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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 source unit in claim 1, and 7-11. Claim 2 and dependent claims therefrom modifies the unit with sufficient structure to perform the recited function and is therefore no-longer interpreted under 112(f).
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 § 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(s) 1, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golani et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0113129 A1).
As to claim 1, Golani discloses and shows in figure 2, a system for nondestructive measurement of a sample, the system comprising:
a stage (212) configured to support the sample (250) thereon ([0208], ll. 1-3);
a light source unit (202; where the examiner is interpreting the prior art as having a structural equivalent in that the prior art structure performs the same function) configured to output a pump beam (223) having a first inspection wavelength and a probe beam (227) having a second inspection wavelength (inherently all light has a wavelength as such both beams inherently can be said to have a first and second wavelength, the claim does not require them to be distinctly different in any manner) ([0212], ll. 1-15);
a beam delayer (226) configured to delay a path of one of the pump beam and the probe beam ([0216]);
an optical system (244, 246b) configured to provide the pump beam and the probe beam to the sample ([0217]);
a detector (204) configured to detect the probe beam reflected from the sample ([0218]; [0221], ll. 1-3) and
a processor (214/208) configured to ([0221], ll. 5-7; [0223]:
determine at least one of the first inspection wavelength and the second inspection wavelength so that a change in a reflectance at which the probe beam is reflected from the sample is maximized ([0234]; [0243], ll. 1-7); and
determine characteristics (i.e. thickness) of the sample based on the probe beam reflected from the sample ([0260]; [0297]).
As to claim 8, Golani discloses a system for the nondestructive measurement of the sample, wherein the characteristics of the sample include whether a void is present in the sample ([0017]).
As to claim 10, Golani discloses a system for the nondestructive measurement of the sample, wherein the processor is configured to control the stage to change a position of the stage, and wherein the detector is configured to detect the probe beam reflected from the sample for each position of the stage ([0211]; controlling movement of the stage inherently results is scanning among the multiple locations as disclosed).
As to claim 11, Golani discloses a system for the nondestructive measurement of the sample, wherein the characteristics of the sample include a position of a void in the sample, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the position of the void, based on the probe beam reflected from the sample for the each position of the stage ([0017]; [0210]; [0211]; where characterizing the geometry which includes voids as explicitly disclosed requires that the position of the void be geometrically located).
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehendale et al. (WO 2023/191801 A1, where the examiner is using the US national stage PGPub No. 2025/0189446 A1 for citations) in view of Golani et al.
As to claim 1, Mehendale discloses and shows in figure 4, a system for nondestructive measurement of a sample, the system comprising:
a stage (214) configured to support the sample (212) thereon ([0063]);
a light source unit (202, where the examiner is interpreting the prior art as a structural equivalent for teaching the same function) configured to output a pump beam having a first inspection wavelength and a probe beam having a second inspection wavelength ([0052], as explicitly disclosed the pump and probe beams have different wavelengths);
a beam delayer (222) configured to delay a path of one of the pump beam and the probe beam ([0056]);
an optical system (L1 and L2) configured to provide the pump beam and the probe beam to the sample ([0057], ll. 1-5; [0060]);
a detector (244) configured to detect the probe beam reflected from the sample ([0061]; [0092], where the reflected beam as disclosed is at least in part the probe beam) and
a processor (250) configured to ([0065], ll. 1-3):
determine characteristics (e.g. thickness) of the sample based on the probe beam reflected from the sample ([0050]).
Mehendale does explicitly discloses that the efficiency of the signal is directly a result of the piezoreflectance which is a function of wavelength and should be optimized ([0020])
Mehendale does not explicitly disclose where a processor determines at least one of the first inspection wavelength and the second inspection wavelength so that a change in a reflectance at which the probe beam is reflected from the sample is maximized.
However, Golani does disclose in ([0243], ll. 1-7) the use specifically of optimizing/maximizing the wavelengths of the pump pulse in an absorption layer of the sample under test via a computer sub-operation. Obviously one could optimize the wavelength used as already explicitly disclosed in Mehendale to ensure the maximum signal is measured thus increasing the overall signal-to-noise of the sampling signal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehendale where a processor determines at least one of the first inspection wavelength and the second inspection wavelength so that a change in a reflectance at which the probe beam is reflected from the sample is maximized in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency in accuracy as explicitly disclosed in both references matching the wavelength to the absorption/reflectance of the sample under test maximizes the measured output probe signal thus resulting as already mentioned above with a higher signal to noise ratio during measurement.
As to claim 2, Mehendale discloses and shows in figure 4, a system for the nondestructive measurement of the sample of claim 1, wherein the light source unit includes:
a light source configured to emit a broadband laser beam ([0023], [0055], ll. 1-12; where the examiner is interpreting a supercontinuum source as broadband);
a beam splitter (208/308) configured to split the broadband laser beam into a first beam and a second beam ([0067], ll. 13-19);
a second wavelength selector (433) configured to output the probe beam having the second inspection wavelength from the second beam ([0071]).
Mehendale does disclose multiple ways in which a wavelength selector can be used to modulate a pump and probe beam ([0016]; [0071]);
Mehendale does not explicitly disclose the use of a first wavelength selector configured to output the pump beam having the first inspection wavelength from the first beam.
However, since Mehendale does disclose multiple means by which one can wavelength select for the pump and probe beams ([0016]; [0041]; [0071], it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the second wavelength selector (433) and put an additional wavelength selector in the pump arm to produce the predictable result of merely one additional way in which one can modulate the wavelength of the beams under use. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehendale with the use of a first wavelength selector configured to output the pump beam having the first inspection wavelength from the first beam in order to provide the advantage of increased versatility in having an additional and predictable extra manner in which one can modulate the pump and probe wavelengths to the desired value to optimize relative to the best piezoelectric reflectance as explicitly desired in Mehendale.
As to claim 3, Mehendale does disclose a system for the nondestructive measurement of the sample, control an amount of light of the broadband laser beam ([0037]; i.e. via filter used in conjunction with supercontinuum spectrum).
Mehendale does not explicitly disclose where the light amount is specifically controller via a processor.
However, Mehendale does disclose ([0044]) that the source is controlled via a controller/processor. Obviously the filter and source combination can be controlled via a computer to more rapidly make changes as desired 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 Mehendale where the light amount is specifically controller via a processor in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency and accuracy in using a common processor to control the source and filter one can obviously as already noted remove human error while allowing for more rapid change in the desired light amount output.
As to claim 4, Mehendale discloses a system for the nondestructive measurement of the sample, wherein the processor is configured to determine the at least one of the first inspection wavelength and the second inspection wavelength and then control the amount of the light of the broadband laser beam ([0064], ll. 1-13; [0070], 14-18).
As to claim 5, Mehendale as modified by Golani does not explicitly disclose a system for the nondestructive measurement of the sample, wherein the beam delayer is disposed between the first wavelength selector and the sample.
However, Mehendale as modified by Golani renders obvious the particular placement of the beam delayer as claimed in ([0012]-[0013]; [0031]). Specifically the beam delayer of Mehendale (222) can merely be rearranged in any location along the pump path to produce the sample predictable result of beam delay, where it is shown in figure 2 or 4 is inconsequential to the concept of generating a beam delay. As such it is found obvious to put the beam delayer between the first wavelength selector and the sample. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehendale as modified by Golani with a system for the nondestructive measurement of the sample, wherein the beam delayer is disposed between the first wavelength selector and the sample in order to provide the advantage of expected results in moving the beam delayer between the wavelength selector and sample one can predictably delay the beam in a controlled manner for accurate measurement of the thickness of the sample under test.
As to claim 6, Mehendale in view of Golani does not explicitly disclose a system for the nondestructive measurement, wherein the beam delayer is disposed between the second wavelength selector and the sample.
However, Mehendale as modified by Golani renders obvious the particular placement of the beam delayer as claimed in ([0012]-[0013]; [0031]; Figs. 4 and 5). Specifically, the beam delayer of Mehendale (222) can merely be rearranged in any location along the pump or probe path to produce the sample predictable result of beam delay, where as shown in figure 4 or 5 it is inconsequential to the concept of generating a beam delay. As such it is found obvious to put the beam delayer between the second wavelength selector and the sample. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mehendale as modified by Golani with a system for the nondestructive measurement, wherein the beam delayer is disposed between the second wavelength selector and the sample in order to provide the advantage of expected results in moving the beam delayer between the wavelength selector and sample one can predictably delay the beam in a controlled manner for accurate measurement of the thickness of the sample under test.
As to claim 7, Mehendale discloses a system for the nondestructive measurement of the sample, wherein the characteristics of the sample include a thickness of the sample ([0050]).
As to claim 8, Mehendale discloses a system for the nondestructive measurement of the sample, wherein the characteristics of the sample include whether a void is present in the sample ([0050], where the examiner is interpreting that a “non-uniformity” can be interpreted to implicitly have a void present in it as one can be drawn between any variation in sample height, applicant does not define void in any particular manner to exclude this interpretation).
As to claim 9, Mehendale discloses a system for the nondestructive measurement of the sample, wherein the characteristics of the sample include a material of the sample ([0019]; [0037], in order to modulate the wavelength based on the material as explicitly disclosed, implicitly the sample material must be known/measured).
As to claim 10, Mehendale discloses a system for the nondestructive measurement of the sample, wherein the processor is configured to control the stage to change a position of the stage, and wherein the detector is configured to detect the probe beam reflected from the sample for each position of the stage ([0064]; controlling movement of the stage inherently results is scanning among the multiple locations as disclosed).
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
Prosecution Insights