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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s comment on page 8 of the response filed February 2, 2026 that the instant amendments find support throughout the application as filed, the examiner is unable to find specific support in the specification for the added limitation that the optical system splits a beam from the radiation source at a splitting location, and that a measurement beam returned from the object of interest is recombined with the reference beam without the measurement beam from the object of interest passing via the splitting location. As a result, the examiner considers the limitation new matter, with details of this rejection to be found below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of at least claims 16 and 31 under both 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 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. A rejection based upon newly discovered prior art can be found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16, 18-27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 16, 31, and 37, the claims are drawn to an interferometer system (claim 16), a related method (claim 31), and a related interferometer system component (claim 37). Using the language of claim 16 as an example, and with claims 31 and 37 reciting similar limitations, the claims set forth an optical system that is arranged to split a radiation beam from a radiation source at a splitting location into a measurement beam along a first optical path and a reference beam along a second optical path, wherein the optical system is arranged to recombine the measurement beam from the object of interest and the reference beam to a recombined beam without the measurement beam from the object of interest passing via the splitting location. The limitation that the beam is split at a splitting location, and the split off measurement beam is recombined with the reference beam without the measurement beam from the object of interest passing via the splitting location, which is being considered by the examiner as a negative limitation, does not appear to be supported by the specification and therefore is considered new matter.
MPEP 2173.05(i) states that while “there is nothing inherently ambiguous or uncertain about a negative limitation”, that section also states that “any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure”. Here, the examiner turns to the specification to see if there is any support in the original disclosure for having the measurement beam returning from the object of interest not pass the specific splitting location of the optical system. However, such support does not appear to be readily found within the specification. In particular, the examiner turned to paragraphs 00099 to 000130 which describe Figures 9-11 of the drawings, with this portion of the specification and the embodiments shown in the Figures appearing to set forth the probe head limitations of the instant claim. However, these paragraphs do not appear to recite a splitting location, let alone a specific teaching that the measurement beam returned from the object of interest is recombined with the reference beam without passing via the splitting location.
As per MPEP 2163.04, a prima facie case of a lack of written description is made when the examiner can show that applicant has not pointed out where the amended and new claims are supported. The above paragraph fulfills this burden, as there does not appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “wherein the optical system is arranged to recombine the measurement beam from the object of interest and the reference beam to a recombined beam without the measurement beam from the object of interest passing via the splitting location” (emphasis added). If specific support for this limitation exists in the specification and disclosure as originally filed, the examiner requests that applicant point to the exact support within the specification.
As a result, claims 16, 31, and 37 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement, as the negative limitation at issue included in these claims appears to represent new matter.
Claims 18-27, 29, 30, and 32-36 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on at least claims 16 (claims 18-27, 29, and 30) or 31 (claims 32-36), thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the splitting location" in line 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What splitting location is being referred to here? The claim recites “splitting, using the optical system, the radiation beam into a measurement beam along a first optical path and a reference beam along a second optical path”, but does not define a splitting location where this takes place to give antecedent basis for “the splitting location”.
Claims 32-26 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on at least claim 31, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the splitting location" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What splitting location is being referred to here? The claim recites “an optical system, the optical system arranged to split a radiation beam from a radiation source into a measurement beam along a first optical path for determining a displacement of an object of interest and a reference beam along a second optical path”, but does not define a splitting location where this takes place to give antecedent basis for “the splitting location” in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 18-23, 31, 32, 34, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raff (EP 0874215).
Regarding claim 16, Raff (Fig. 1) discloses an interferometer system to determine a displacement of an object of interest, the interferometer system comprising a probe head 2.1 (see paragraph 0020 – a variant of the interferometer of Fig. 1 shows that the optical device can be inside the probe head) comprising an optical system 4, 9 therein, the optical system arranged to split (using beam splitter 4) a radiation beam 5 from a radiation source 1 at a splitting location into a measurement beam 6 along a first optical path and a reference beam 7 along a second optical path (see paragraphs 0012), wherein the optical system is arranged to recombine (using recombination device 9) the measurement beam from the object of interest 8 and the reference beam to a recombined beam 10 without the measurement beam from the object of interest passing via the splitting location (see paragraph 0013 and, in particular, Fig. 1 – the splitting is performed at splitter 4, the recombining at recombination device 9; therefore, the returned measurement beam does not pass the splitting location), a detector 3, outside the probe head (see Fig. 1), to receive the recombined beam and to provide a detector signal on the basis of the received recombined beam (see paragraph 0017), an optical input fiber 13 connected in or on the probe head to guide the radiation beam from the radiation source to the optical system (see paragraph 0012), and an optical output fiber 14 connected in or on the probe head separately from the optical input fiber to guide the recombined beam from the optical system to the detector (see paragraph 0017), wherein the optical input fiber and the optical output fiber are different fibers (Fig. 1 clearly shows separate input and output fibers).
As for claim 18, Raff discloses that the optical system is free of optical fibers (see Fig. 1, where fibers 13, 14 terminate prior to entering the probe head 2.1, showing that the optical system is free of optical fibers).
As for claim 19, Raff discloses that the optical system comprises at least one reflective surface 4 at a non-perpendicular angle with an optical path of the radiation beam (see Fig. 1; the beam splitter is at a non-perpendicular angle to the input beam).
As for claim 20, Raff discloses that the at least one reflective surface is a semi-transparent mirror arranged to split the radiation beam into the measurement and reference beams (element 4 is a beam splitter as per paragraph 0012; this would meet the requirements of the claim).
As for claim 21, Raff discloses that the optical system comprises a first reflective surface 4 arranged at a first non-perpendicular angle with the first optical path of the measurement beam and a second reflective surface 9 arranged at a second non-perpendicular angle with the second optical path of the reference beam (see Fig. 1 – the first reflective surface is arranged at a non-perpendicular angle with the first optical path of the measurement beam and the second optical surface is arranged at a non-perpendicular angle with the second optical path of the reference beam).
As for claim 22, Raff discloses that the first and second non-perpendicular angles are the same (see Fig. 1; these angles must be the same to allow for the transmission and reflection of light through the system as shown in the figure).
As for claim 23, Raff discloses that the at least one reflective surface reflects the reference beam (beam splitter 4 reflects part of the input radiation beam 5 and turns it into reference beam 7).
Regarding claim 31, Raff discloses (Fig. 1) a method comprising using an optical input fiber 13 connected on a probe head 2.1 (see paragraph 0020 – a variant of the interferometer of Fig. 1 shows that the optical device can be inside the probe head) to guide a radiation beam 5 from a radiation source 1 to an optical system 4, 9, in the probe head, of an interferometer system, the interferometer system configured to determine a displacement of an object of interest 8 (see paragraph 0009 and 0017 for example) ;splitting, using the optical system, the radiation beam into a measurement beam along a first optical path and a reference beam along a second optical path (see paragraph 0012, where beam splitter 2 splits input beam 5 into a measurement beam 6 and a reference beam 7), wherein the optical system recombines the measurement beam from the object of interest and the reference beam to a recombined beam 10 without the measurement beam from the object of interest passing via the splitting location (see paragraph 0013 and, in particular, Fig. 1 – the splitting is performed at splitter 4, the recombining at recombination device 9; therefore, the returned measurement beam does not pass the splitting location); using an optical output fiber 14 connected in or on the probe head separately from the optical input fiber to guide the recombined beam from the optical system to a detector 3 outside the probe head, wherein the optical input fiber and the optical output fiber are different fibers (see Fig. 1); and detecting, by the detector, the recombined beam to provide a detector signal on the basis of the received recombined beam (see paragraph 0017).
As for claim 32, Raff discloses that the optical system comprises at least one reflective surface 4 at a non-perpendicular angle with an optical path of the radiation beam (see Fig. 1; the beam splitter is at a non-perpendicular angle to the input beam).
As for claim 34, Raff discloses that the optical system is free of optical fibers (see Fig. 1, where fibers 13, 14 terminate prior to entering the probe head 2.1, showing that the optical system is free of optical fibers).
As for claim 36, Raff discloses that the at least one reflective surface is a semi-transparent mirror arranged to split the radiation beam into the measurement and reference beams (element 4 is a beam splitter as per paragraph 0012; this would meet the requirements of the claim).
Regarding claim 37, Raff (Fig. 1) discloses an interferometer system component comprising: a probe head 2.1 (see paragraph 0020 – a variant of the interferometer of Fig. 1 shows that the optical device can be inside the probe head) comprising an optical system 4, 9 therein, the optical system arranged to split a radiation beam 5 from a radiation source 1 into a measurement beam 6 along a first optical path for determining a displacement of an object of interest 8 and a reference beam 7 along a second optical path (see paragraph 0012, where beam splitter 2 splits input beam 5 into a measurement beam 6 and a reference beam 7), wherein the optical system is arranged to recombine the measurement beam from the object of interest and the reference beam to a recombined beam 10 without the measurement beam from the object of interest passing via the splitting location (see paragraph 0013 and, in particular, Fig. 1 – the splitting is performed at splitter 4, the recombining at recombination device 9; therefore, the returned measurement beam does not pass the splitting location), an optical input fiber 13 connected in or on the probe head to guide the radiation beam from the radiation source to the optical system (see Fig. 1), and an optical output fiber 14 connected in or on the probe head separately from the optical input fiber to guide the recombined beam from the optical system to a detector 3, outside the probe head (see Fig. 1), to receive the recombined beam and provide a detector signal on the basis of the received recombined beam, wherein the optical input fiber and the optical output fiber are different fibers (see Fig. 1, showing different fibers 13, 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raff (EP 0874215) in view of Deck et al (WO 2016/011024).
As for claims 27 and 33, Raff discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claims 16 and 31, respectively, but fails to disclose that the optical system comprises a circulator, having a first fiber port to which the optical input fiber is connected, a second fiber port to which the optical output fiber is connected, and a radiation port which is arranged to emit and receive radiation, wherein the circulator is arranged to guide the radiation beam received from the optical input fiber to the radiation port and to guide the recombined beam received at the radiation port to the optical output fiber
Deck, in an interferometric probe measurement system (Fig. 1), discloses that the optical system comprises a circulator (splitter 114 can be a circulator as per page 15, line 5) having a first fiber port to which the optical input fiber is connected, a second fiber port to which the optical output fiber is connected, and a radiation port which is arranged to emit and receive radiation, wherein the circulator is arranged to guide the radiation beam received from the optical input fiber to the radiation port and to guide the recombined beam received at the radiation port to the optical output fiber (see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a circulator between the light source, probe head, and detector of Raff as taught by Deck, the motivation being that a circulator will allow for transmission of light to and from the light source and the detectors with high isolation between the beams due to the operating properties of an optical circulator. Additionally, placing this circulator inside the optical head would have the added benefit of making the device more compact without changing the functionality, as it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck et al (WO 2016/011024) in view of Raff (EP 0874215).
As for claim 29, Deck discloses a lithographic apparatus (Fig. 15) comprising a mask support 1816 constructed to support a patterning device having a pattern (not shown mask as per page 39, line 16); a substrate support 1813 constructed to support a substrate (not shown; see page 38, line 21) on wafer stage 1822; a projection system 1808 arranged to project the pattern onto the substrate, wherein the mask support, substrate support, or projection system comprises an object of interest (the substrate support is the object of interest, and is measured by interferometer 1826 via object 1828). However, while Deck discloses an interferometer 1826 to determine the position of the object of interest, Deck fails to disclose the specific interferometer set forth in claim 16.
The interferometer of claim 16 is disclosed by Raff as set forth above, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the interferometer or Raff to measure the position of a lithographic apparatus in Deck, the motivation being to allow for optical measurement which takes into account any fluctuations of length changes due to temperature fluctuations, thereby reducing measurement errors (see paragraph 0007 of Raff).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deck et al (WO 2016/011024) in view of Raff (EP 0874215) and in further view of Van Der Meulen et al (WO 2018/041599).
As for claim 30, Deck discloses a lithographic apparatus (Fig. 15) comprising a mask support 1816 constructed to support a patterning device having a pattern (not shown mask as per page 39, line 16); a substrate support 1813 constructed to support a substrate having a marker (not shown; see page 38, line 21) on wafer stage 1822; a projection system 1808 arranged to project the pattern onto the substrate. However, while Deck discloses an interferometer 1826 to determine the position of the object of interest, Deck fails to disclose the specific interferometer set forth in claim 16, and fails to disclose that the interferometer determines a position of the cooling hood.
The interferometer of claim 16 is disclosed by Raff as set forth above, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the interferometer or Raff to measure the position of a lithographic apparatus in Deck, the motivation being to allow for optical measurement which takes into account any fluctuations of length changes due to temperature fluctuations, thereby reducing measurement errors (see paragraph 0007 of Raff).
Furthermore, Van Der Meulen, in a lithographic apparatus (see title), discloses a cooling hood 40 (see Figs. 1, 3A, and 41)) to provide cooling (see paragraph 000442), where an interferometer measures the position of the cooling hood (see paragraph 000448).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a cooling hood to the device of Deck and Raff as per Van Der Meulen, and to use the interferometer of Deck and Raff to measure the position of the cooling hood, the motivation being that the cooling hood is desirable to cool a substrate during a scanning exposure to compensate for heating of the substrate due to the radiation beam incident on the substrate (see paragraph 000442), while interferometrically measuring the position of the cooling hood will enable it to be properly located with relation to the substrate undergoing lithography in order to maintain cooling.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raff (EP 0874215) in view of Deck et al (WO 2016/011024).
As for claim 35, Raff discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 16, and also disclosed processing the detector signal to determine the position of the object of interest (see paragraph 0017), but fails to disclose patterning a radiation beam using a patterning device supported by a mask support; and projecting, using a projection system, the patterned radiation beam onto a substrate supported by a substrate support, wherein the mask support, substrate support or projection system comprises an object of interest.
Deck discloses an interferometric system for measuring portions of a lithographic apparatus (Fig, 15), where Deck discloses patterning a radiation beam 1810 using a patterning device (not shown mask as per page 39, line 16) supported by a mask support 1816; projecting, using a projection system 1808, the patterned radiation beam onto a substrate (not shown; see page 38, line 21) supported by a substrate support 1813 carrying wafer stage 1822, wherein the mask support, substrate support or projection system comprises an object of interest (the substrate support is the object of interest, and is measured by interferometer 1826 via object 1828); and processing the detector signal to determine the position of the object of interest (see page 16, lines 5-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the interferometer of Raff to measure an object of interest that is part of a lithographic projection system as per Deck, the motivation being that the interferometer of Raff allows for optical measurement which takes into account any fluctuations of length changes due to temperature fluctuations, thereby reducing measurement errors (see paragraph 0007 of Raff), with Deck teaching interferometric measurement of lithography tools is important as overlay during semiconductor wafer manufacturing is of critical importance (see page 36, lines 12-23), with proper positioning of the wafer being performed using dedicated sensors (see page 37, lines 7-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, in addition to the 35 USC 112(a) rejection set forth above being properly overcome for the claims on which they depend.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 24, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 19, wherein the optical system comprises a gradient index lens having a lens body with a main radiation axis, wherein the lens body comprises a fiber side and a radiation side opposite to the fiber side, wherein the optical input fiber and the optical output fiber are arranged at the fiber side of the lens body, wherein at least the measurement beam is emitted and received at the radiation side, and wherein an outer surface of the lens body at the radiation side is arranged at a non-perpendicular angle with the main radiation axis to define the at least one reflective surface at the non-perpendicular angle, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
As to claim 25, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claim 19, wherein the optical system comprises a focus lens to receive the radiation beam from an output end of the optical input fiber and to focus the recombined beam into an input end of the optical output fiber, wherein the output end and the input end are spaced at a distance of: d=f*tan(2α),wherein d is the distance between the output end and the input end, wherein f is a focal length of the focus lens, and wherein α is the angular difference between the non- perpendicular angle and a plane perpendicular with the optical path, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0154427 to Hetzler teaches a measurement apparatus for measuring the shape of an optical surface with a tilted beam splitter 46 as part of a Fizeau interferometer (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0055).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 February 17, 2026