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
Priority
1. Applicant is reminded that in order for a patent issuing on the instant application to obtain the benefit of priority based on priority papers filed in parent Application No. (EP) 24169471.0 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), a claim for such foreign priority must be timely made in this application. To satisfy the requirement of 37 CFR 1.55(a)(2) for a certified copy of the foreign application, applicant may simply identify the application containing the certified copy.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/01/26, 04/02/25, has been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election of Group I, Claims 1-10, 12 in the reply filed on 08/27/26 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). Claims 11, 13-15, have been withdrawn acknowledged.
Drawings
4. The drawings filed on 03/11/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim/Specification Objections
5. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, are objected to because of the following informalities: unclear and lack of antecedent basis.
a) There are unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in claims 1, 8-10. Claim 1 discloses “determining second computation data indicative of a surface roughness of the specimen surface for all measurement data based on the first computation data”. It is not clear what “all measurement data” is considered for determining second computation data. The current specification does not disclose the definition/explanation of wording “all measurement data” to be considered for determining second computation data.
For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpreted in view of the objections/rejections indicated above as follows:
an average or arithmetic average of the measurement data,
the brightness level or exposure level or density of the measurement data,
a peak of surface roughness of the measurement data,
any threshold of the measurement data,
any measurement data.
Appropriate correction is required.
b) Claims 1, 4, disclose “wherein each one of the measurement data is associated with a different brightness level of a light source illuminating the specimen surface or with a different exposure of the image sensor”. However, claim 6 disclosed “one of the brightness level and the exposure is maintained substantially constant between the consecutive measurements by the image sensor”. Claim 6 depends on claims 1, 4, but claim 6 discloses the limitation contradicted to the limitation of claims 1 and 4.
Current specification discloses “while one of the brightness level and the exposure is increased or decreased over the consecutive measurements, the other one may be maintained constant”, (Applicant’s Publication 2025/0321094, [0022]).
Therefore, according to current specification, and for the purpose of examination, claims 1, 4, 6, are interpreted as the following: “while [each] one of the measurement data is associated with a different brightness level of a light source illuminating the specimen surface or with a different exposure”.
In other words, claim 6 is interpreted as the following: “while one of the brightness level and the exposure is increased or decreased over the consecutive measurements, the other one is maintained constant between the consecutive measurements by the image sensor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al. (Pub. No. 2018/0023947) in view of Akagi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0174316). Hereafter “Meng” and “Akagi”.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Meng teaches a method for determining a surface roughness of a specimen surface of a specimen ([0229, 0233, 0234]), the method comprising:
- obtaining several measurement data, each one of the measurement data being indicative of a surface topology of the specimen surface based on an optical three-dimensional measurement of the specimen surface by an image sensor ([0008-0010]. Intensity images are not different from measurement data. 3D surface measurement is not different from surface topology of the specimen surface), wherein [each] one of the measurement data is associated with a different brightness level of a light source illuminating the specimen surface or with a different exposure of the image sensor ([0009]; illumination beams of various intensities is not different from illuminating different brightness level of a light source. Please the Claims Objection in paragraph 5 above);
- obtaining first computation data indicative of surface roughnesses of the specimen surface for each one of the measurement data (figures 45, 46F, 49C, 50C; [0228], any data of measured surface normal, depth, and reflectance properties such as diffuse reflection, specular reflection, glossiness, base color, metallic map, and roughness is not different from first computation data; [0229], lines 12-13; [0233], lines 6-7, 13-14; [0234], lines 6-7); and
However, Meng does not teach determining second computation data indicative of a surface roughness of the specimen surface for all measurement data based on the first computation data. Akagi teaches determining second computation data indicative of a surface roughness of the specimen surface for all measurement data based on the first computation data ([0007], lines 9-13, 34-45; [0097]. Obtaining second information on surface roughness of the metallic body from luminance values of the reflected light beams. Luminance values of the reflected light beams are not different from second computation data indicative of a surface roughness of the specimen surface, and first computation data is on a hue. Please see the Claims Objection in paragraph 5 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Meng by determining second computation data indicative of a surface roughness of the specimen surface based on the first computation data in order to monitor a surface whose roughness varies efficiently, (Akagi, Abstract, [0007]).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Meng in view of Akagi disclose the claimed invention according to claim 1 as stated above except for the optical three-dimensional measurement is based on white light interferometry. Meng further teaches the optical three-dimensional measurement is based on white light interferometry ([0003], lines 7-11, 22-27).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Meng in view of Akagi disclose the claimed invention according to claim 1 as stated above except for [each] one of the measurement data is associated with different brightness levels or different exposures being increased or decreased in increments between consecutive measurements by the image sensor. Meng further teaches [each] one of the measurement data is associated with different brightness levels or different exposures being increased or decreased in increments between consecutive measurements by the image sensor ([0009], lines 4-8; [0123], lines 8-10; [0128], lines 4-10; [0129], lines 1-5; [0187], lines 22-24; [0220]. It is inherent that different exposures must be differently increased or decreased in increments).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Meng in view of Akagi disclose the claimed invention according to claims 1, 4, as stated above except for the increments are: sized in the range of 0,1 % to 8 % of a nominal brightness level or a nominal exposure, [and/]or o between 5 % or more of the nominal brightness level or the nominal exposure and 80 % or more of the nominal brightness level or the nominal exposure. The selection of the increment range of 0,1 % to 8 % of a nominal brightness level or a nominal exposure or between 5 % or more of the nominal brightness level or the nominal exposure and 80 % or more of the nominal brightness level or the nominal exposure or similar range is well known (Note: conditional term “and/or” could be considered as “or”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate brightness level range or exposure for the benefit of well operated inspection system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, Meng in view of Akagi disclose the claimed invention according to claim 1 as stated above except for filtering each one of the measurement data by one or more of: removing data points outside of the specimen surface, removing noise, cropping an image representative of the surface topology as indicated by the measurement data, and leveling of the image; wherein the first computation data is based on each one of the filtered measurement data. Meng further teaches filtering each one of the measurement data by leveling of the image ([0132]. Images can be captured separately and then fitted into a BRDF model by using polarization filter is not different from leveling of the image and filtering measurement data).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Meng in view of Akagi disclose the claimed invention according to claim 1 as stated above except for determining the second computation data comprises computing a density function for each one of the surface roughnesses of the specimen surface for each one of the measurement data and determining the surface roughness of the specimen surface for all measurement data based on the density function. Akagi further discloses computing a density function for each one of the surface roughnesses of the specimen surface for each one of the measurement data and determining the surface roughness of the specimen surface for all measurement data based on the density function, ([0044], lines 8-13; [0122], lines 13-16; [0136], lines 15-18. Measurement data based on color density is not different from measurement data based on the density function). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Meng by computing a density function for the surface roughnesses in order to increase the contrast in the image for detection ([0044], lines 8-13; [0122], lines 13-16; [0136], lines 15-18).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Meng in view of Akagi disclose the claimed invention according to claim 1 as stated above except for computer program product, which, when executed by a data processing apparatus, instructs the data processing apparatus to carry out the method. Meng further teaches computer program product, which, when executed by a data processing apparatus, instructs the data processing apparatus to carry out the method ([0002]; [0003], lines 1-5; [0005], lines 1-4; [0010], lines 9-17; [0105], lines 1-8; [0121, 0129, 0203]).
9. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al. (Pub. No. 2018/0023947) in view of Akagi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0174316), further in view of Kondo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0354947). Hereafter “Meng”, “Akagi”, “Kondo”.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Meng in view of Akagi disclose the claimed invention according to claim 1 as stated above except for the specimen is a wafer. Kondo teaches the specimen is a wafer ([0062]; [0070], lines 3-5; Figure 13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Meng by having the specimen is a wafer in order to inspect a specific specimen, (Kondo, [0062]; [0070], lines 3-5; Figure 13).
10. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng et al. (Pub. No. 2018/0023947) in view of Akagi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0174316), further in view of Yelin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0128488). Hereafter “Meng”, “Akagi”, “Yelin”.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Meng in view of Akagi disclose the claimed invention according to claim 1 as stated above except for the surface roughness of the specimen surface for all measurement data being determined based on or as a maximum of the density function. Yelin teaches measurement data being determined based on or as a maximum of the density function ([0022, 0042]; [0053], lines 14-18; Figures 3A-D. the maximum speckle intensity difference is not different from a maximum of the density function). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Meng and Akagi by having a maximum of the density function in order to measure the profile of rough surfaces efficiently, (Yelin, [0052-0053]).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 6, 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there was no prior art found by the examiner that suggested modification or combination with the cited art so as to satisfy the combination of all the limitations in claims 6.
13. As claim 6, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for determining a surface roughness of a specimen surface comprising obtaining each one of the measurement data being indicative of a surface topology of the specimen surface based on an optical three-dimensional measurement, wherein [each] one of the measurement data is associated with a different brightness level of a light source illuminating the specimen surface or with a different exposure of the image sensor; obtaining first computation data indicative of surface roughnesses; and determining second computation data indicative of a surface roughness of the specimen surface for all measurement data based on the first computation data; wherein [each] one of the measurement data is associated with different brightness levels or different exposures being increased or decreased in increments between consecutive measurements by the image sensor; while one of the brightness level and the exposure is increased or decreased over the consecutive measurements, the other one is maintained constant between the consecutive measurements by the image sensor; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 4 and 6.
14. As claim 10, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method for determining a surface roughness of a specimen surface comprising obtaining each one of the measurement data being indicative of a surface topology of the specimen surface based on an optical three-dimensional measurement, wherein [each] one of the measurement data is associated with a different brightness level of a light source illuminating the specimen surface or with a different exposure of the image sensor; obtaining first computation data indicative of surface roughnesses; and determining second computation data indicative of a surface roughness of the specimen surface for all measurement data based on the first computation data; wherein computing a density function for each one of the surface roughnesses of the specimen surface for each one of the measurement data and determining the surface roughness of the specimen surface for all measurement data based on the density function; wherein repeating the obtaining of the several measurement data, the first computation data and determining the second computation data if the computed density function is indicative of two peaks of surface roughness of the specimen surface for all measurement data; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 8 and 10.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
September 30, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights