DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Gellrich does not disclose an optical contact bond and references en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_contact_bonding. However, Gellrich discloses a wrung connection ([0033] FIGS. 6a, 6b, 6c show various geometries of a wrung connection between the optical element and the reinforcing element). Further, in the Wikipedia article on Optical contact bonding, provided by Applicant, a wrung connection is shown as an example of optical contact bonding (Figure of gauge blocks at the top of the page).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2,10-11, 13-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gellrich (US 20080002170 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Gellrich discloses an optical apparatus comprising:
a substrate having an aperture for passing light (Fig. 1, element 8 has an aperture with element 5 covering the aperture);
a transmissive optical element covering the aperture of the substrate (5); and
an optical contact bond between the substrate and transmissive optical element (10), the optical contact bond being spaced from the aperture a sufficient distance such that stress forces in the transmissive optical element from the optical contact bond to the aperture are below an acceptable stress threshold (Fig. 6a-c).
Regarding Claim 2: Gellrich discloses the optical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical contact bond is formed at selected locations of the substrate having areas less than an area of interface between the substrate and the transmissive optical element (Fig. 6c, interface between 8 and 10).
Regarding Claim 10: Gellrich discloses the optical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the aperture is a rectangular cut-out in the substrate (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 11: Gellrich discloses the optical apparatus of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the substrate is greater than a thickness of the transmissive optical element (Fig. 5, 8 appears thicker than 5).
Regarding Claim 13: Gellrich discloses the optical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical contact bond is spaced from the aperture such that the transmissive optical element is constrained in six degrees of freedom (two rigid bodies (5 and 8) are fixed together and can’t move relative to each other in any direction or rotation, therefore, all 6 degrees of freedom are constrained).
Regarding Claim 14: Gellrich discloses the optical apparatus of claim 13, wherein the six degrees of freedom comprises:
three translation directions along x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis, respectively, and
three rotational directions about x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis, respectively (implicit to an object in 3D space).
Regarding Claim 15: Gellrich discloses the optical apparatus of claim 1, wherein the optical contact bond is a glueless bond between two closely conformal surfaces being joined together and being held purely by intermolecular forces (wrung connection of Figs. 6a, 6b, 6c).
Regarding Claim 19: Gellrich discloses a metrology apparatus comprising:
a light source (Fig. 12, IL); and
an optical apparatus comprising:
a substrate having an aperture for passing light (Fig. 1, element 8 has an aperture with element 5 covering the aperture);
a transmissive optical element covering the aperture of the substrate (5);
an optical contact bond between the substrate and transmissive optical element, the optical contact bond being spaced from the aperture a sufficient distance such that stress forces in the transmissive optical element from the optical contact bond to the aperture are below an acceptable stress threshold (Fig. 6a-c),
wherein light passing through the transmissive optical element generates an interference pattern, which is used to extract a measurement of a characteristic of an object (Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 20: Gellrich discloses a lithographic apparatus comprising:
a light source (Fig. 12, IL); and
an optical apparatus comprising:
a substrate having an aperture for passing light (8);
a transmissive optical element covering the aperture of the substrate (5); and
an optical contact bond between the substrate and transmissive optical element, the optical contact bond being spaced from the aperture a sufficient distance such that stress forces in the transmissive optical element from the optical contact bond to the aperture are below an acceptable stress threshold (Fig. 6a-c),
wherein the light passing through the transmissive optical element generates an interference pattern, which is used to extract a measurement of a characteristic associated with a patterning process (Fig. 12)
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellrich in view of Traggis (US 20100272964 A1).
Regarding Claim 12: Gellrich discloses the optical apparatus of claim 11, but Gellrich fails to teach wherein the thickness of the substrate is between 1 mm to 4 mm, and the thickness of the transmissive optical element is 0.5 mm or less.
Gellrich is silent with respect to the thickness of the substrate and optical element, thereby allowing for that which is known in the art.
Traggis teaches optical contacting with a 200 um thin disk optically bonded to a 2 mm substrate [0066].
Claims 3, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellrich.
Regarding Claim 3: Gellrich discloses the optical apparatus of claim 2, but Gellrich fails to explicitly teach wherein one or more locations of the selected locations are spaced farthest from the aperture such that an amount of stress, caused by the optical contact bond, in the transmissive optical element at the aperture is minimized.
However, since thermal expansion mismatch, surface irregularities, and bonding pressure introduce stress, this would be obvious. Stress within or near the optical aperture can result in optical distortion, birefringence, or wavefront error, and, therefore, degrade performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gellrich to select locations that are spaced furthest from the aperture such that an amount of stressed in the transmissive optical element at the aperture is minimized. Doing so would optimize performance, and choosing a furthest distance from the available possibilities would be obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 16: Gellrich discloses the optical apparatus of claim 1, but Gellrich fails to explicitly teach wherein the acceptable stress threshold is associated with an optical property of the transmissive optical element affected by the stress at the aperture.
However, the acceptable stress threshold for an optical element is implicitly associated with its optical properties since mechanical stress in a transmissive optical element directly affects optical performance parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Gellrich to specifically define an acceptable stress threshold based on the optical properties of the transmissive optical element. Doing so would optimize performance and would be obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 17: Gellrich discloses the optical apparatus of claim 1, but Gellrich fails to explicitly teach wherein the optical contact bond at the selected locations minimizes a birefringence effect caused by the light passing through the aperture and the transmissive optical element.
However, optical contact bonding implicitly minimizes birefringence relative to alternative adhesive bonding. This is because optical contacting avoids the stress and index inhomogeneity that cause birefringence introduced by adhesive interfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art and implicit that the optical contact bond minimizes a birefringence effect compared to adhesive contact bonding alternatives.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 4: Gellrich discloses the optical apparatus of claim 2, but Gellrich fails to teach wherein the selected locations are at least three raised portions of the substrate, the raised portions defining a raised surface, the raised surface forming the optical contact bond with the transmissive optical element and constraining the transmissive optical element in a plane of the raised surface.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements outside of Applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record. Claims 5-9 are allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 4.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MIYA DOWNING whose telephone number is (703)756-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, David Makiya can be reached on (571) 272-2273. 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.
/MIYA DOWNING/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884