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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “the matrix”, in line 9. Additionally, the term “based on an optical model for the matrix material” in the limitation “a controller coupled with the spectroscopic ellipsometer wherein the controller is configured to generate an optical model for the particulate material based on the spectroscopic ellipsometry data for the composite sample and based on an optical model for the matrix material.”, renders the claim indefinite. Such as, it is unclear how the controller would generate an optical model for the particulate material based on optical model for the matrix material, since the claim does not comprise any limitation that clarified the relationship between the particulate material and the matrix material. Therefore, it is unclear what matrix material is, how the matrix material is related to the particulate material and how to generate an optical model for the particulate material based on the spectroscopic ellipsometry data for the composite sample and based on an optical model for the matrix material.
For purposes of examination and until Applicant either overcome or cures the
deficiency above, the Examiner will interpret claim limitations “matrix material” as “wherein the composite sample comprises a mixture of the particulate material in the matrix material”, as cited in claim 1. Therefore, the matrix material is a component of the composite material in combination with the particulate material.
Regarding Claims 9-13, the claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite since they are dependents of indefinite claim 8, and their limitations do not overcome the indefiniteness issues of their parent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “A method of determining optical properties of a particulate material, the method comprising: providing a first optical model for a matrix material; providing a composite sample having a polished surface, wherein the composite sample comprises a mixture of the particulate material in the matrix material; performing spectroscopic ellipsometry on the polished surface of the composite sample to provide spectroscopic ellipsometry data for the composite sample; and generating a second optical model for the particulate material based on the spectroscopic ellipsometry data for the composite sample and based on the first optical model for the matrix material.”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claims 2-7 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 1 and are allowable based on their dependencies.
Claims 8-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “A system to determine optical properties of a particulate material, the system comprising: a spectroscopic ellipsometer configured to perform spectroscopic ellipsometry on a polished surface of a composite sample to provide spectroscopic ellipsometry data for the composite sample ; and a controller coupled with the spectroscopic ellipsometer wherein the controller is configured to generate an optical model for the particulate material based on the spectroscopic ellipsometry data for the composite sample and based on an optical model for the matrix material.”, in the combination required by the claim.
Regarding Claims 9-13 are directly/indirectly dependent on claim 8 and are allowable based on their dependencies.
The closest art is Higginson et al. (US 2010/0157437 A1), hereafter Higginson.
Higginson teaches a and a device method of determining optical properties of a material, the method comprising: providing a first optical model for a matrix material (MgB2 matrix), [0101-0102]; providing a composite sample (Fig. 1, the combination of element MgB2 + SiC nanoparticles) having a polished surface, [0078, 0097], wherein the composite sample (MgB2/SiC) comprises a mixture of the particulate material (SiC nanoparticles) in the matrix material (MgB2).
Even thought Higginson discloses performing spectroscopic ellipsometry on the polished surface of the matrix material (MgB2 matrix), [0101-0102]. Higginson failed to disclose spectroscopic ellipsometry on the polished surface of the composite sample to provide spectroscopic ellipsometry data for the composite sample, (since the composite material comprises the particulate material and the matrix material) and also failed to teach generating a second optical model for the particulate material based on the spectroscopic ellipsometry data for the composite sample and based on the first optical model for the matrix material.
Liu et al. (US 2025/0012737 A1), discloses performing spectroscopic ellipsometry on the polished surface of the composite sample to provide spectroscopic ellipsometry data for the sample [0050-0051, Fig. 6].
Schoeche et al. (US 10175160 B1), discloses characterizing pore size and distribution in a porous, thin film having an effective thin layer thickness and a surface or a porous surface region of a semi-infinite bulk substrate having a surface, using the ellipsometry analysis is performed of an adsorption or desorption cycle. An appropriate optical model has to be chosen to describe the optical properties of the porous layer.
Herzinger et al. (US 8248607 B1), discloses spectroscopic ellipsometry (SE) measurements collect a ratio of light components and do not require the absolute intensity, the detected light can also be affected by the scattering or roughness. The correction is calculated empirically by modeling the sample as combination of: ideal substrate; and correction factor or matrix. Characterization of the ideal substrate is calculated using Fresnel interaction with the optical model of the known substrate which is calculated from the substrate optical constants, and any known surface layers.
Even though Schoeche and Herzinger disclose spectroscopic ellipsometry of rough compose sampler, and generating data that appear qualitatively correct, it has been found that there is an offset between values for the refractive index and extinction coefficient (optical model) for a thin film on said rough or textured surface, as compared to values for the same thin film on a sample with a substantially smooth surface, (Herzinger, [Col. 1, lines 23-47]). This is because during measurements of rough or textured surfaces with spectroscopic electromagnetic radiation, much of the measurement beam can be scattered away from the detector. Therefore, since the claimed language comprises performing spectroscopic ellipsometry on the polished surface of the composite sample to provide spectroscopic ellipsometry data for the composite sample and the cited art explained the how the data of a polish surface and a rough surface are offset a person with knowledge in the art would not combine the method of Schoeche and Herzinger with the method of Higginson as it would generates erroneous results.
Kim et al. (US 12105028 B1), discloses a method of quality control and testing for manufactured semiconductors by generating a model for spectroscopic ellipsometry constant analysis including: calculating simulation data representing a spectroscopic ellipsometry constant of an analysis target through reasoning on attribute data representing an attribute of the analysis target using a simulation model; calculating, by an error calculator, an error representing a difference between actual measurement data obtained by measured the spectroscopic ellipsometry constant of the analysis target and the simulation data; and performing optimization in which an optimizer modifies a parameter of the simulation model according to the error.
The cited art taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose wherein the composite sample comprises a mixture of the particulate material in the matrix material; performing spectroscopic ellipsometry on the polished surface of the composite sample to provide spectroscopic ellipsometry data for the composite sample; and generating a second optical model for the particulate material based on the spectroscopic ellipsometry data for the composite sample and based on the first optical model for the matrix material. It is the Claims 1 and 8, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between the various claimed elements, that make it allowable over the prior art of record taken either alone or in combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights