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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 01/07/2026. The amendment has been entered. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-26 and 29-33 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-26 and 29-33 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Request for Continued Examination
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 01/07/2026.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant’s arguments, remarks, and amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-13, 15, and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US20190094711A1), in view of Takizawa (Multi-Wavelength Mueller Matrix Polarimeter, OPTICAL REVIEW Vol. 12, No. 4 (2005) 281–286, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10043-005-0281-x.pdf?pdf=button), and in further view of Rullison (US 20150024968 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Atkins discloses:
A method comprising:
using filtering optics (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], optical filters 111), including a metasurface polarizing filter (Atkins, [0049], “the measured spectral response of the structure of interest includes spectra associated with elements of a Mueller matrix formulation employed to characterize the measured response. The Stokes-Mueller formalism describes the response of a medium to excitation by polarized light. Equation (1) illustrates a Mueller matrix, M, which describes the relationship between the incident beam, characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.I, and the reflected beam characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.R.”), …
… providing a set of sample-characterizing response data based on at least two of the following (a) sets of polarization-state values (Atkins, [0050], “the Stokes vector represents the state of polarization of a light wave”) respectively associated with the filter-separated ones of the different polarization states (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], “The one or more optical filters 111 are used to control light level, spectral output, or both, from the illumination subsystem. In some examples, one or more multi-zone filters are employed as optical filters 111”), (b) different wavelengths associated with the different polarization states (Atkins, [0068], “spectra associated with one or more off-diagonal elements of the Mueller matrix are subdivided into one or more sub-ranges of wavelengths”), and (c) incidence angles of light arising or caused by further processing of the filter-separated ones of the different polarization states (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0044], “Metrology system 100 also includes a collection optics subsystem configured to collect light generated by the interaction between the one or more structures and the incident illumination beam 117. A beam of collected light 127 is collected from measurement spot 116 by collection optics 122. Collected light 127 passes through collection aperture stop 123, polarizing element 124, and field stop 125 of the collection optics subsystem”).
Atkins discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… to provide a set of filter-separated light beams of different wavelengths respectively associated with different polarization states, wherein each of the filter-separated light beams of the set is directed towards a sample for concurrently hitting the sample …
However, Takizawa, in a similar field of endeavor (Multi-Wavelength Mueller Matrix Polarimeter), discloses:
… to provide a set of filter-separated light beams of different wavelengths respectively associated with different polarization states, wherein each of the filter-separated light beams of the set is directed towards a sample for concurrently hitting the sample (Takizawa, P282, C1, “we will analyze and derive the Mueller matrix of the sample to be measured with the multi-wavelength Mueller matrix polarimeter”) …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atkins with the multi-wavelength Mueller matrix polarimeter of Takizawa. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of multi-wavelength Mueller matrix polarimeters as disclosed by Takizawa and how to use them to modify the system of Atkins. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of multi-wavelength Mueller matrix to better control optical polarization and analysis of samples.
The combination of Atkins and Takizawa discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… a microlens array, as part of the filtering optics, to concentrate passing light of the different wavelengths; and …
However, Rullison, in a similar field of endeavor (ANALYTICAL DEVICES HAVING COMPACT LENS TRAIN ARRAYS), discloses:
… a microlens array, as part of the filtering optics, to concentrate passing light of the different wavelengths (Rullison, [0142], “The chip would typically include on-chip light concentrating features such as a micromirror or microlens for each ZMW. These light concentrating features serve the purposes of focusing the incoming flood illumination light onto the ZMWs, and roughly collimating the outgoing fluorescence light for more efficient fluorescence detection”); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins and Takizawa with the microlens array of Rullison. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of microlens arrays as disclosed by Rullison and how to use them to modify the system of the combination of Atkins and Takizawa. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of microlens array to better control optical systems.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 1, and Atkins further discloses:
… wherein the set of sample-characterizing response data is sufficient to compute or populate a mathematical matrix for light-response characterization of the sample in response to the polarized light passing through and/or reflecting from the sample (Atkins, [0049], “the measured spectral response of the structure of interest includes spectra associated with elements of a Mueller matrix formulation employed to characterize the measured response. The Stokes-Mueller formalism describes the response of a medium to excitation by polarized light. Equation (1) illustrates a Mueller matrix, M, which describes the relationship between the incident beam, characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.I, and the reflected beam characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.R.”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 2, and Atkins further discloses:
… wherein the mathematical matrix is a Mueller matrix, and further including computing the Mueller matrix across an entire image, the image being captured in response to using the filtering (Atkins, [0049], “the measured spectral response of the structure of interest includes spectra associated with elements of a Mueller matrix formulation employed to characterize the measured response. The Stokes-Mueller formalism describes the response of a medium to excitation by polarized light. Equation (1) illustrates a Mueller matrix, M, which describes the relationship between the incident beam, characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.I, and the reflected beam characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.R.”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 1, and Atkins further discloses:
… wherein the sets of polarization-state values correspond to or are associated with Stokes vectors (Atkins, [0050], “the Stokes vector represents the state of polarization of a light wave”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 1, and Atkins further discloses:
… further including capturing or detecting of the filter-separated light beams in a single image in response to said using of filtering optics, wherein the captured or detected the filter-separated light beams are sufficient to accommodate a single-shot acquisition of a Mueller matrix (Atkins, [0108], “Exemplary measurement techniques that may be configured as described herein include, but are not limited to spectroscopic ellipsometry (SE), including Mueller matrix ellipsometry (MMSE), rotating polarizer SE (RPSE), rotating polarizer, rotating compensator SE (RPRC), rotating compensator, rotating compensator SE (RCRC), spectroscopic reflectometry (SR), including polarized SR, unpolarized SR, spectroscopic scatterometry, scatterometry overlay, beam profile reflectometry, both angle-resolved and polarization-resolved, beam profile ellipsometry, single or multiple discrete wavelength ellipsometry, etc.”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 1, and Atkins further discloses:
… further including image-capturing the incidence angles of light in real time via a single image capture (Atkins, [0119], “the measurement results described herein are provided as active feedback to a fabrication process tool (e.g., lithography tool, etch tool, deposition tool, etc.”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the different polarization states correspond to a number, more than two and less than a dozen, of polarization states multiplexed on different wavelengths via a polarization-state generator (PSG)
However, Atkins discloses in FIG. 1 and [0057]:
Polarizing component 112 generates the desired polarization state exiting the illumination subsystem. In some embodiments, the polarizing component is a polarizer, a compensator, or both, and may include any suitable commercially available polarizing component.
The exact wavelengths and amounts of polarization states are result-effective variables. In that, if the polarization component does not properly polarize the light, set the property wavelength, or otherwise does not function as needed, the apparatus would fail.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before Applicant’s filing date to include properly calibrated polarization components since the effect of such is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 1, and Atkins further discloses:
… further including: directing the polarized light directed towards the sample; using a polarization-state generator (PSG) to process the light into different channels; and wherein filtering optics to provide a set of filter-separated light beams is part of a polarization-state analysis carried out by the PSG (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0057], “Polarizing component 112 generates the desired polarization state exiting the illumination subsystem. In some embodiments, the polarizing component is a polarizer, a compensator, or both, and may include any suitable commercially available polarizing component”).
Regarding Claim 12, Atkins discloses:
An apparatus comprising:
filtering optics (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], optical filters 111), including a metasurface polarizing filter (Atkins, [0049], “the measured spectral response of the structure of interest includes spectra associated with elements of a Mueller matrix formulation employed to characterize the measured response. The Stokes-Mueller formalism describes the response of a medium to excitation by polarized light. Equation (1) illustrates a Mueller matrix, M, which describes the relationship between the incident beam, characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.I, and the reflected beam characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.R.”), …
… a detector (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0047], spectrometer 126) to provide a set of sample-characterizing response data based on at least two of the following: sets of polarization-state values (Atkins, [0050], “the Stokes vector represents the state of polarization of a light wave”) respectively associated with the filter- separated ones of the different polarization states, different wavelengths associated with the different polarization states (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], “The one or more optical filters 111 are used to control light level, spectral output, or both, from the illumination subsystem. In some examples, one or more multi-zone filters are employed as optical filters 111”), and incidence angles of light arising or caused by further processing of the filter-separated ones of the different polarization states (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0044], “Metrology system 100 also includes a collection optics subsystem configured to collect light generated by the interaction between the one or more structures and the incident illumination beam 117. A beam of collected light 127 is collected from measurement spot 116 by collection optics 122. Collected light 127 passes through collection aperture stop 123, polarizing element 124, and field stop 125 of the collection optics subsystem”).
Atkins discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… to respond to at least one polarized light beam and to provide a set of filter-separated light beams of different wavelengths respectively associated with different polarization states, wherein each of the filter-separated light beams of the set is directed towards a sample for concurrently hitting the sample; …
However, Takizawa, in a similar field of endeavor (Multi-Wavelength Mueller Matrix Polarimeter), discloses:
… to respond to at least one polarized light beam and to provide a set of filter-separated light beams of different wavelengths respectively associated with different polarization states, wherein each of the filter-separated light beams of the set is directed towards a sample for concurrently hitting the sample (Takizawa, P282, C1, “we will analyze and derive the Mueller matrix of the sample to be measured with the multi-wavelength Mueller matrix polarimeter”); …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atkins with the multi-wavelength Mueller matrix polarimeter of Takizawa. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of multi-wavelength Mueller matrix polarimeters as disclosed by Takizawa and how to use them to modify the system of Atkins. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of multi-wavelength Mueller matrix to better control optical polarization and analysis of samples.
The combination of Atkins and Takizawa discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… a microlens array, as part of the filtering optics, to concentrate passing light of the different wavelengths; and …
However, Rullison, in a similar field of endeavor (ANALYTICAL DEVICES HAVING COMPACT LENS TRAIN ARRAYS), discloses:
… a microlens array, as part of the filtering optics, to concentrate passing light of the different wavelengths (Rullison, [0142], “The chip would typically include on-chip light concentrating features such as a micromirror or microlens for each ZMW. These light concentrating features serve the purposes of focusing the incoming flood illumination light onto the ZMWs, and roughly collimating the outgoing fluorescence light for more efficient fluorescence detection”); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins and Takizawa with the microlens array of Rullison. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of microlens arrays as disclosed by Rullison and how to use them to modify the system of the combination of Atkins and Takizawa. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of microlens array to better control optical systems.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, and Atkins further discloses:
… further including at least one or a combination: a light source as illumination for the at least one polarized light beam (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0040], illumination source 110); and a polarization-state generator to provide the at least one polarized light beam (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], “Polarizing component 112 generates the desired polarization state exiting the illumination subsystem. In some embodiments, the polarizing component is a polarizer, a compensator, or both, and may include any suitable commercially available polarizing component”).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, and Atkins further discloses:
… wherein certain optics elements in the apparatus are not to use the different wavelengths to encode polarization (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], aperture stop 114. Examiner notes that any optical component that does not encode polarization could be used to reject this claim. Examiner has selected the aperture stop 114, as an example of one such element).
Regarding Claim 29, Atkins discloses:
For use in characterizing a sample in response to polarized light directed towards the sample, a method comprising:
using filtering optics (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], optical filters 111), including a metasurface polarizing filter (Atkins, [0049], “the measured spectral response of the structure of interest includes spectra associated with elements of a Mueller matrix formulation employed to characterize the measured response. The Stokes-Mueller formalism describes the response of a medium to excitation by polarized light. Equation (1) illustrates a Mueller matrix, M, which describes the relationship between the incident beam, characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.I, and the reflected beam characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.R.”), …
… determining, via a detector in a path of the set filter-separated light beams, whether a set of sample-characterizing response data corresponds to an object-characterizing representation by comparing at least some of the data from the set of sample-characterizing response data to data representing attributes and/or properties of the object-characterizing representation (Atkins, [0108], “Exemplary measurement techniques that may be configured as described herein include, but are not limited to spectroscopic ellipsometry (SE), including Mueller matrix ellipsometry (MMSE), rotating polarizer SE (RPSE), rotating polarizer, rotating compensator SE (RPRC), rotating compensator, rotating compensator SE (RCRC), spectroscopic reflectometry (SR), including polarized SR, unpolarized SR, spectroscopic scatterometry, scatterometry overlay, beam profile reflectometry, both angle-resolved and polarization-resolved, beam profile ellipsometry, single or multiple discrete wavelength ellipsometry, etc.”), wherein the set of sample-characterizing response data corresponds with at least two of the following: (a) sets of polarization-state values respectively associated with optically-filtered ones of different polarization states of the light, (b) different wavelengths associated with different polarization states, and (c) incidence angles of light arising or caused by caused by processing of the filter-separated ones of the different polarization states.
Atkins discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… to provide a set of filter-separated light beams of different wavelengths respectively associated with different polarization states, wherein each of the filter-separated light beams of the set is directed towards the sample for concurrently hitting the sample; …
However, Takizawa, in a similar field of endeavor (Multi-Wavelength Mueller Matrix Polarimeter), discloses:
… to provide a set of filter-separated light beams of different wavelengths respectively associated with different polarization states, wherein each of the filter-separated light beams of the set is directed towards the sample for concurrently hitting the sample (Takizawa, P282, C1, “we will analyze and derive the Mueller matrix of the sample to be measured with the multi-wavelength Mueller matrix polarimeter”) …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atkins with the multi-wavelength Mueller matrix polarimeter of Takizawa. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of multi-wavelength Mueller matrix polarimeters as disclosed by Takizawa and how to use them to modify the system of Atkins. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of multi-wavelength Mueller matrix to better control optical polarization and analysis of samples.
The combination of Atkins and Takizawa discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… using a microlens array, as part of the filtering optics, to concentrate passing light of the different wavelengths; and …
However, Rullison, in a similar field of endeavor (ANALYTICAL DEVICES HAVING COMPACT LENS TRAIN ARRAYS), discloses:
… using a microlens array, as part of the filtering optics, to concentrate passing light of the different wavelengths (Rullison, [0142], “The chip would typically include on-chip light concentrating features such as a micromirror or microlens for each ZMW. These light concentrating features serve the purposes of focusing the incoming flood illumination light onto the ZMWs, and roughly collimating the outgoing fluorescence light for more efficient fluorescence detection”); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins and Takizawa with the microlens array of Rullison. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of microlens arrays as disclosed by Rullison and how to use them to modify the system of the combination of Atkins and Takizawa. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of microlens array to better control optical systems.
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 29, and Atkins further discloses:
… computing or populating a Mueller matrix, via a computer responding to the detector and based on the set of sample-characterizing response data, for light-response characterization of the sample in response to the polarized light passing through and/or reflecting from the sample (Atkins, [0049], “the measured spectral response of the structure of interest includes spectra associated with elements of a Mueller matrix formulation employed to characterize the measured response. The Stokes-Mueller formalism describes the response of a medium to excitation by polarized light. Equation (1) illustrates a Mueller matrix, M, which describes the relationship between the incident beam, characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.I, and the reflected beam characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.R.”).
Claims 6-8, 14, 16-17, 30, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US20190094711A1), in view of Takizawa (Multi-Wavelength Mueller Matrix Polarimeter, OPTICAL REVIEW Vol. 12, No. 4 (2005) 281–286, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10043-005-0281-x.pdf?pdf=button), in further view of Rullison (US 20150024968 A1), and in further view of Fan (US20180045953A1).
Regarding Claim 6, combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein using filtering optics includes use of four polarization-selective metasurfaces adjacent to each other on a single substrate, and wherein each of the metasurfaces is sufficiently small that the polarized light impinges on the all four polarization-selective metasurfaces concurrently or simultaneously.
However, Fan, in a similar field of endeavor (optical device componenets), discloses in [0057]:
Metasurfaces are optical hardware/devices that control a magnitude and phase response to light based on geometric layout of the metasurfaces. For example, a metasurface controls the wavefronts of incident electromagnetic waves and support beam steering and focusing functionality with high efficiency. Metasurfaces, alternatively and/or in addition, specify the polarization and angular momentum of light that exceeds the ability of conventional optical components. Semiconducting geometric structures as components in the metasurface result in high performance in the visible wavelengths due to their high refractive indices and relatively low absorption losses.
The amount, positioning, and specific properties of metasurfaces are result-effective variables. In that, if the metasurface is not properly constructed, positioned, or otherwise does not function as needed, the apparatus would fail.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before Applicant’s filing date to include properly calibrated and positioned metastructures since the effect of such is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the metasurfaces of Fan. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of metasurfaces as disclosed by Fan and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of metasurfaces to better control optical systems.
Regarding Claim 7, combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein using filtering optics includes use of multiple polarization-selective metasurfaces, each of the multiple polarization-selective metasurfaces fully transmitting a specific one of the different polarization states while reflecting and/or absorbing an orthogonal polarization that corresponds to the specific polarization state.
However, Fan, in a similar field of endeavor (optical device components), discloses in [0057]:
Metasurfaces are optical hardware/devices that control a magnitude and phase response to light based on geometric layout of the metasurfaces. For example, a metasurface controls the wavefronts of incident electromagnetic waves and support beam steering and focusing functionality with high efficiency. Metasurfaces, alternatively and/or in addition, specify the polarization and angular momentum of light that exceeds the ability of conventional optical components. Semiconducting geometric structures as components in the metasurface result in high performance in the visible wavelengths due to their high refractive indices and relatively low absorption losses.
The amount, positioning, and specific properties of metasurfaces are result-effective variables. In that, if the metasurface is not properly constructed, positioned, or otherwise does not function as needed, the apparatus would fail.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before Applicant’s filing date to include properly calibrated and positioned metastructures since the effect of such is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the metasurfaces of Fan. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of metasurfaces as disclosed by Fan and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of metasurfaces to better control optical systems.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, Rullison, and Fan discloses Claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose:
… further including capturing data associated with the incidence angles of light, wherein the multiple polarization-selective metasurfaces include N different polarization-selective metasurfaces, each of which is used over a bandwidth that covers N corresponding operating wavelengths and is used over a cone of the incidence angles, where N is an integer greater than one.
As noted in Claim 7, the amount, positioning, and specific properties of metasurfaces are result-effective variables. In that, if the metasurface is not properly constructed, positioned, or otherwise does not function as needed, the apparatus would fail. As such, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, Rullison, and Fan with the metasurfaces of Fan. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of metasurfaces as disclosed by Fan and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, Rullison, and Fan. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of metasurfaces to better control optical systems.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein certain optics elements in the apparatus are to use the different wavelengths to encode polarization.
However, Fan, in a similar field of endeavor (optical device components), discloses:
… wherein certain optics elements in the apparatus are to use the different wavelengths to encode polarization (Fan, FIGS. 39G-39H, [0286], “the metasurfaces are used to encode specific phase patterns as a function of wavelength, which can be used in diverse applications ranging from structural light imaging to single molecule imaging”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the encoding of Fan. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of encoding as disclosed by Fan and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of metasurfaces to encode patterns.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein certain optics in the apparatus are to encode the polarization.
However, Fan, in a similar field of endeavor (optical device components), discloses:
… wherein certain optics in the apparatus are to encode the polarization (Fan, FIGS. 39G-39H, [0286], “the metasurfaces are used to encode specific phase patterns as a function of wavelength, which can be used in diverse applications ranging from structural light imaging to single molecule imaging”), and at least one of the different wavelengths is to be used to provide additional measurement data (Fan, [0006], “The optimization method can be used to achieve multiple input polarizations and wavelengths, by performing forward and adjoint simulations for each optical degree of freedom per iteration”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the encoding of Fan. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of encoding as disclosed by Fan and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of metasurfaces to encode patterns.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, and Atkins further discloses:
… further including a polarization-state generator (PSG) to provide the at least one polarized light beam (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], “Polarizing component 112 generates the desired polarization state exiting the illumination subsystem. In some embodiments, the polarizing component is a polarizer, a compensator, or both, and may include any suitable commercially available polarizing component”) …
The combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the PSG includes a Fabry-Perot cavity to filter out desired wavelength channels from an output of a broadband light source as a light source for the at least one polarized light beam directed towards the sample.
However, Fan, in a similar field of endeavor (optical device components), discloses:
… wherein the PSG includes a Fabry-Perot cavity to filter out desired wavelength channels from an output of a broadband light source as a light source for the at least one polarized light beam directed towards the sample (Fan, FIG. 16B, [0204], “The metagrating can be treated as a vertically-oriented Fabry Perot cavity, in which the supermodes bounce between the air-metagrating interface and SiO2-metagrating interface”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the Fabry-Perot cavities of Fan. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of Fabry-Perot cavities as disclosed by Fan and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of Fabry-Perot cavities to better control optical systems.
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 29, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the detector includes a digital-based or pixel-based camera.
However, Fan, in a similar field of endeavor (optical device components), discloses:
… wherein the detector includes a digital-based or pixel-based camera (Fan [243], “Light entering the pixel of the imaging device, such as a conventional CCD camera, is filtered using the aperiodic apparatus/device with unique and random-like spectral characteristics”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the camera of Fan. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cameras as disclosed by Fan and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of known cameras depending on the needs of the user to capture the image.
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the detector includes a diffraction grating mounted on top of the microlens array.
However, Fan, in a similar field of endeavor (optical device components), discloses:
… wherein the detector includes a diffraction grating mounted on top of the microlens array (Fan, [0140], “A number of optical configurations may be used to create these types of targeted illumination profiles, including, e.g., the use of lens arrays that focus individual illumination beams into multiple arrayed illumination spots, orthogonally oriented diffraction gratings that first split a single beam into a row of multiple beams, then split each of these beams into an orthogonally oriented row of additional beams, diffractive optical elements that convert a single beam into any of a variety of different targeted illumination profiles, including e.g., gridded arrays of illumination spots on a substrate”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the diffraction grating and arrangements of Fan. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of diffraction grating and arrangements as disclosed by Fan and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of a diffraction grating and arrangements to better control optical systems.
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, and Atkins further discloses:
… an image sensor (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0044], “Metrology system 100 also includes a collection optics subsystem configured to collect light generated by the interaction between the one or more structures and the incident illumination beam 117. A beam of collected light 127 is collected from measurement spot 116 by collection optics 122. Collected light 127 passes through collection aperture stop 123, polarizing element 124, and field stop 125 of the collection optics subsystem,” and p0108], “any SR or SE technique applicable to the characterization of semiconductor structures, including image based metrology techniques, may be contemplated, individually, or in any combination”).
The combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the detector includes a diffraction grating …, the diffraction grating being mounted to the microlens array, with the image sensor to sense aspects of the different beams.
However, Fan, in a similar field of endeavor (optical device components), discloses:
… wherein the detector includes a diffraction grating …, the diffraction grating being mounted to the microlens array, with the image sensor to sense aspects of the different beams (Fan, [0140], “A number of optical configurations may be used to create these types of targeted illumination profiles, including, e.g., the use of lens arrays that focus individual illumination beams into multiple arrayed illumination spots, orthogonally oriented diffraction gratings that first split a single beam into a row of multiple beams, then split each of these beams into an orthogonally oriented row of additional beams, diffractive optical elements that convert a single beam into any of a variety of different targeted illumination profiles, including e.g., gridded arrays of illumination spots on a substrate”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the diffraction grating and arrangements of Fan. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of diffraction grating and arrangements as disclosed by Fan and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of a diffraction grating and arrangements to better control optical systems.
Claims 18-20 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US20190094711A1), in view of Takizawa (Multi-Wavelength Mueller Matrix Polarimeter, OPTICAL REVIEW Vol. 12, No. 4 (2005) 281–286, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10043-005-0281-x.pdf?pdf=button), in further view of Rullison (US 20150024968 A1), and in further view of Jiang (US20190369006A1).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, and Atkins further discloses:
… further including a polarization-state generator (PSG) to provide the at least one polarized light beam (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], “Polarizing component 112 generates the desired polarization state exiting the illumination subsystem. In some embodiments, the polarizing component is a polarizer, a compensator, or both, and may include any suitable commercially available polarizing component”),
Atkins discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the PSG includes four pairs of narrowband light sources, each pair respectively associated with a different set of polarization optics.
However, Jiang, in a similar field of endeavor (optical measurement technology in the preparation process of complex nanostructures), discloses:
… wherein the PSG includes four pairs of narrowband light sources, each pair respectively associated with a different set of polarization optics (Jiang, Abstract, “four polarization modulation channels are used to split and modulate a pulse laser beam into four polarized beams in independent polarization states”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the multiple beams of Jiang. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of multiple beams as disclosed by Jiang and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of multiple beams to measure the sample.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, and Atkins further discloses:
… a polarization-state generator (PSG) to provide the at least one polarized light beam (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], “Polarizing component 112 generates the desired polarization state exiting the illumination subsystem. In some embodiments, the polarizing component is a polarizer, a compensator, or both, and may include any suitable commercially available polarizing component”), …
… optical elements, including a linear polarization filter (Atkins, [0050], “the intensity transmitted by a linear polarizer oriented at an angle of zero degrees”) …
Atkins discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the PSG includes an optical cavity to filter, by selection, a set of wavelength channels from an output of a broadband light source as a light source for multiple polarizations corresponding to the at least one polarized light beam directed towards the sample.
However, Jiang, in a similar field of endeavor (optical measurement technology in the preparation process of complex nanostructures), discloses:
… wherein the PSG includes an optical cavity to filter, by selection, a set of wavelength channels from an output of a broadband light source as a light source for multiple polarizations corresponding to the at least one polarized light beam directed towards the sample (Jiang, FIG. 1, [0056], “There are four polarization modulation channels in the incident light path”); and
and multi-order waveplates, to further process light in respective wavelength channels (Jiang, FIG. 1, [0053], wave plate 1002).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the channels and wave plates of Jiang. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of channels and wave plates as disclosed by Jiang and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of multiple channels and wave plates to polarize and control the wavelengths.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose:
… further including multi-order waveplates to further process light in respective wavelength channels, the multi-order waveplates being associated with a waveplate thickness to generate the polarization states.
However, Jiang, in a similar field of endeavor (optical measurement technology in the preparation process of complex nanostructures), discloses:
… further including multi-order waveplates to further process light in respective wavelength channels, the multi-order waveplates being associated with a waveplate thickness to generate the polarization states (Jiang, FIG. 1, [0053], wave plate 1002).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the wave plates of Jiang. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of wave plates as disclosed by Jiang and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of wave plates to polarize and control the wavelengths.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, and Atkins further discloses:
… further including a logic circuit, having a data processing computer, to compute the Mueller matrix across an entire image, the image being captured in response to using the filter optics (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0113], “Computer system 130 of metrology system 100 may be configured to receive and/or acquire data or information (e.g., measurement results, modeling inputs, modeling results, reference measurement results, etc.) from other systems by a transmission medium that may include wireline and/or wireless portions”),
The combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… including metasurface polarization filters, to provide the set of filter-separated light beams.
However, Jiang, in a similar field of endeavor (optical measurement technology in the preparation process of complex nanostructures), discloses:
… including metasurface polarization filters, to provide the set of filter-separated light beams (Jiang, Abstract, “four polarization modulation channels are used to split and modulate a pulse laser beam into four polarized beams in independent polarization states”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the multiple beams of Jiang. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of multiple beams as disclosed by Jiang and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of multiple beams to measure the sample.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, and Atkins further discloses:
… further including a polarization-state generator (PSG) to provide the at least one polarized light beam (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], “Polarizing component 112 generates the desired polarization state exiting the illumination subsystem. In some embodiments, the polarizing component is a polarizer, a compensator, or both, and may include any suitable commercially available polarizing component”).
The combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… in a set of four wavelength channels, the set of four wavelength channels being characterized respectively by or associated with four distinct peaks in an operating wavelength range of at least one … polarization filter included as part of the filtering optics.
However, Jiang, in a similar field of endeavor (optical measurement technology in the preparation process of complex nanostructures), discloses:
… in a set of four wavelength channels (Jiang, FIG. 1, [0056], “There are four polarization modulation channels in the incident light path”), the set of four wavelength channels being characterized respectively by or associated with four distinct peaks in an operating wavelength range of at least one … polarization filter included as part of the filtering optics (Jiang, FIG. 1, [0056], “Fast axis azimuths of the first to fourth ¼ wave plates (502, 602, 702, 802) are respectively set to 0°, 22.5°, 45° and 60°, and thus, the Stokes vectors of the sub-pulse beams modulated by the four polarization modulation channels”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the channels of Jiang. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of channels as disclosed by Jiang and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of multiple channels to polarize and control the wavelengths.
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, and Atkins further discloses:
… further including a polarization-state generator (PSG) to provide the at least one polarized light beam in sets of light beams (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], “Polarizing component 112 generates the desired polarization state exiting the illumination subsystem. In some embodiments, the polarizing component is a polarizer, a compensator, or both, and may include any suitable commercially available polarizing component”), …
The combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose
… each of which has a different wavelength and a polarization associated with the different wavelength.
However, Jiang, in a similar field of endeavor (optical measurement technology in the preparation process of complex nanostructures), discloses:
… each of which has a different wavelength and a polarization associated with the different wavelength (Jiang, Abstract, “four polarization modulation channels are used to split and modulate a pulse laser beam into four polarized beams in independent polarization states”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the channels of Jiang. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of channels as disclosed by Jiang and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of multiple channels to polarize and control the wavelengths.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, and Atkins further discloses:
… further including a polarization-state generator (PSG), to provide the at least one polarized light beam (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], “Polarizing component 112 generates the desired polarization state exiting the illumination subsystem. In some embodiments, the polarizing component is a polarizer, a compensator, or both, and may include any suitable commercially available polarizing component”) in an output characterized via: … four Stokes vectors (Atkins, [0050], “the Stokes vector represents the state of polarization of a light wave”).; and with polarizations to minimally optimize a mathematical matrix descriptive of all four Stokes vectors (Atkins, [0049], “the measured spectral response of the structure of interest includes spectra associated with elements of a Mueller matrix formulation employed to characterize the measured response. The Stokes-Mueller formalism describes the response of a medium to excitation by polarized light. Equation (1) illustrates a Mueller matrix, M, which describes the relationship between the incident beam, characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.I, and the reflected beam characterized by Stokes vector, S.sub.R.”).
The combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… a set of light beams …
However, Jiang, in a similar field of endeavor (optical measurement technology in the preparation process of complex nanostructures), discloses:
… a set of light beams (Jiang, Abstract, “four polarization modulation channels are used to split and modulate a pulse laser beam into four polarized beams in independent polarization states”) …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the multiple beams of Jiang. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of multiple beams as disclosed by Jiang and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of multiple beams to measure the sample.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US20190094711A1), in view of Takizawa (Multi-Wavelength Mueller Matrix Polarimeter, OPTICAL REVIEW Vol. 12, No. 4 (2005) 281–286, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10043-005-0281-x.pdf?pdf=button), in further view of Rullison (US 20150024968 A1), in view of Jiang US20190369006A1), and in further view of De Martino (US20170102319A1).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose:
… further including optical elements, includes a lens and/or multi-order waveplates, to further process light in respective wavelength channels that are associated with respective polarization states of the polarized light …
However, Jiang, in a similar field of endeavor (optical measurement technology in the preparation process of complex nanostructures), discloses:
… further including optical elements, includes a lens and/or multi-order waveplates, to further process light in respective wavelength channels that are associated with respective polarization states of the polarized light (Jiang, FIG. 1, [0053], wave plate 1002), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison with the wave plates of Jiang. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of wave plates as disclosed by Jiang and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of wave plates to polarize and control the wavelengths.
The combination of Atkins, Takizawa, Rullison, and Jiang discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the respective polarization states are characterized in that in a Poincare sphere they form a tetrahedron.
However, De Martino, in a similar field of endeavor (remote polarimetric characterization), discloses:
… wherein the respective polarization states are characterized in that in a Poincare sphere they form a tetrahedron ([0097], “They are then distributed over the Poincaré sphere according to a regular tetrahedron”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, Rullison, and Jiang with the Poincaré Spheres of De Martino. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of Poincaré Spheres as disclosed by De Martino and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, Rullison, and Jiang. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of Poincaré Spheres as a graphic representation of the polarization of the light.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US20190094711A1), in view of Takizawa (Multi-Wavelength Mueller Matrix Polarimeter, OPTICAL REVIEW Vol. 12, No. 4 (2005) 281–286, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10043-005-0281-x.pdf?pdf=button), in further view of Rullison (US 20150024968 A1), in view of Fan (US20180045953A1), and in further view of Jiang (US20190369006A1).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses Claim 12, and Atkins further discloses:
… a light source (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0040], illumination source 110), a polarization state generator (PSG) (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0042], “Polarizing component 112 generates the desired polarization state exiting the illumination subsystem. In some embodiments, the polarizing component is a polarizer, a compensator, or both, and may include any suitable commercially available polarizing component”) and …
… a polarization state analyzer (PSA), including or integrated with at least one metasurface polarization filter, to process light output in response to the PSG, wherein the detector is to record light output in response to the PSA (Atkins, FIG. 1, [0045], “Collection optics 122 includes any suitable optical elements to collect light from the one or more structures formed on wafer 120. Collection aperture stop 123 controls the NA of the collection optics subsystem. Polarizing element 124 analyzes the desired polarization state”).
The combination of Atkins, Takizawa, and Rullison discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… expansion optics …
However, Fan, in a similar field of endeavor (optical device components), discloses:
… expansion optics (Fan, [0286], “the metasurfaces achieve beam expansion and contraction within a very small path length”), …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atkins with the expansion optics of Fan. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of expansion optics as disclosed by Fan and how to use them to modify the system of Atkins. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of expansion optics to better control optical systems.
The combination of Atkins, Takizawa, Rullison, and Fan discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the light source is to create light that passes through the PSG which is to process the light into different channels, and the expansion optics is to expand the processed light from which the sample is illuminated; and …
However, Jiang, in a similar field of endeavor (optical measurement technology in the preparation process of complex nanostructures), discloses:
… wherein the light source is to create light that passes through the PSG which is to process the light into different channels, and the expansion optics is to expand the processed light from which the sample is illuminated (Jiang, FIG. 1, [0056], “There are four polarization modulation channels in the incident light path”); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, Rullison, and Fan with the channels of Jiang. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of channels as disclosed by Jiang and how to use them to modify the combination of Atkins, Takizawa, Rullison, and Fan. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of multiple channels to polarize and control the wavelengths.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST.
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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877