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 .
Detailed Action
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: a scanning device, a control unit, an evaluation unit, a switchable dimming device, an anamorphic optical element, in claims 1-18.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-5 & 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schonleber et al (PGPub 2012/0320380) (Schonleber) in view of Lee et al (PGPub 2012/0176623) (Lee).
Regarding Claims 1 & 11, Schonleber discloses a device for measuring wafers (Fig. 1), the device comprising:
an optical coherence tomograph configured to generate a measuring light beam (Paragraph 32);
a scanning device (Paragraph 58 & 59);
a plane-field optical system configured to focus the measuring beam deflected by the scanning device such that the measuring beam always strikes the wafer at least substantially perpendicularly (See fig. 1) as is shown the beam is focused substantially perpendicular to the sample;
a control unit configured to control the scanning device in such a way that the measuring light beam scans the surface of the wafer successively at a plurality of measuring points, wherein two measuring points have a distance dmax with 140 mm ≤ dmax ≤ 600 mm (Paragraphs 59 & 61, Fig. 5). The points at either end of the measurement track along which multiple scans are performed would meet this limitation since its diameter is 300 mm; and
an evaluation unit configured to calculate distance values and/or thickness values from interference signals provided by the optical coherence tomograph (Paragraphs 43 and 44);
Schonleber fails to explicitly disclose a scanning device configured to deflect the measuring light beam in two spatial directions;
However, Lee discloses a scanner that may scan the light via deflection on a sample in two spatial directions (Paragraph 61);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schonleber with a scanning device configured to deflect the measuring light beam in two spatial directions because this is functionally equivalent to the disclosed method in Schonleber and would be chosen based on cost and availability.
The method of claim 11 is also met by this disclosure.
Regarding Claims 2 & 12, Schonleber as modified by Lee discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schonleber discloses wherein the optical coherence tomograph (Fig. 1) comprises:
a light source (23);
a beam splitter (17) configured to split light generated by the light source into the measuring light beam (8) and a reference light beam (11);
a reference arm for guiding the reference light beam (see fig. 1);
an object arm utilizing the scanning device and the plane-field optical system for guiding the measuring light beam (see fig. 1); and
a detector (22) configured to generate the interference signals from a superposition of the reference light beam guided in the reference arm with a portion of the measuring light beam reflected at the wafer (Paragraph 41).
Regarding Claims 3 & 13, Schonleber as modified by Lee discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schonleber discloses further comprising a switchable dimming device (13 & 16) arranged in the reference arm and configured to prevent the propagation of the reference light beam in the reference arm when thickness measurements are made (Paragraphs 43-45).
Regarding Claims 4 & 14, Schonleber as modified by Lee discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schonleber discloses wherein the switchable dimming device is configured to automatically prevent the propagation of the reference light beam in the reference arm when a change occurs from distance measurements to thickness measurements, and to automatically allow the propagation of the reference light beam in the reference arm when a change occurs from thickness measurements to distance measurements (Paragraph 43).
Regarding Claim 5, Schonleber as modified by Lee discloses the aforementioned but Schonleber fails to explicitly disclose wherein the switchable dimming device comprises a central shutter or a focal plane shutter;
However, Lee discloses using a shutter (230) for the same functions as Schonleber uses their switchable dimming device (Paragraph 95, Fig. 2). Further, this s a central shutter;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schonleber with wherein the switchable dimming device comprises a central shutter or a focal plane shutter because this shutter is functionally equivalent and would be used based upon availability of parts and cost.
Claim(s) 6-10, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schonleber in view of Lee and further in view of Webster (PGPub 2016/0039045) (Webster).
Regarding Claims 6 & 15, Schonleber as modified by Lee discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schonleber has an optical system that has a field into which the measuring light beams are focused (See figs. 1 & 5) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation unit is configured to correct the calculated distance values in order to compensate for a curvature of the field;
However, Webster discloses wherein the optical system has a field into which the measuring light beams are focused, and wherein the evaluation unit is configured to correct the calculated distance values in order to compensate for a curvature of the field (Paragraphs 115-117);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Schonleber as modified by Lee with wherein the evaluation unit is configured to correct the calculated distance values in order to compensate for a curvature of the field because this improves the accuracy of the measurements.
Regarding Claims 7 & 16, Schonleber as modified by Lee and Webster discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schonleber discloses wherein the field has a diameter between 140 mm and 600 mm. As can be see in fig. 5 the field is 300 mm in diameter thus falling within this range.
Regarding Claims 8 & 17, Schonleber as modified by Lee and Webster discloses the aforementioned. Further, Webster discloses wherein the evaluation unit is configured to read out correction values from a correction table stored in the evaluation unit (Paragraph 117). In the disclosure it is described creating a map of known errors and then using them digitally at given positions and that error maps can be interpolated beforehand. This would be the process of creating and using a correction table.
The reasons for combination remain the same.
Regarding Claim 9 & 18, Schonleber as modified by Lee and Webster discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein correction values for different operating wavelengths ranges are listed in the correction table;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Schonleber as modified by Lee and Webster with wherein correction values for different operating wavelengths ranges are listed in the correction table because this would allow for the correction of any wavelength dependent distortions that may be occurring in the system.
Regarding Claim 10, Schonleber as modified by Lee discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plane-field optical system comprises at least one anamorphic optical element configured to correct a field curvature;
Further, Webster discloses that the distortion may be corrected physically (Paragraph 115) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the optical system comprises at least one anamorphic optical element configured to correct a field curvature;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Schonleber as modified by Lee and Webster with wherein the optical system comprises at least one anamorphic optical element configured to correct a field curvature because anamorphic lenses are commonly used to change the shape of a wavefront projected onto a detector and would allow for the correction of large distortion errors and would be chosen based upon cost or availability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 25, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights