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
The amendments filed 18 December 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-19 and 49 remain pending in the application (claims 20-48 have been cancelled). The Applicant’s amendments to the claims fail to overcome the rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 22 September 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6, the Applicant argues against the interpretation of limitations “a rotational module,” “an optical source module,” and “a storage module” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), however, their arguments are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim elements as having sufficiently defined structure without showing any sufficient structure claimed, therefore, the Examiner disagrees. The MPEP describes the 3-prong analysis that claim limitations must meet in order to have a 112(f) interpretation applied, which in summary include: (A) the term “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder; (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language; and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts (see MPEP 2181 I). The aforementioned limitations meet all three prong stated above and are therefore interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Additionally, the Applicant argues that the previous office action failed to refer to the specification, dictionaries, or prior art to support the 112(f) interpretation, however, the limitations only need to pass the 3-prong analysis stated above in order to be interpreted under 112(f). The sources mentioned should be used to determine (after the 112(f) interpretation) whether sufficient structure is provided.
Additionally, the Applicant argues against the interpretation of “storage module” specifically and cites recent case law which determined that “a storage adapted to: store…” is not drafted in means plus function format and therefore does not trigger 112(f) interpretation. There are large differences between this example and the Applicant’s current claims, the main difference being that the current claims include a generic placeholder (storage module). Although “storage” and “storage module” are similar (as the Applicant states) they are not the same and therefore the case law does not apply to this limitation.
On pages 6-7, the Applicant argues against the 112(b) rejection of claim 19, stating that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the phrase “a storage module,” as used in the instant application, refers to a component or system for storing data. While this is partially true, specific structure is required in the written description. The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function (MPEP 2181 II A).
Additionally, [t]he following guidance is provided to determine whether applicant has complied with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked:
(A) If the corresponding structure, material or acts are described in the specification in specific terms (e.g., an emitter-coupled voltage comparator), are linked to or associated with the claimed function and one skilled in the art could identify the structure, material or acts from that description as being adequate to perform the claimed function, then the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and (f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second and sixth paragraphs and are satisfied. See Atmel, 198 F.3d at 1382, 53 USPQ2d 1231.
(B) If the corresponding structure, material or acts are described in the specification in broad generic terms and the specific details of which are incorporated by reference to another document (e.g., attachment means disclosed in U.S. Patent No. X, which is hereby incorporated by reference, or a comparator as disclosed in the Y article, which is hereby incorporated by reference), Office personnel must review the description in the specification, without relying on any material from the incorporated document, and apply the "one skilled in the art" analysis to determine whether one skilled in the art could identify the corresponding structure (or material or acts) for performing the recited function to satisfy the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. (MPEP 2181 III).
There is no mention anywhere in the Applicant’s written description of the specific structure, material, or acts for “a storage module.” Just because one (or an AI tool) can come up with examples of what a storage module could be does not mean that a specific structure has been provided. For the reasons set forth above, both the 112(f) interpretation and the 112(b) rejection have not been overcome.
On pages 7-10, the Applicant argues against the prior art combination used to teach claims 1, 5, and 6. Firstly, the Applicant states that none of Huang, Dresel, or Liu teaches using first and second light of different frequencies or wavelength, or different polarizations. As shown from ¶46 of Huang, two beams (105a and 105b) are created by a shearing prism with different polarization, so Huang does teach two lines of light with different polarizations. The Examiner agrees that the above references make no mention of the two lines of light having different frequencies or wavelengths, however, that is why Takesue was brought in.
Additionally, the Applicant states that none of the optical systems of Huang, Dresel, or Liu could function when using first and second light of different frequencies or wavelengths, or polarizations. As stated above, the different polarizations are already taught. As is clear from the figures, both beams 105a and 105b (having different polarizations) are directed towards the sample 103, so it is unclear where the Applicant is getting the information of only one polarization being provided to the sample. Additionally, in Takesue, there is an emitter emitting a single beam of light which then interacts with an optical device 23 to create two lights having different frequencies (see abstract). These two lights then pass through a polarized beam splitter (27) as states in Huang, so these two references can certainly be combined for the reasons set forth in the previous office action. For the above reasons, the references previously set forth, in combination, teach each and every limitation of the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a rotational module” in claim 19: the rotational module comprises a rotating platen (¶57).
“an optical source module” in claim 19: In some embodiments, the optical source module comprises an optical source configured to emit the first and second lines of light. In some embodiments, the optical source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) or superluminescent diode (SLD) In some embodiments, the optical source module further comprises an acousto-optic frequency shifter (AOFS) configured to introduce a frequency or wavelength shift between the first line of light and the second line of light. In some embodiments, the optical source module comprises a first optical source configured to emit the first line of light and a second optical source configured to emit the second line of light. In some embodiments, the first optical source or the second optical source comprises an LED, an SLD, or a laser (¶29).
“a storage module”: no structure is provided for the storage module in the Applicant’s specification.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 19 is 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 limitation “a storage module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide any structure that performs a storage function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (USPGPub 20200033117 A1) in view of Dresel et al. (USPGPub 20150192769 A1), Liu et al. (USPGPub 20210033386 A1), and Takesue et al. (USPGPub 20140374575 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a method for measuring a slope property of a surface, comprising: ii) directing a first light (105a) at the surface (103); iii) directing a second light (105b) at the surface (103); iv) receiving the first and second lines of light, the first and second lines of light having a shear distance between one another (¶33, To generate shearing fringes, a shearing prism 130 may split the illumination beam 101 into two beamlets 105a, 105b. The beamlets 105a, 105b are then reflected from the sample 130 at different locations and recombined by the shearing prism 130. The combined illumination 107 is then directed to the detector assembly 120 such that the detector assembly 120 may capture one or more interferograms having variations indicative of the slope of features on the sample 103); and v) detecting an interference pattern between the first and second lines of light (¶33, The combined illumination 107 is then directed to the detector assembly 120 such that the detector assembly 120 may capture one or more interferograms having variations indicative of the slope of features on the sample 103); and c) determining the slope property of the surface (103) based upon the plurality of interference patterns (¶30, the detector assembly 120 may capture one or more interferograms having variations indicative of the topology of the sample 103; and ¶33, The combined illumination 107 is then directed to the detector assembly 120 such that the detector assembly 120 may capture one or more interferograms having variations indicative of the slope of features on the sample 103); wherein the first light (105a) comprises a first polarization and the second light (105b) comprises a second polarization different from the first polarization (¶46, the prism chuck 110 includes one or more shearing prisms 130 (shown in FIGS. 3-5) configured to shear the illumination beam 101 into two beamlets 105a, 105b having orthogonal polarizations along a specified direction). However, Huang fails to explicitly teach a) for each angle of a plurality of angles: i) rotating the surface through the angle about an axis; b) generating a plurality of interference patterns, each interference pattern of the plurality of interference patterns corresponding to an angle of the plurality of angles; determining the height property of the surface based upon the plurality of interference patterns; and wherein the first light comprises a first frequency or wavelength and the second light comprises a second frequency or wavelength different from the first frequency or wavelength.
However, Dresel teaches a) for each angle of a plurality of angles: i) rotating the surface through the angle (¶39, the test object is rotated relative to the microscope for successive images; see ¶76 for further details; ¶10, the stage having at least one rotational degree of freedom relative to the microscope and having an angular range of 10.degree. or more for varying an angular orientation of the test object relative to the microscope; and an electronic processor in communication with the microscope, in which the microscope acquires, during operation, multiple images of different areas of the non-flat surface, where each image comprises a region of overlap with at least one adjacent image and at least some of the images are acquired for different angular orientations of the test object with respect to the objective; and see ¶77 for further details); and b) generating a plurality of interference patterns, each interference pattern of the plurality of interference patterns corresponding to an angle of the plurality of angles (¶67, Interferometric imaging systems, such as the CSI microscope 100 in FIG. 1, combine measurement wavefronts reflected from a surface of interest with reference wavefronts reflected from a reference surface to produce an interference pattern; and ¶10, the stage having at least one rotational degree of freedom relative to the microscope and having an angular range of 10.degree. or more for varying an angular orientation of the test object relative to the microscope; and an electronic processor in communication with the microscope, in which the microscope acquires, during operation, multiple images of different areas of the non-flat surface, where each image comprises a region of overlap with at least one adjacent image and at least some of the images are acquired for different angular orientations of the test object with respect to the objective).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang to incorporate the teachings of Dresel to further include imaging the test object at a plurality of angles because, [w]ith the large angular range and additional degrees of freedom provided by the staging, the slope acceptance of the imaging system can be increased for non-flat test object surfaces. Furthermore, due to the high lateral resolution of the microscope, overlapping images of even polished surfaces can be combined by identifying common high-frequency surface features (Dresel, ¶6). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach determining the height property of the surface based upon the plurality of interference patterns; and wherein the first light comprises a first frequency or wavelength and the second light comprises a second frequency or wavelength different from the first frequency or wavelength.
However, Liu teaches determining the height property of the surface based upon the plurality of interference patterns (¶25, the interferometer sub-system 102a may include any interferometer sub-system known in the art including, but not limited to, a Fizeau interferometer sub-system 102a, a shearing interferometer sub-system 102a, and the like. In this regard, the interferometer sub-system 102a illustrated in FIG. 2 may be configured to perform surface height measurements and/or surface slope measurements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang and Dresel to incorporate the teachings of Liu to further include determining height using a shearing interferometer as using a shearing interferometer to determine height is well known in the art (see pertinent prior cited in previous office action). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the first light comprises a first frequency or wavelength and the second light comprises a second frequency or wavelength different from the first frequency or wavelength.
However, Takesue teaches wherein the first light comprises a first frequency or wavelength and the second light comprises a second frequency or wavelength different from the first frequency or wavelength (¶155, A coherent light like a laser emitted from a light source is modulated into two lights with substantially different frequencies by an acoustic optical device or a spatial modulator as a first means; and see ¶155-156 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang, Dresel, and Liu to incorporate the teachings of Takesue to provide two lights of different frequencies in order to increase resolution (Takesue, see ¶60 for details).
Regarding claim 2, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the surface (Huang 103 | Dresel 700 | Liu 103 | Takesue G1) comprises a surface of an optical component (Dresel, ¶118, The test object 700 is a lens similar to the lenses used in mobile phone cameras).
Regarding claim 3, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the optical component comprises an aspheric optical component (Dresel, ¶44, In some implementations, the test object is an aspheric lens).
Regarding claim 4, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the aspheric optical component comprises an aspheric lens (Dresel, ¶44, In some implementations, the test object is an aspheric lens).
Regarding claim 5, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first light comprises a first line of light (Huang 105a | Liu 105a | Takesue LA) and the second light comprises a second line of light (Huang 105b | Liu 105b | Takesue LB) (Huang, see figure 2A).
Regarding claim 6, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the first line of light (Huang 105a | Liu 105a) is along a radial direction with respect to the axis and the second line of light (Huang 105b | Liu 105b) is along a radial direction with respect to the axis (Huang, see figure 2A; and ¶33, To generate shearing fringes, a shearing prism 130 may split the illumination beam 101 into two beamlets 105a, 105b. The beamlets 105a, 105b are then reflected from the sample 130 at different locations and recombined by the shearing prism 130. The combined illumination 107 is then directed to the detector assembly 120 such that the detector assembly 120 may capture one or more interferograms having variations indicative of the slope of features on the sample 103).
Regarding claim 7, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a portion of the first light or a portion of the second light is substantially normal to the surface along at least one axis (Dresel, ¶36, Acquiring the images with the microscope can include sequentially orienting that test object so that the locations have their respective normals substantially parallel to an axis of the microscope. The microscope can include a mount configured to hold the test object and orient it over a range of orientations sufficient to sequentially make normals of the locations substantially parallel to the axis of the microscope; and ¶78, the staging adjusts the relative position and orientation of the part with respect to the objective head 108 of the CSI microscope 100 (e.g., so that the normal of local planar regions on the test object surface are oriented parallel to an optical axis of the objective 108)).
Regarding claim 8, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first light (Huang 105a | Liu 105a | Takesue LA) is substantially parallel to the second light (Huang 105b | Liu 105b | Takesue LB) (Huang, see figure 2A, beamlets 105a and 105b being substantially parallel; and ¶45, the illumination beam 101 is sheared into two beamlets 105a, 105b along a first shearing direction).
Regarding claim 9, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to (a)(ii), introducing the shear distance between the first light (Huang 105a | Liu 105a | Takesue LA) and the second light (Huang 105b | Liu 105b | Takesue LB) (Huang, see figure 2A, prism chuck 110, including shearing prisms 130, shearing light beam 105 prior to collimator 112 directing beam towards sample 103; and ¶45, The illumination beam 101 may then be directed to the prism chuck 110 including one or more shearing prisms 130, where the illumination beam 101 is sheared into two beamlets 105a, 105b).
Regarding claim 10, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, subsequent to (a)(iii), introducing the shear distance between the first light (Huang 105a | Liu 105a | Takesue LA) and the second light (Huang 105b | Liu 105b | Takesue LB) (Huang, see figure 3A, beam splitter 106 directs light beam 105 towards sample 103, and afterwards shears the light beam using prism chuck 110).
Regarding claim 11, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising repeating (a)-(c) for a plurality of shear distances between the first light (Huang 105a | Liu 105a | Takesue LA) and the second light (Huang 105b | Liu 105b | Takesue LB) (Huang, ¶52, In shearing interferometry (e.g., shearing mode), the illumination beam 101 may be sheared along various defined shearing directions in order to measure a slope of a sample (e.g., sample 103) along the defined direction. For example, the illumination beam 101 may be sheared into two beamlets 105a, 105b separated along a vertical shearing direction in order to measure surface slope of the sample 103 along the vertical direction. By way of another example, the illumination beam 101 may be sheared into two beamlets 105a, 105b separated along a horizontal shearing direction in order to measure surface slope of the sample 103 along the horizontal direction; ¶53, the prism chuck 110 may facilitate switching between vertical and horizontal shearing measurements; and see remainder of ¶53 for further details).
Regarding claim 12, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the height property comprises a mid-spatial frequency (MSF) spectrum or a topography of the surface (Huang 103 | Dresel 700 | Liu 103 | Takesue G1) (Huang, ¶30, the detector assembly 120 may capture one or more interferograms having variations indicative of the topology of the sample 103).
Regarding claim 13, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 1, wherein (c) comprises: i) determining a plurality of differences in surface height between a first plurality of locations on the first light (Huang 105a | Liu 105a | Takesue LA) and a second plurality of locations on the second light (Huang 105b | Liu 105b | Takesue LB) based upon the plurality of interference patterns (Huang, ¶33, a shearing prism 130 may split the illumination beam 101 into two beamlets 105a, 105b. The beamlets 105a, 105b are then reflected from the sample 130 at different locations and recombined by the shearing prism 130. The combined illumination 107 is then directed to the detector assembly 120 such that the detector assembly 120 may capture one or more interferograms having variations indicative of the slope of features on the sample 103); and ii) determining the height property based upon the plurality of differences in surface height (Huang, ¶30, the detector assembly 120 may capture one or more interferograms having variations indicative of the topology of the sample 103).
Regarding claim 14, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to (a)(ii), orthogonally polarizing the first light (Huang 105a | Liu 105a | Takesue LA) with respect to the second light (Huang 105b | Liu 105b | Takesue LB) (Huang, see figure 2A, polarizing beam splitter 106 polarizing the light beam prior to beams 105a and 105b being directed towards sample 103; and ¶46, the prism chuck 110 includes one or more shearing prisms 130 (shown in FIGS. 3-5) configured to shear the illumination beam 101 into two beamlets 105a, 105b having orthogonal polarizations along a specified direction).
Regarding claim 49, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising repeating (a)-(c) for a plurality of shear distances between the first light (Huang 105a | Liu 105a | Takesue LA) and the second light (Huang 105b | Liu 105b | Takesue LB) (Huang, ¶52, In shearing interferometry (e.g., shearing mode), the illumination beam 101 may be sheared along various defined shearing directions in order to measure a slope of a sample (e.g., sample 103) along the defined direction. For example, the illumination beam 101 may be sheared into two beamlets 105a, 105b separated along a vertical shearing direction in order to measure surface slope of the sample 103 along the vertical direction. By way of another example, the illumination beam 101 may be sheared into two beamlets 105a, 105b separated along a horizontal shearing direction in order to measure surface slope of the sample 103 along the horizontal direction; ¶53, the prism chuck 110 may facilitate switching between vertical and horizontal shearing measurements; and see remainder of ¶53 for further details).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (USPGPub 20200033117 A1) in view of Dresel et al. (USPGPub 20150192769 A1), Liu et al. (USPGPub 20210033386 A1), and Takesue et al. (USPGPub 20140374575 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Dorundo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5926266 A).
Regarding claim 15, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the first light (Huang 105a | Liu 105a | Takesue LA) and the second light (Huang 105b | Liu 105b | Takesue LB) (Huang, see figure 2A). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach subsequent to (a)(iii) and prior to (a)(iv), parallelly polarizing the first line of light with respect to the second line of light.
However, Dorundo teaches subsequent to (a)(iii) and prior to (a)(iv), parallelly polarizing the first line of light with respect to the second line of light (claim 10, a polarizing beamsplitter in which said elliptically polarized returning beam is split into a first returning sub-beam polarized in a fifth direction and a second returning sub-beam, polarized in a sixth direction, parallel to said fifth direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang, Dresel, Liu, and Takesue to incorporate the teachings of Dorundo to have the returning light be parallelly polarized in order to selectively pass light to determine changes in polarization, allowing the device to measure changes in the sample.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (USPGPub 20200033117 A1) in view of Dresel et al. (USPGPub 20150192769 A1), Liu et al. (USPGPub 20210033386 A1), and Takesue et al. (USPGPub 20140374575 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (Analysis of the temporal coherence function of a femtosecond optical frequency comb).
Regarding claim 16, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches the first light (Huang 105a | Liu 105a | Takesue LA) and the second light (Huang 105b | Liu 105b | Takesue LB) (Huang, see figure 2A). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the light has a temporal coherence of at most 1,000 femtoseconds (fs).
However, Wei teaches wherein the light has a temporal coherence of at most 1,000 femtoseconds (fs) (page 7015, The pulse duration, repetition rate, and total output power of the fiber laser are 180 femtosecond, 100 MHz, and 20 mW, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang, Dresel, Liu, and Takesue to incorporate the teachings of Wei to have a temporal coherence in the aforementioned range because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claim 17, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches interference patterns (Huang, ¶30, the detector assembly 120 may capture one or more interferograms having variations indicative of the topology of the sample 103; and Dresel, ¶10 and ¶67). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach generating the plurality of interference patterns at a rate of at least 100 Hertz (Hz).
However, Wei teaches generating the plurality of interference patterns at a rate of at least 100 Hertz (Hz) (page 7015, The pulse duration, repetition rate, and total output power of the fiber laser are 180 femtosecond, 100 MHz, and 20 mW, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang, Dresel, Liu, and Takesue to incorporate the teachings of Wei to have a rate in the aforementioned range because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (USPGPub 20200033117 A1) in view of Dresel et al. (USPGPub 20150192769 A1), Liu et al. (USPGPub 20210033386 A1), and Takesue et al. (USPGPub 20140374575 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chuang et al. (USPGPub 20190244343 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Huang as modified by Dresel, Liu, and Takesue teaches determining the height property of the surface (Huang 103 | Dresel 700 | Liu 103 | Takesue G1) (Huang, ¶30, the detector assembly 120 may capture one or more interferograms having variations indicative of the topology of the sample 103; and ¶32, variations in interference fringes in an interferogram captured by the detector assembly 120 may be indicative of surface height variations on the sample 103). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach determining the property of the surface with a spatial resolution of 25 micrometers (µm) or less.
However, Chuang teaches determining the property of the surface with a spatial resolution of 25 micrometers (µm) or less (¶25, In some embodiments, a laser system can include a spatial resolution of 1.8 micrometers in the Z-direction, a spatial resolution of 10-20 micrometers in the X-Y direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang, Dresel, Liu, and Takesue to incorporate the teachings of Wei to have a rate in the aforementioned range because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (USPGPub 20200033117 A1) in view of Liu et al. (USPGPub 20210033386 A1), Dresel et al. (USPGPub 20150192769 A1), Baldwin (U.S. Patent No. 4930894 A), and Takesue et al. (USPGPub 20140374575 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Huang teaches a system for measuring a slope property of a surface, comprising: b) an optical source module (104) configured to direct a first light (105a) and a second light (105b) at the surface (103) (¶33, To generate shearing fringes, a shearing prism 130 may split the illumination beam 101 into two beamlets 105a, 105b. The beamlets 105a, 105b are then reflected from the sample 130 at different locations and recombined by the shearing prism 130. The combined illumination 107 is then directed to the detector assembly 120 such that the detector assembly 120 may capture one or more interferograms having variations indicative of the slope of features on the sample 103; and ¶40, The illumination source 104 may include any illumination source known in the art including, but not limited to, a broadband illumination source (e.g., discharge lamp, laser-sustained plasma (LSP) source), a narrowband illumination source (e.g., a laser source), and the like); c) an optical detector (120) configured to receive the first and second lines of light and detect an interference pattern between the first and second lights, the first and second lights having a shear distance between one another (¶33, The combined illumination 107 is then directed to the detector assembly 120 such that the detector assembly 120 may capture one or more interferograms having variations indicative of the slope of features on the sample 103; and see ¶44-54 for shearing details); and d) a storage module (126) configured to store the interference patterns, thereby generating a plurality of interference patterns (¶39, The one or more processors 124 may be configured to store the generated interferograms in memory 126); wherein the first light (105a) comprises a first polarization and the second light (105b) comprises a second polarization different from the first polarization (¶46, the prism chuck 110 includes one or more shearing prisms 130 (shown in FIGS. 3-5) configured to shear the illumination beam 101 into two beamlets 105a, 105b having orthogonal polarizations along a specified direction). However, Huang fails to explicitly teach measuring a height property; and a) a rotational module configured to rotate the surface about an axis through a plurality of angles; wherein the rotational module comprises a rotating platen; and wherein the first light comprises a first frequency or wavelength and the second light comprises a second frequency or wavelength different from the first frequency or wavelength.
However, Liu teaches measuring a height property (¶25, the interferometer sub-system 102a may include any interferometer sub-system known in the art including, but not limited to, a Fizeau interferometer sub-system 102a, a shearing interferometer sub-system 102a, and the like. In this regard, the interferometer sub-system 102a illustrated in FIG. 2 may be configured to perform surface height measurements and/or surface slope measurements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang to incorporate the teachings of Liu to further include determining height using a shearing interferometer as using a shearing interferometer to determine height is well known in the art (see pertinent prior art below). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a) a rotational module configured to rotate the surface through a plurality of angles; wherein the rotational module comprises a rotating platen; and wherein the first light comprises a first frequency or wavelength and the second light comprises a second frequency or wavelength different from the first frequency or wavelength.
However, Dresel teaches a) a rotational module configured to rotate the surface about an axis through a plurality of angles (¶39, the test object is rotated relative to the microscope for successive images; see ¶76 for further details; ¶10, the stage having at least one rotational degree of freedom relative to the microscope and having an angular range of 10.degree. or more for varying an angular orientation of the test object relative to the microscope; and an electronic processor in communication with the microscope, in which the microscope acquires, during operation, multiple images of different areas of the non-flat surface, where each image comprises a region of overlap with at least one adjacent image and at least some of the images are acquired for different angular orientations of the test object with respect to the objective; and see ¶77 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang and Liu to incorporate the teachings of Dresel to further include imaging the test object at a plurality of angles because, [w]ith the large angular range and additional degrees of freedom provided by the staging, the slope acceptance of the imaging system can be increased for non-flat test object surfaces. Furthermore, due to the high lateral resolution of the microscope, overlapping images of even polished surfaces can be combined by identifying common high-frequency surface features (Dresel, ¶6). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the rotational module comprises a rotating platen; and wherein the first light comprises a first frequency or wavelength and the second light comprises a second frequency or wavelength different from the first frequency or wavelength.
However, Baldwin teaches wherein the rotational module comprises a rotating platen (19) (see figure 1, platen 19 with sample 18 disposed thereon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang, Liu, and Dresel to incorporate the teachings of Baldwin to use a platen as a stage as a stage and a platen are equivalents used to support a sample (MPEP 2144.06 II). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the first light comprises a first frequency or wavelength and the second light comprises a second frequency or wavelength different from the first frequency or wavelength.
However, Takesue teaches wherein the first light comprises a first frequency or wavelength and the second light comprises a second frequency or wavelength different from the first frequency or wavelength (¶155, A coherent light like a laser emitted from a light source is modulated into two lights with substantially different frequencies by an acoustic optical device or a spatial modulator as a first means; and see ¶155-156 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang, Liu, Dresel, and Baldwin to incorporate the teachings of Takesue to provide two lights of different frequencies in order to increase resolution (Takesue, see ¶60 for details).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878