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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, drawn to a method for determining a number of layers in a sample material, classified in G01B11/06 .
II. Claims 9-16, drawn to a system for calculating layer thickness, classified in G01B11/0675.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus. Specifically one that does not require the use of nonlinear optical spectroscopy or a spectroscopic system as claimed. For example the process can use the linear optical responses from four wave mixing to measure thickness of the sample under test.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Michael McCandlish on 03/04/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of II, claims 9-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. The examiner notes that agreement was reached that if the scope of the method were made to match that of the system claims, at the time of allowance the method claims would be rejoined.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
Figures 4a-b should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. Applicant discloses both figures are from Tonndork P. et al. as such they should be labeled as prior art. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 9, 11-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN 108971747 A, where a machine translation is provided hereinwith for citations).
As to claim 9, Wei discloses and shows in figure 1, a system, comprising:
an optical spectroscopy system (essentially the system shown in figure 1, but specifically 13 is defined explicitly as a spectrometer) configured to perform four-wave mixing spectroscopy (page 3, l. 51; page 6, ll. 32-35 and ll. 40-43), and
measure, via nonlinear optical spectroscopy, a FWM spectrum of a sample material as a function of two or more wavelengths (page 3, ll. 38-40; page 4, ll. 44-46);
use the FWM spectrum to determine a thickness of the sample material, wherein the thickness is a number of layers in the sample material (page 6, l. 55 thru page 7 l. 4).
Wei does not explicitly disclose where the spectrometers (13) are linked with a computer for performing the disclosed function.
However, Wei does disclose in (page 4, ll. 28-36) the use of software to control and at least do some of the processing of the system. The examiner takes Office Notice that the steps/processing as disclosed in Wei can obviously be performed by a computer/processor to reduce calculation times while removing the potential for human error.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wei with a computer for performing the disclosed function in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy and efficiency in using a common computer to perform the function as claimed obviously one can more rapidly analyze the data while reducing the potential for calculation errors.
As to claim 11, Wei discloses a system, wherein the thickness determination includes comparing the FWM spectrum of a sample material with an unknown thickness to FWM spectrum of samples made of a same material with known thicknesses (page 6, l. 57 thru page 7, l. 4; where the examiner is interpreting “which provides a guide for subsequent laser thinning of multi-layer two-dimensional nanomaterials and on-line monitors of nonlinear spectra” as the implied way to describe creating a known spectra to compare with future unknown thickness spectra).
As to claim 12, Wei disclose a system, wherein the known thicknesses are an integer number of layers of atoms (page 6, l. 57 thru page 7, l. 4; where the examiner is interpreting the limitation as essential non-limiting as it is the material worked upon by the apparatus, as such since the prior art has showed the same structure it is being interpreted as being capable of use with the noted sample, please see MPEP 2115).
As to claim 14, Wei discloses a system, wherein the FWM spectrum is induced by two excitation beams, the excitation beams are each amplitude modulated with two different frequencies (f1 and f2), the FWM spectrum is measured on a photodetector by lock-in detection at a difference (f1−f2) or a sum (f1+f2) frequency, of each of the two excitation beams (page 2, ll. 33-39 and page 6, ll. 11-15; where implicitly the imaging spectrometer has some type of photodetector or the system would not function as disclosed, further where the examiner notes that the only structure claimed is a photodetector, since the structure is met by the prior art, the prior art is being interpreted as capable of all the intended use limitations not tied to any actual structure for performing the use).
As to claim 15, Wei disclose a system, wherein the layers of the sample material are a transition metal dichalcogenide (page 6, l. 57 thru page 7, l. 4, i.e. molybdenum disulfide).
As to claim 16, Wei discloses ae system, wherein the transition metal dichalcogenide is MoS.sub.2 or WSe.sub.2 (page 6, l. 57 thru page 7, l. 4, i.e. molybdenum disulfide).
Claim(s) 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. in view of Belov et al. (RU 2359220 C1, where the examiner is providing a machine translation hereinwith for citations).
As to claim 10, Wei does disclose in (page 6, l. 60 thru page 7, l. 4) comparing the relationship of the intensity of the four-wave mixing wavelengths.
Wei does not explicitly disclose a system, wherein the thickness determination is made by determining ratios of the FWM spectrum at different wavelengths.
However, Below does disclose in (page 2, [17]) the use of a four way mixing system that uses a ratio of reflection coefficients to determine layer thickness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wei with a system, wherein the thickness determination is made by determining ratios of the FWM spectrum at different wavelengths in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy in doing so results in an elimination of random power changes of the measurement sources when calculating layer thickness (page 2, [14]).
As to claim 13, Wei does not explicitly disclose a system, wherein the thickness determination is made by calculating a spectral peak of four-wave mixing spectrum.
However, Belov does disclose in (page 2-3, [17]-[22]) the use of a thickness (d) calculation as a function of peak wavelengths used λ1-4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wei with a system, wherein the thickness determination is made by calculating a spectral peak of four-wave mixing spectrum in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using a common variable (peak wavelength) for the calculation thickness in four wave mixing so that thickness of films/layers can be monitored during processing/with respect to time ([1]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877