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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 has been amended to overcome the previous statutory double patenting rejection, therefore, the previous statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 10-11 are withdrawn.
Claim 2 has been cancelled, therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claim 2 are moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 09/26/2025, regarding the double patenting rejection of claims 3-9 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 2-8 of US 11, 692, 928 is persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Smith (US 2019/0170655 A1). Please see the double patenting section below for a claim mapping of claims 1, 3-4, and 8-15 (of the instant application).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 09/26/2025, with respect to claims 1, 12, and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections of claims 1, 12, and 14 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Smith (US 2019/0170655 A1)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,692,928 B2 in view of Smith (US 2019/0170655 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3-4, and 8-15 from the instant application is claimed by claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent 11,692,928 and taught by Smith (US 2019/0170655 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, U.S. Patent 11,692,928 claims in claims 1 and 4-6 a sample holder configured to fix a sample object;
a light microscope, which defines an illumination light path and a detection light path for microscopy of the sample object with polarized light,
at least one camera comprising a multi-pixel detector having a multiplicity of detector pixel elements, and a multi-pixel polarization filter having a multiplicity of polarization filter pixel elements, wherein the multi-pixel polarization filter is arranged between the sample holder and the multi-pixel detector in the detection light path, wherein the multi-pixel detector is configured to provide image data, and
a computer logic element configured to calculate at least one polarization image of the sample object on the basis of the image data,
wherein the computer logic element is furthermore configured to carry out a particle analysis for a surface of the sample object on the basis of the at least one polarization image (Claim 1 on Col. 13-14),
wherein the multi-pixel polarization filter comprises at least two groups of polarization filter pixel elements,
wherein the polarization filter pixel elements of the at least two groups each filter different polarization directions of light (Claim 4 on Col. 14),
wherein the at least two groups comprise a first group and a second group, wherein the polarization directions filtered by the polarization filter pixel elements of the first group and of the second group form a first basis for the space of the polarization directions,
wherein the at least two groups comprise a third group and a fourth group, wherein the polarization directions filtered by the polarization filter pixel elements of the third group and of the fourth group form a second basis for the space of the polarization directions (Claim 5 on Col. 14),
wherein the computer logic element is configured to obtain a pixel value for each pixel of the at least one polarization image by combination of i) a pixel value of the image data which corresponds to a polarization filter pixel element of the first basis with ii) a pixel value of the image data which corresponds to a polarization filter pixel element of the second basis (Claim 6 on Col. 14).
U.S. Patent 11,692,928, in claims 1 and 4-6, appears to be silent to the first basis and the second basis are independent from one another.
Smith (US 2019/0170655 A1), related to optical metrology for detecting defects on a sample surface, does teach that the first basis and the second basis are independent from one another (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C and described in [0031] where the polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 have four different polarization orientations (0˚, 45˚, 90˚, and 135˚, respectively) that is repeated over the entire micropolarizer array 156. In a vector space, a basis is a set of linearly independent vectors which spans the vector space. Therefore, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, for bases to be independent from one another requires that the set of linearly independent vectors in each basis be linearly independent from each other. The first basis comprises of a multitude of polarizer pixels 202 and 206, which have polarization orientations of 0˚ and 90˚, respectively. The second basis comprises of a multitude of polarizer pixels 204 and 208, which have polarization orientations of 45˚ and 135˚, respectively. No combinations of 0˚ and 90˚ can be used to make polarization orientations of 45˚ and 135˚, and vice versa. Therefore, the first and second basis are independent.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify U.S. Patent 11,692,928 so that the first and second basis are independent from each other, as disclosed by Smith. The first and second basis being independent from each other is known in the field of endeavor with the advantage of enabling interference with phase lags of 0°, 90°, 180°, and 270°, respectively, between a test beam and a reference beam ([0031] from Smith) where determining the phase of an interference signal allows for optical metrology tools (such as interferometers) to measure small height differences on an object ([0004] from Smith).
Regarding Claim 3, U.S. Patent 11,692,928 B2 claims in claims 1 and 4-6 and taught by Smith an optical system according to claim 1 (of the instant case), wherein the computer logic element is configured to interpolate pixel values of the image data in order to obtain an increased resolution for the image data (Claim 2 on Col. 14).
Regarding Claim 4, U.S. Patent 11,692,928 B2 claims in claims 1 and 4-6 and taught by Smith an optical system according to claim 1 (of the instant case), wherein the computer logic element is configured to average neighbouring pixel values of the image data in order to obtain an increased signal-to-noise ratio for the image data (Claim 3 on Col. 14).
Regarding Claim 8, U.S. Patent 11,692,928 B2 claims in claims 1 and 4-6 and taught by Smith an optical system according to claim 1 (of the instant case), wherein the combination is effected in a weighted fashion (Claim 7 on Col. 14).
Regarding Claim 9, U.S. Patent 11,692,928 B2 claims in claims 1 and 4-6 and taught by Smith an optical system according to claim 1 (of the instant case), wherein the light microscope comprises a polarizer arranged in the illumination light path in order to polarize the light (Claim 8 on Col. 14).
Regarding Claim 10, U.S. Patent 11,692,928 B2 claims in claims 1 and 4-6 and taught by Smith an optical system according to claim 1 (of the instant case), wherein the at least one camera furthermore comprises a multi-pixel spectral filter having a multiplicity of spectral filter pixel elements, which is arranged upstream of the multi-pixel detector in the detection light path (Claim 1 on Col. 13, lines 65-66 to Col. 14, lines 1-10).
Regarding Claim 11, U.S. Patent 11,692,928 B2 claims in claims 1 and 4-6 and taught by Smith an optical system according to claim 1 (of the instant case), wherein the spectral ranges filtered by the multiplicity of spectral filter pixel elements form a superpattern with respect to a pattern formed by the polarization directions filtered by the multiplicity of polarization filter pixel elements (Claim 9 on Col. 14).
Regarding Claim 12, U.S. Patent 11,692,928 claims in claims 1 and 4-6 a method, comprising:
controlling a multi-pixel detector associated with a multi-pixel polarization filter, and receiving image data that microscopically image a sample object by means of the multi-pixel detector (Claim 1 on Col. 13, lines 65-66 to Col. 14, lines 1-10),
on the basis of the image data: calculating at least one polarization image of the sample object (Claim 1 on Col. 14, lines 11-13), and
on the basis of the at least one polarization image: carrying out a particle analysis for a surface of the sample object (Claim 1 on Col. 14, lines 14-17),
wherein the multi-pixel polarization filter comprises at least two groups of polarization filter pixel elements,
wherein the polarization filter pixel elements of the at least two groups each filter different polarization directions of light (Claim 4 on Col. 14),
wherein the at least two groups comprise a first group and a second group, wherein the polarization directions filtered by the polarization filter pixel elements of the first group and of the second group form a first basis for the space of the polarization directions,
wherein the at least two groups comprise a third group and a fourth group, wherein the polarization directions filtered by the polarization filter pixel elements of the third group and of the fourth group form a second basis for the space of the polarization directions (Claim 5 on Col. 14),
obtaining a pixel value for each pixel of the at least one polarization image by combination of i) a pixel value of the image data which corresponds to a polarization filter pixel element of the first basis with ii) a pixel value of the image data which corresponds to a polarization filter pixel element of the second basis (Claim 6 on Col. 14).
U.S. Patent 11,692,928, in claims 1 and 4-6, appears to be silent to the first basis and the second basis are independent from one another.
Smith (US 2019/0170655 A1), related to optical metrology for detecting defects on a sample surface, does teach that the first basis and the second basis are independent from one another (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C and described in [0031] where the polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 have four different polarization orientations (0˚, 45˚, 90˚, and 135˚, respectively) that is repeated over the entire micropolarizer array 156. In a vector space, a basis is a set of linearly independent vectors which spans the vector space. Therefore, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, for bases to be independent from one another requires that the set of linearly independent vectors in each basis be linearly independent from each other. The first basis comprises of a multitude of polarizer pixels 202 and 206, which have polarization orientations of 0˚ and 90˚, respectively. The second basis comprises of a multitude of polarizer pixels 204 and 208, which have polarization orientations of 45˚ and 135˚, respectively. No combinations of 0˚ and 90˚ can be used to make polarization orientations of 45˚ and 135˚, and vice versa. Therefore, the first and second basis are independent.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify U.S. Patent 11,692,928 so that the first and second basis are independent from each other, as disclosed by Smith. The first and second basis being independent from each other is known in the field of endeavor with the advantage of enabling interference with phase lags of 0°, 90°, 180°, and 270°, respectively, between a test beam and a reference beam ([0031] from Smith) where determining the phase of an interference signal allows for optical metrology tools (such as interferometers) to measure small height differences on an object ([0004] from Smith).
Regarding Claim 13, U.S. Patent 11,692,928 claims in claims 1 and 4-6 and taught by Smith the method according to claim 12, wherein the method is implemented by the computer logic element of the optical system comprising:
a sample holder configured to fix a sample object;
a light microscope, which defines an illumination light path and a detection light path for microscopy of the sample object with polarized light,
at least one camera comprising a multi-pixel detector having a multiplicity of detector pixel elements, and a multi-pixel polarization filter having a multiplicity of polarization filter pixel elements, wherein the multi-pixel polarization filter is arranged between the sample holder and the multi-pixel detector in the detection light path, wherein the multi-pixel detector is configured to provide image data, and
a computer logic element configured to calculate at least one polarization image of the sample object on the basis of the image data,
wherein the computer logic element is furthermore configured to carry out a particle analysis for a surface of the sample object on the basis of the at least one polarization image (Claim 1 on Col. 13-14).
Regarding Claim 14, U.S. Patent 11,692,928 claims in claims 1 and 4-6 a method of performing light-microscopic examination of a sample object, comprising using a multi-pixel detector having a multiplicity of detector pixel elements, and a multi-pixel polarization filter having a multiplicity of polarization filter pixel elements (claim 1 on col. 13, lines 65-66 to col. 14, lines. 1-10),
wherein the multi-pixel polarization filter comprises at least two groups of polarization filter pixel elements,
wherein the polarization filter pixel elements of the at least two groups each filter different polarization directions of light (Claim 4 on Col. 14),
wherein the at least two groups comprise a first group and a second group, wherein the polarization directions filtered by the polarization filter pixel elements of the first group and of the second group form a first basis for the space of the polarization directions,
wherein the at least two groups comprise a third group and a fourth group, wherein the polarization directions filtered by the polarization filter pixel elements of the third group and of the fourth group form a second basis for the space of the polarization directions (Claim 5 on Col. 14),
obtaining a pixel value for each pixel of the at least one polarization image by combination of i) a pixel value of the image data which corresponds to a polarization filter pixel element of the first basis with ii) a pixel value of the image data which corresponds to a polarization filter pixel element of the second basis (Claim 6 on Col. 14).
U.S. Patent 11,692,928, in claims 1 and 4-6, appears to be silent to the first basis and the second basis are independent from one another.
Smith (US 2019/0170655 A1), related to optical metrology for detecting defects on a sample surface, does teach that the first basis and the second basis are independent from one another (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C and described in [0031] where the polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 have four different polarization orientations (0˚, 45˚, 90˚, and 135˚, respectively) that is repeated over the entire micropolarizer array 156. In a vector space, a basis is a set of linearly independent vectors which spans the vector space. Therefore, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, for bases to be independent from one another requires that the set of linearly independent vectors in each basis be linearly independent from each other. The first basis comprises of a multitude of polarizer pixels 202 and 206, which have polarization orientations of 0˚ and 90˚, respectively. The second basis comprises of a multitude of polarizer pixels 204 and 208, which have polarization orientations of 45˚ and 135˚, respectively. No combinations of 0˚ and 90˚ can be used to make polarization orientations of 45˚ and 135˚, and vice versa. Therefore, the first and second basis are independent.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify U.S. Patent 11,692,928 so that the first and second basis are independent from each other, as disclosed by Smith. The first and second basis being independent from each other is known in the field of endeavor with the advantage of enabling interference with phase lags of 0°, 90°, 180°, and 270°, respectively, between a test beam and a reference beam ([0031] from Smith) where determining the phase of an interference signal allows for optical metrology tools (such as interferometers) to measure small height differences on an object ([0004] from Smith).
Regarding Claim 15, U.S. Patent 11,692,928 claims in claims 1 and 4-6 and further taught by Smith, the method according to claim 14, further comprising performing a particle analysis of a surface of the sample object (Claim 1 on Col. 14, lines 13-17).
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
In the preamble of claim 13, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the computer logic element” and “the optical system”. The preamble of claim 13 should instead recite “The method according to Claim 12, wherein the method is implemented by a [the]] computer logic element of an [[the]] optical system comprising…”.
Line 11 of claim 13 should instead recite “…[[a]] the computer logic element configured to calculate at least one polarization…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4, 9 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2019/0170655 A1).
A light microscope, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, could be defined as a lens system that can be utilized to visualize fine structures in a specimen (definition from sciencedirect.com).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith teaches an optical system (optical metrology device from Abstract and Fig. 1), comprising:
a sample holder (Fig. 1: stage 144) configured to fix a sample object (Fig. 1: sample 140),
a light microscope (optical metrology device from Fig. 1 has a lens 152 to visualize fine structures (sub-resolution defects from Abstract) on the surface of the object 20), which defines an illumination light path (Fig. 1: illumination 114) and a detection light path (Fig. 1: combined beam 151) for microscopy of the sample object (Fig. 1: sample 140) with polarized light ([0026]: Light source 110 produces polarized light.; [0032]),
at least one camera (Fig. 1: camera 150) comprising a multi-pixel detector (Fig. 1: detector array 158) having a multiplicity of detector pixel elements (A detector array would have a multiplicity of detector pixel elements), and a multi-pixel polarization filter (Fig. 1: micropolarizer array 156) having a multiplicity of polarization filter pixel elements (Figs. 2A-2C where elements 202, 204, 206, and 208 are polarizer pixels), wherein the multi-pixel polarization filter (Fig. 1: micropolarizer array 156) is arranged between the sample holder (Fig. 1: stage 144) and the multi-pixel detector (Fig. 1: detector array 158) in the detection light path (Fig. 1: combined beam 151) (Shown in Fig. 1), wherein the multi-pixel detector is configured to provide image data (see paragraphs [0024-0025]), and
a computer logic element (Fig. 1: processor 172; [0033]) configured to calculate at least one polarization image of the sample object on the basis of the image data (see paragraph [0033] and [0030-0032] where a micropolarizer array 156 produces a polarization image of the sample object.),
wherein the computer logic element is furthermore configured to carry out a particle analysis for a surface of the sample object on the basis of the at least one polarization image (Abstract and [0033]: “For example, the computer 170 may analyze the interferometric data to determine one or more physical characteristics of the sample 140, such as the presence of a sub-resolution defect (which can be particles or other irregularities on a sample ([0003]), as discussed below.”; Figure 1),
wherein the multi-pixel polarization filter (Fig. 1: micropolarizer array 156) comprises at least two groups of polarization filter pixel elements (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C where elements 202, 204, 206, and 208 are polarizer pixels [0031] which can be grouped together or with similar polarizer pixels from other 2x2 matrices (shown in Fig. 2A-2B).),
wherein the polarization filter pixel elements of the at least two groups each filter different polarization directions of light (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C where groups of polarizer pixels 202 and 204 filter different polarization direction of light compared to each other and compared to other groups of polarizer pixels 206, or 208.; [0031]),
wherein the at least two groups comprise a first group (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 202) and a second group (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 206), wherein the polarization directions filtered by the polarization filter pixel elements of the first group and of the second group form a first basis for the space of the polarization directions (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 202 and 206 can be chosen to form a first basis for the space of the polarization directions.),
wherein the at least two groups comprise a third group (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 204) and a fourth group (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 208), wherein the polarization directions filtered by the polarization filter pixel elements of the third group and of the fourth group form a second basis for the space of the polarization directions (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 204 and 208 can be chosen to form a second basis for the space of the polarization directions.), the first basis and the second basis being independent from one another (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C and described in [0031] where the polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 have four different polarization orientations (0˚, 45˚, 90˚, and 135˚, respectively) that is repeated over the entire micropolarizer array 156. In a vector space, a basis is a set of linearly independent vectors which spans the vector space. Therefore, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, for bases to be independent from one another requires that the set of linearly independent vectors in each basis be linearly independent from each other. The first basis comprises of a multitude of polarizer pixels 202 and 206, which have polarization orientations of 0˚ and 90˚, respectively. The second basis comprises of a multitude of polarizer pixels 204 and 208, which have polarization orientations of 45˚ and 135˚, respectively. No combinations of 0˚ and 90˚ can be used to make polarization orientations of 45˚ and 135˚, and vice versa. Therefore, the first and second basis are independent.),
wherein the computer logic element (Fig. 1: processor 172) is configured to obtain a pixel value for each pixel of the at least one polarization image by combination of i) a pixel value of the image data which corresponds to a polarization filter pixel element of the first basis with ii) a pixel value of the image data which corresponds to a polarization filter pixel element of the second basis ([0031-0032]: Groups of polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C) altogether are used on the micropolarizer array 156 so that the camera 150 produces a polarization image to be processed using the pixel values ([0033-0034]).
Regarding Claim 4, Smith teaches the optical system according to Claim 1.
Smith further teaches that the computer logic element (Fig. 1: processor 172) is configured to average neighboring pixel values of the image data in order to obtain an increased signal-to-noise ratio for the image data ([0056]: Signals from pixels may be combined (E.g. as a sum, average, mean, etc.).).
Regarding Claim 9, Smith teaches the optical system according to Claim 1.
Smith further teaches that the light microscope (optical metrology device from Abstract and Fig. 1) comprises a polarizer (Fig. 1: polarizer 116) arranged in the illumination light path (Fig. 1: illumination 114) in order to polarize the light (see paragraph [0026]; Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Smith teaches a method, comprising:
controlling a multi-pixel detector (Fig. 1: detector array 158) associated with a multi-pixel polarization filter (Fig. 1: micropolarizer array 156), and receiving image data that microscopically image a sample object by means of the multi-pixel detector (Abstract: Device detects sub-resolution defects on a sample by a camera 150 (Shown in Fig. 1) which includes a detector array 158.),
on the basis of the image data: calculating at least one polarization image of the sample object ([0030]: Micropolarizer array 156 with detector array 158 sends polarization image of the sample to computer 170.), and
on the basis of the at least one polarization image: carrying out a particle analysis for a surface of the sample object (Abstract: Device detects sub-resolution defects on the sample where the defects can include particles or other irregularities on a sample ([0003]).),
wherein the multi-pixel polarization filter (Fig. 1: micropolarizer array 156) comprises at least two groups of polarization filter pixel elements (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C where elements 202, 204, 206, and 208 are polarizer pixels [0031] which can be grouped together or with similar polarizer pixels from other 2x2 matrices (shown in Fig. 2A-2B).),
wherein the polarization filter pixel elements of the at least two groups each filter different polarization directions of light (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C where groups of polarizer pixels 202 and 204 filter different polarization direction of light compared to each other and compared to other groups of polarizer pixels 206, or 208.; [0031]),
wherein the at least two groups comprise a first group (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 202) and a second group (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 206), wherein the polarization directions filtered by the polarization filter pixel elements of the first group and of the second group form a first basis for the space of the polarization directions (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 202 and 206 can be chosen to form a first basis for the space of the polarization directions.),
wherein the at least two groups comprise a third group (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 204) and a fourth group (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 208), wherein the polarization directions filtered by the polarization filter pixel elements of the third group and of the fourth group form a second basis for the space of the polarization directions (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 204 and 208 can be chosen to form a second basis for the space of the polarization directions.), the first basis and the second basis being independent from one another (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C and described in [0031] where the polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 have four different polarization orientations (0˚, 45˚, 90˚, and 135˚, respectively) that is repeated over the entire micropolarizer array 156. In a vector space, a basis is a set of linearly independent vectors which spans the vector space. Therefore, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, for bases to be independent from one another requires that the set of linearly independent vectors in each basis be linearly independent from each other. The first basis comprises of a multitude of polarizer pixels 202 and 206, which have polarization orientations of 0˚ and 90˚, respectively. The second basis comprises of a multitude of polarizer pixels 204 and 208, which have polarization orientations of 45˚ and 135˚, respectively. No combinations of 0˚ and 90˚ can be used to make polarization orientations of 45˚ and 135˚, and vice versa. Therefore, the first and second basis are independent.),
obtaining a pixel value for each pixel of the at least one polarization image by combination of i) a pixel value of the image data which corresponds to a polarization filter pixel element of the first basis with ii) a pixel value of the image data which corresponds to a polarization filter pixel element of the second basis ([0031-0032]: Groups of polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C) altogether are used on the micropolarizer array 156 so that the camera 150 produces a polarization image to be processed using the pixel values ([0033-0034]).
A light microscope, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, could be defined as a lens system that can be utilized to visualize fine structures in a specimen (definition from sciencedirect.com).
Regarding Claim 13, Smith teaches the method according to Claim 12.
Smith further teaches that the method is implemented by a computer logic element (Fig. 1: processor 172) of an optical system comprising:
a sample holder (Fig. 1: stage 144) configured to fix a sample object (Fig. 1: sample 140),
a light microscope (optical metrology device from Fig. 1 has a lens 152 to visualize fine structures (sub-resolution defects from Abstract) on the surface of the object 20), which defines an illumination light path (Fig. 1: illumination 114) and a detection light path (Fig. 1: combined beam 151) for microscopy of the sample object (Fig. 1: sample 140) with polarized light ([0026]: Light source 110 produces polarized light.; [0032]),
at least one camera (Fig. 1: camera 150) comprising a multi-pixel detector (Fig. 1: detector array 158) having a multiplicity of detector pixel elements (A detector array would have a multiplicity of detector pixel elements), and a multi-pixel polarization filter (Fig. 1: micropolarizer array 156) having a multiplicity of polarization filter pixel elements (Figs. 2A-2C where elements 202, 204, 206, and 208 are polarizer pixels), wherein the multi-pixel polarization filter (Fig. 1: micropolarizer array 156) is arranged between the sample holder (Fig. 1: stage 144) and the multi-pixel detector (Fig. 1: detector array 158) in the detection light path (Fig. 1: combined beam 151) (Shown in Fig. 1), wherein the multi-pixel detector is configured to provide image data (see paragraphs [0024-0025]), and
the computer logic element (Fig. 1: processor 172; [0033]) configured to calculate at least one polarization image of the sample object on the basis of the image data (see paragraph [0033] and [0030-0032] where a micropolarizer array 156 produces a polarization image of the sample object.),
wherein the computer logic element is furthermore configured to carry out a particle analysis for a surface of the sample object on the basis of the at least one polarization image (Abstract and [0033]: “For example, the computer 170 may analyze the interferometric data to determine one or more physical characteristics of the sample 140, such as the presence of a sub-resolution defect (such as particles or other irregularities ([0003]), as discussed below.”; Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 14, Smith teaches a method of performing light-microscopic examination of a sample object (Abstract), comprising using a multi-pixel detector (Fig. 1: detector array 158) having a multiplicity of detector pixel elements, and a multi-pixel polarization filter (Fig. 1: micropolarizer array 156) having a multiplicity of polarization filter pixel elements (Figs. 2A-2C where elements 202, 204, 206, and 208 are polarizer pixels),
wherein the multi-pixel polarization filter (Fig. 1: micropolarizer array 156) comprises at least two groups of polarization filter pixel elements (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C where elements 202, 204, 206, and 208 are polarizer pixels [0031] which can be grouped together or with similar polarizer pixels from other 2x2 matrices (shown in Fig. 2A-2B).),
wherein the polarization filter pixel elements of the at least two groups each filter different polarization directions of light (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C where groups of polarizer pixels 202 and 204 filter different polarization direction of light compared to each other and compared to other groups of polarizer pixels 206, or 208.; [0031]),
wherein the at least two groups comprise a first group (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 202) and a second group (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 206), wherein the polarization directions filtered by the polarization filter pixel elements of the first group and of the second group form a first basis for the space of the polarization directions (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 202 and 206 can be chosen to form a first basis for the space of the polarization directions.),
wherein the at least two groups comprise a third group (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 204) and a fourth group (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 208), wherein the polarization directions filtered by the polarization filter pixel elements of the third group and of the fourth group form a second basis for the space of the polarization directions (Figs. 2A-2C: multitude of polarizer pixels 204 and 208 can be chosen to form a second basis for the space of the polarization directions.), the first basis and the second basis being independent from one another (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C and described in [0031] where the polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 have four different polarization orientations (0˚, 45˚, 90˚, and 135˚, respectively) that is repeated over the entire micropolarizer array 156. In a vector space, a basis is a set of linearly independent vectors which spans the vector space. Therefore, by the broadest reasonable interpretation, for bases to be independent from one another requires that the set of linearly independent vectors in each basis be linearly independent from each other. The first basis comprises of a multitude of polarizer pixels 202 and 206, which have polarization orientations of 0˚ and 90˚, respectively. The second basis comprises of a multitude of polarizer pixels 204 and 208, which have polarization orientations of 45˚ and 135˚, respectively. No combinations of 0˚ and 90˚ can be used to make polarization orientations of 45˚ and 135˚, and vice versa. Therefore, the first and second basis are independent.),
obtaining a pixel value for each pixel of the at least one polarization image by combination of i) a pixel value of the image data which corresponds to a polarization filter pixel element of the first basis with ii) a pixel value of the image data which corresponds to a polarization filter pixel element of the second basis ([0031-0032]: Groups of polarizer pixels 202, 204, 206, and 208 (Shown in Figs. 2A-2C) altogether are used on the micropolarizer array 156 so that the camera 150 produces a polarization image to be processed using the pixel values ([0033-0034]).
Regarding Claim 15, Smith teaches the method according to claim 14.
Smith further teaches performing a particle analysis of a surface of the sample object (Abstract: Device detects sub-resolution defects on a sample where defects can include particles or other irregularities on a sample.).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2019/0170655 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Smith teaches the optical system according to Claim 1.
Smith appears to be silent to the combination is effected in a weighted fashion. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious that a weight could be used during the data analysis, which is a common method in data analysis. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to combine prior art elements (using weights for data analysis) according to known methods to yield predictable results (advantage of optimizing data for statistical analysis) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2019/0170655 A1) in view of Togashi (US 2008/0007725 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Smith teaches the optical system according to claim 1.
Smith further teaches that the computer logic element (Fig. 1: processor 172; [0033]), is configured to interpolate pixel values of the image data ([0033]).
Smith appears to be silent to the computer logic element is configured to interpolate pixel values of the image data in order to obtain an increased resolution for the image data.
Togashi, related to an apparatus and method for particle detection and analysis, does teach that the computer logic element is configured to interpolate pixel values of the image data in order to obtain an increased resolution for the image data ([0039]: “However, when the resolution is lower than nearly 5 micrometers, it is preferable to previously interpolate an image obtained from the illustrated spot observation camera 107 to increase the pixel resolution and then to store it in the illustrated-spot illumination-distribution data table 200.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith so that the computer logic element is configured to interpolate pixel values of the image data in order to obtain an increased resolution for the image data, as disclosed by Togashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to obtain an increased resolution for the image data with the advantage being that the image data has higher resolution.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2019/0170655 A1) in view of Fukazawa (US 2021/0271061 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Smith teaches the optical system according Claim 1.
Smith further teaches the at least one camera (Fig. 1: camera 150) and the multi-pixel detector (Fig. 1: detector array 158).
Smith appears to be silent to the at least one camera further comprises a multi-pixel spectral filter having a multiplicity of spectral filter pixel elements, which is arranged upstream of the multi- pixel detector in the detection light path.
Fukazawa, related to a light microscope, does teach the at least one camera (Fig. 1: polarization camera 32) further comprises a multi-pixel spectral filter (Fig. 3: color filter; [0098]) having a multiplicity of spectral filter pixel elements (Shown in Fig. 3), which is arranged upstream of the multi- pixel detector in the detection light path ([0131-0132]: “The color filters are arranged between the image sensor 33 and the polarization unit 34, i.e., between the light-receiving surfaces 36 of the pixels 35 and the light-receiving polarizers 37, for example.” As shown in Fig. 1, the color filter being arranged between image sensor 33 and the polarization unit 34 would have the color filter being arranged upstream of the multi-pixel detector (Fig. 1: image sensor 33; [0142]) in the detection light path.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith so that the at least one camera further comprises a multi-pixel spectral filter having a multiplicity of spectral filter pixel elements, which is arranged upstream of the multi- pixel detector in the detection light path, as disclosed by Fukazawa. The use of multi-pixel spectral/color filters (AKA Bayer color filter array) is known in the field of endeavor with the advantage of being arranged with polarization elements so that color observation is possible using polarization light ([0027] from Fukazawa).
Claim 11 recites “the spectral ranges filtered by the multiplicity of spectral filter pixel elements form a superpattern with respect to a pattern formed by the polarization directions filtered by the multiplicity of polarization filter pixel elements.” The term superpattern is not a known term in the field of endeavor. The specification does define a superpattern to be shown in Fig. 12. Para. [0113] of the PGPub recites “FIG. 12 indicates the filtered spectral ranges 170 (here red-green-blue) for the various pixels 161 of the image data 160. In this case, the Bayer filter mosaic of the spectral filter pixel elements 127 forms a superpattern with respect to the pattern of the polarizations filtered by the polarization filter pixel elements 125 (in other variants, the polarization filter pixel elements 125 could also form a superpattern of filtered polarizations with respect to the Bayer filter mosaic).” Therefore, as best understood and therefore interpreted, the Applicant intends for the term superpattern to mean that each pixel element of a spectral filter aligns with each pixel element of a multi-pixel polarization filter (Shown in Figs. 11 and 12 of the PGPub).
Regarding Claim 11, Smith modified by Fukazawa teaches the optical system according to Claim 10.
Smith modified by Fukazawa further teaches that the spectral ranges (Fukazawa, Fig. 3: RGB spectral ranges) filtered by the multiplicity of spectral filter pixel elements (Fukazawa, Shown in Fig. 3 where each square is a pixel 35) form a superpattern with respect to a pattern formed by the polarization directions filtered by the multiplicity of polarization filter pixel elements (Fukazawa, Shown in Fig. 3 where an array of polarizers and color sensors arrays are shown where pixel elements from the array of polarizers and color sensors align with each other.).
Other References Considered but not Cited
Cho (US 20150296194 A1), related to polarization, teaches in Fig. 11 polarization filter pixel elements with a 1st and 2nd basis where the 1st and 2nd basis are independent from one another.
Gruev (US 20130293871), related to polarization imaging, teaches in Fig. 2 polarization filter pixel elements with a 1st and 2nd basis where the 1st and 2nd basis are independent from one another.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (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 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877