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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30th, 2026 with respect to the 103 rejection as being unpatentable over Takushima et al. (US 2022/0324057) in view of Keightley et al. (US 2005/0111009) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Takushima does not disclose using an interrogation beam having a width substantially equal to or greater than a diameter of at least one surface feature, because the Takushima reference states in ⁋ 113 “that the irradiation width of the illumination light 40 should be sufficiently longer than the width of the object 4” but that this refers to the line length and not the width of the beam. Applicant then refers to figs. 15 and 22-26 of Takushima to support this argument. First, it is noted that this is unpersuasive because Takushima explicitly uses the term “width” to describe this interrogation beam being larger than the width of the object 4. Further, it is noted that applicant appears to be importing additional meaning to width than the broad recitation that is within the claim. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the width not being associated with a line beam extending across a Y direction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s claims only define a single dimension of the beam, and does not associate the width in relation to any other dimension other than a dimension of the object. As was shown in the previous rejection, and as was disclosed in applicant’s remarks, Takishima does disclose that the interrogation beam has a width substantially equal to or greater than a diameter of at least one surface feature (⁋ 113 - that the irradiation width of the illumination light 40 should be sufficiently longer than the width of the object 4). While Takushima does generally show in figs. 15 and 22-26 that the beam is smaller than the object in one dimension, it is noted that these images are shown in the x/z plane and not in the plane y, which is the direction disclosed as being wider than the object as discussed above (see fig. 1, for example). Finally, it is noted that even if applicant were to amend the claims to include the beam width in the X direction being equal to or larger than the width of the surface feature, it is noted that Takushima does appear to disclose altering the beam size in the X direction to improve the measurement (see ⁋ 113-114), and thus may render a beam width in the x direction being larger than or equal to a diameter of the surface feature obvious.
Applicant then generally argues that Keightley et al. (US 2005/0111009) does not disclose “removing the error property from the raw centroid calculation result to generate refined centroid calculation results, because it is directed to detector quality and choosing signals based on detector quality”. However, this is not found persuasive. First it is noted that an error property is not specifically defined in the claim or within the specification, and therefore is quite broad, as error property can encompass many things, including any unwanted signal or data point. Keightley, is in the same field of endeavor as Takushima of using a line of light to provide dimensional measurements of an object (⁋ 5), does indeed disclose removing an error property from the raw centroid calculation results to generate refined centroid calculation results (⁋ 196-199). These paragraphs teach that each data point is tagged with a quality factor, and then the “best or valid” points are included in the final calculation. Thus data points that do not meet a certain quality factor are removed, or not included in the final calculation. This is done in order to increase the resolution and accuracy of the measurement system (⁋ 15 and 34). Keightley specifically teaches that these operations can not only be used to choose signals based on detector quality, but can also be used to select high quality data from a complete data set (⁋ 2). Based on the arguments above, the examiner is not persuaded, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 15-20 have overcome rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as including a signal, and therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, specifically with regard to the improvements of the accuracy of surface feature-measurement (see page 4, ⁋ 4) are persuasive and, therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
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.
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) 1-3, 7-10, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takushima et al. (US 2022/0324057) in view of Keightley et al. (US 2005/0111009).
In regards to claims 1, 8, and 15, Takushima discloses a method/apparatus/machine storage medium for inspecting a substrate (abstract and via fig. 1), comprising: using a light source to scan the substrate (3) across a plurality of scan positions using an interrogation beam (40 via 8) having a width substantially equal to or greater than a diameter of at least one surface feature (4, ⁋ 113, “In addition, the irradiation width of the illumination light 40 should be sufficiently longer than the width of the object 4”) on a surface of the substrate to generate scanning results; at least one processor (51) for generating a set of raw centroid calculation results based on the scanning results (⁋ 113); and determining a characteristic of the at least one surface feature based on the centroid calculation results (⁋ 114).
Takushima is silent to determining an error property in the raw centroid calculation results; removing the error property from the raw centroid calculation results to generate refined centroid calculation results; and determining a characteristic of the at least one surface feature based on the refined centroid calculation results.
Keightley, in the same field of endeavor as Takushima of using a line of light to provide dimensional measurements of an object (⁋ 5) discloses generating a set of raw centroid calculation results based on the scanning results (via fig. 1 ⁋ 130 and 145-146); determining an error property in the raw centroid calculation results (⁋ 147, 161, 166-167, 173, and 178); removing the error property from the raw centroid calculation results to generate refined centroid calculation results (⁋ 196-199); and determining a characteristic of the at least one surface feature based on the refined centroid calculation result (Keightley discloses correcting the centroid data in order to more accurately measure the dimensions of an object, ⁋ 2 and 5). This is done in order to increase the resolution and accuracy of the measurement system (⁋ 15 and 34). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include into Takushima’s method the steps of determining an error property in the raw centroid calculation results; removing the error property from the raw centroid calculation results to generate refined centroid calculation results; and determining a characteristic of the at least one surface feature based on the refined centroid calculation results, as taught by Keightley, in order to increase the resolution and accuracy of the measurement.
In regards to claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination discloses that determining the characteristic of the at least one surface feature comprises: determining a height of the at least one surface feature performing a laser triangulation technique (Takushima 66) based on the refined centroid calculation results (inherent to the combination).
In regards to claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination teaches that performing the laser triangulation technique uses a first position of a light source (8) to generate the interrogation beam (40), a second position of a detector to receive reflections from the interrogation beam (fig. 4, 16), and a third position based on the refined centroid calculation results (⁋ 66; inherent to the combination).
In regards to claims 7 and 14, the at least one surface feature comprises a soldering bump on the surface of the substrate (Takushima fig. 9, molten bead and ⁋ 4). Additionally, for claim 14, language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).
Claim(s) 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takushima et al. (US 2022/0324057) in view of Keightley et al. (US 2005/0111009), as applied to claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14-17 above, and further in view of Suzuki (JP 2015-137994).
In regards to claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination teaches a method/apparatus/machine storage medium for inspecting a substrate, as discussed above. The combination is silent to determining the error property further comprising: plotting the raw centroid calculations against the plurality of scan positions to generate a centroid plot; and applying a best fit line algorithm to generate a fitted line on the centroid plot, wherein fitted line corresponds to the error property. However, it is noted that the method and system of Takushima is used to measure the height along a line of material (as can be seen in fig. 1, 4; and fig. 13 ⁋ 99).
Suzuki, in the same field of endeavor as the combination of using a line of light to provide dimensional measurements of an object using centroids (fig. 1 page 5, step 11), discloses plotting the raw centroid calculations against the plurality of scan positions to generate a centroid plot (as can be seen in fig. 12a); and applying a best fit line algorithm to generate a fitted line on the centroid plot (as can be seen in fig. 12b), wherein fitted line corresponds to the error property (page 6, steps 12-14). This is done in order to determine the straightness of the surface feature (page 6, step 14). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in to the combination plotting the raw centroid calculations against the plurality of scan positions to generate a centroid plot; and applying a best fit line algorithm to generate a fitted line on the centroid plot, wherein fitted line corresponds to the error property, as taught by Suzuki, in order to additionally determine the straightness of the surface feature.
In regards to claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination discloses the method/apparatus/machine storage medium for inspecting a substrate, as discussed above. Additionally, the combination teaches determining the straightness of the at least one surface feature (Suzuki page 6, step 14, and fig. 13). The examiner takes official notice that the straightness of the object is directly related to the tilt angle on the surface of that object. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the straightness measurement determined by Suzuki to determine how tilted the line of the surface feature is, in order to determine the degree out of straightness the line of the surface feature has been placed. [Examiner’s note – it is noted that it appears from the specification applicant has intended this limitation to refer to the degree of slanted top of the surface feature, as seen in fig. 8B. However, since the limitation as written is much broader and does not limit the tilt angle in this manner, Suzuki reads on this limitation].
In regards to claims 6, 13, and 20, the tilt angle is related to the slope of the fitted line (as can be seen in Suzuki fig. 11 the centroids shown and plotted in fig. 12 a, and then fitted to line 12b are directly related to the tilt of the line with relation to the substrate).
In regards to claims 21-23, the combination teaches the method, system, and operations as discussed above. Further, the combination discloses that the error property is based on the interrogation beam having the width substantially equal to or greater than the diameter of at least one surface feature (Keightley ⁋ 9, ⁋ 147 and 163-167) .
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bhattacharyya (US 2019/0004437) discloses a method for inspecting a substrate comprising scanning the substrate across a plurality of scan positions using an interrogation beam having a width substantially equal to or greater than a diameter of at least one surface feature on a surface of the substrate to generate scanning results (fig. 8-9).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARA E GEISEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm.
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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/KARA E. GEISEL/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights