternatively, if one were to consider Claveau as not teaching the spectrometer, then Claveau teaches an optical detection system for measuring spectra (figure 1; for definition of thick, see section 2; section 3-4.1). Like Claveau (and like the instant application), Barak is directed to spectral interference measurements and provides a general teaching that a spectrometer provides the benefit of suitable spectral resolution (paragraph 105). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that Claveau includes a spectrometer in order to determine the spectra with suitable resolution.
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.
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 2-4, 8-10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claveau and Barak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao (Surface and thickness measurement of a transparent film using wavelength scanning interferometry).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, the above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the measurements of the spectrometer comprise top measurements and bottom measurements;wherein the top measurements are obtained, by the SI system, while changing the OPD values while maintaining OPD matching in relation to a top of the thick transparent layer, andwherein the bottom measurements are obtained, by the SI system, while changing the OPD values while maintaining OPD matching in relation to a bottom of the thick transparent layer.
Like Claveau (and like the instant application), Gao is directed to interferometric measurements of thick transparent films (see the film thicknesses correspond to the film thicknesses described by Claveau) and teaches top measurements and bottom measurements; wherein the top measurements are obtained, by the SI system, while changing the OPD values while maintaining OPD matching in relation to a top of the thick transparent layer, and wherein the bottom measurements are obtained, by the SI system, while changing the OPD values while maintaining OPD matching in relation to a bottom of the thick transparent layer (path difference is a function of wavelength, as is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art of interferometry and as is shown in equation 2. and the wavelength is scanned while the top and bottom measurements are made (page 21453); phase matching in the same sense as the definition provided in Applicant’s specification). Additionally Gao teaches this provides the benefit of determining characteristics of the top and bottom surfaces, which are critical in applications of the layer (page 21451).
PNG
media_image2.png
374
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the measurements of the spectrometer comprise top measurements and bottom measurements; wherein the top measurements are obtained, by the SI system, while changing the OPD values while maintaining OPD matching in relation to a top of the thick transparent layer, and wherein the bottom measurements are obtained, by the SI system, while changing the OPD values while maintaining OPD matching in relation to a bottom of the thick transparent layer – in order to determine the characteristics of the top and bottom surfaces (in addition to the thicknesses of the layer), which Gao teaches is critical in applications of layers..
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 15, in the above combination the SI system/method/medium is configured to change the OPD values while maintaining OPD matching by changing the OPD values by up to tens of nanometers (changing the wavelength on page 21453).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 16, in the above combination a relationship between a measurement of the spectrometer and the OPD values of the measurement comprises a first sinusoidal relationship between the OPD values of the measurement and a first frequency component of the measurement (Claveau, pages 101-102; Gao, pages 21452-21454).
Claims 5-6, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claveau, Barak, and Gao as applied to claims 4, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Spennemann (US 20090219515 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, Claveau doesn’t explicitly teach the information about the relationship comprises a difference between a maximum value of the first frequency component and a minimal value of the first frequency component.
Like Claveau (and like the instant application), Spennemann is directed to an interferometric measuring system/method/medium for measuring a layer and teaches the information about the relationship comprises a difference between a maximum value of the first frequency component and a minimal value of the first frequency component (paragraph 48 and figure 2). Additionally, Spennemann teaches this provides a measure of the interference contrast (paragraph 48).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the information about the relationship comprises a difference between a maximum value of the first frequency component and a minimal value of the first frequency component in order to determine the interference contrast.
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 18, in the above combination the processing circuit is configured to determine the one or more transparent layer reflection parameters by determining a field reflectivity of a top or a bottom of the transparent layer (for field reflectivities, see the reflection coefficients on pages 21452-21453).
Additional Prior Art
US 6573999 B1 reads, “(6) There are multiple conventional methods to extract layer thickness from a mid-IR spectrum (2.5 .mu.m to 25 .mu.m). One method is based on interference phenomena, which results from the constructive and destructive interference that occurs at different wavelengths between the reflection at the top surface of a layer and the successive reflection at bottom surface of the layer. By curve-fitting this spectrum over a wide range, the thickness of the layer may be determined. This method requires that two prerequisites be satisfied. First, the layer to be measured must be partially transparent.”
US 10161885 B2 discloses a spectral interferometer
PNG
media_image3.png
644
732
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
