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 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 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akedo (US 5,424,834 A).
Regarding claim 35, Akedo teaches a method for determining the tilt of a sample (detecting inclination, col. 5 lines 2-3) the method comprising:
Directing a laser beam (from laser diode 12) at the sample (target surface 14) to result in a reflected beam (fig. 2);
Causing the reflected beam to pass through a first optical element (beam splitter 15) to generate a first beam (towards detector 21, fig. 2) and a second beam (towards detector 23);
Determining a first property of the first beam (centroid position on detector 21);
Determining a second property of the second beam (centroid position on detector 23); and
Determining the tilt of the sample based on the first property and the second property (inclination of optical axis determined by detection of shifted spot by light detector 21 or 23, col. 5 lines 3-5)
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.
Claims 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20040189983 A1) in view of Shimakura (US 20110284746 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Takahashi teaches a method of performing operations for determining the tilt of a sample, the operations comprising:
Directing a laser beam (laser light 2) at the sample (5c) to result in a reflected beam;
Causing the reflected beam to pass through a first optical element (beam splitter 4) to generate a first beam and a second beam;
Determining a first property of the first beam (from detector 10A, fig. 8);
Determining a second property of the second beam (from detector 10B); and
Determining the tilt of the sample based on the first property and the second property (detecting angle based on output of detectors 10A and 10B, [0101]).
Takahashi does not teach a computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of a computing device to perform the operation.
Shimakura teaches a system having a tilt sensor and a computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of a computing device to perform the operation (programs on device control unit 23, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to use a computer readable medium executed on a processor to perform the operation of Takahashi, as this is a known common way of providing programmable control of a system with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 24, Takahashi teaches modulating the laser beam ([0173]).
Claims 16-22, 25-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akedo in view of Shimakura.
Regarding claim 16, Akedo teaches a method of performing operations for determining the tilt of a sample (detecting inclination, col. 5 lines 2-3; Akedo describes determining a sample roughness, however the system would inherently also determine an overall sample tilt) the operations comprising:
Directing a laser beam (from laser diode 12) at the sample (target surface 14) to result in a reflected beam (fig. 2);
Causing the reflected beam to pass through a first optical element (beam splitter 15) to generate a first beam (towards detector 21, fig. 2) and a second beam (towards detector 23);
Determining a first property of the first beam (centroid position on detector 21);
Determining a second property of the second beam (centroid position on detector 23); and
Determining the tilt of the sample based on the first property and the second property (inclination of optical axis determined by detection of shifted spot by light detector 21 or 23, col. 5 lines 3-5)
Akedo does not teach a computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of a computing device to perform the operation.
Shimakura teaches a system having a tilt sensor and a computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of a computing device to perform the operation (programs on device control unit 23, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to use instructions on a computer readable medium and executed on a processor to perform the operation of Akedo, as this is a known common way of providing programmable control of a measurement system.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Akedo teaches that the first property includes an amount of light (intensity) of the first beam, and the second property includes an amount of light (intensity) of the second beam (light will not be equally cut by the pinholes 18 and 22 if the sample is tilted, so the amount of light on each detector will be unequal, col. 4 lines 61-67).
Regarding claim 19, Akedo teaches that the first property includes a brightness of a spot formed by the first beam on a first sensing element (21), and the second property includes brightness of a spot formed by the second beam on a second sensing element (23, i.e. the light intensity of each spot is determined by the inclination).
Regarding claim 20, Akedo teaches causing the second beam to pass through a second optical element (pinhole 22), wherein the second optical element is configured to change the property based on the tilt of the sample (the intensity passing through the pinhole depends on the tilt angle, [0081]).
Regarding claim 21, Akedo teaches that the second optical element includes an aperture (22) configured to reduce an amount of light transmitted through the aperture as the tilt increases (the intensity passing through the pinhole depends on the tilt angle).
Regarding claim 22, Akedo teaches causing the reflected beam to pass through a third optical element (lens 16), the third optical element being arranged between the sample and the first optical element, wherein the reflected beam is directed toward the first optical element.
Regarding claim 25, Akedo teaches reducing the brightness of the spot formed by the second beam on the second sensing element as the tilt increases (tilt angle determines amount of light incident on each element).
Regarding claim 26, Akedo teaches an apparatus (fig. 3) for determining a tilt of a sample (detecting inclination, col. 5 lines 2-3) the operations comprising:
Directing a laser beam (from laser diode 12) at the sample (target surface 14) to result in a reflected beam (fig. 2);
Causing the reflected beam to pass through a first optical element (beam splitter 15) to generate a first beam (towards detector 21, fig. 2) and a second beam (towards detector 23);
Determining a first property of the first beam (centroid position on detector 21);
Determining a second property of the second beam (centroid position on detector 23); and
Determining the tilt of the sample based on the first property and the second property (inclination of optical axis determined by detection of shifted spot by light detector 21 or 23, col. 5 lines 3-5)
Akedo does not teach a computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of a computing device to perform the operation.
Shimakura teaches a system having a tilt sensor and a computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of a computing device to perform the operation (programs on device control unit 23, [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to use instructions on a computer readable medium and executed on a processor to perform the operation of Akedo, as this is a known common way of providing programmable control of a measurement system.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Akedo teaches that the first property includes an amount of light (intensity) of the first beam, and the second property includes an amount of light (intensity) of the second beam (light will not be equally cut by the pinholes 18 and 22 if the sample is tilted, so the amount of light on each detector will be unequal, col. 4 lines 61-67).
Regarding claim 29, Akedo teaches that the first property includes a brightness of a spot formed by the first beam on a first sensing element (21), and the second property includes brightness of a spot formed by the second beam on a second sensing element (23, i.e. the light intensity of each spot is determined by the inclination).
Regarding claim 30, Akedo teaches causing the second beam to pass through a second optical element (pinhole 22), wherein the second optical element is configured to change the property based on the tilt of the sample (the intensity passing through the pinhole depends on the tilt angle, [0081]).
Regarding claim 31, Akedo teaches that the second optical element includes an aperture (22) configured to reduce an amount of light transmitted through the aperture as the tilt increases (the intensity passing through the pinhole depends on the tilt angle).
Regarding claim 32, Akedo teaches causing the reflected beam to pass through a third optical element (lens 16), the third optical element being arranged between the sample and the first optical element, wherein the reflected beam is directed toward the first optical element.
Regarding claim 34, Akedo teaches reducing the brightness of the spot formed by the second beam on the second sensing element as the tilt increases (tilt angle determines amount of light incident on each element).
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akedo in view of Shimakura and in further view of Oshida (US 5,227,862 A).
Regarding claims 23 and 33, Akedo and Shikamura teach all the limitations of claims 16 and 26 as described above. Akedo and Shikamura do not teach that the operations further comprise canceling an influence of ambient light, or canceling an influence of power source variation.
Oshida teaches a system including an inclination sensor which can use a reference beam to cancel an influence of ambient conditions (col. 4 lines 3-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Akedo and Shikamura to include a method of canceling any ambient conditions (such as ambient light) taught by Oshida, in order to remove background from the signal and effectively determine the inclination as described by Oshida.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights