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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 appears to have the wrong labels regarding items 126 and 128. The specification describes them oppositely as they are labeled in the figure (i.e., describes on p. 11, lines 28-32, that which as shown as 128 in the Fig. 1 as being item 126 and vice versa). Because the specification appears to be self-consistent regarding the labeling (i.e., later discussion on the following portion of p. 12), it appears the figure is in error, rather than the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 170, 172, 174, which appear to potentially correspond to loops. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “458” has been used to designate both input and output. The specification appears to refer to 456 as the input, which Examiner believes should replace the ‘458’ on the upper left of Figs. 4A-4B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “418” has been used to designate both the delay line in Figs. 4A and 4B, while in the specification, the delay line of Fig. 4B is referred to as ‘418b’ (p. 16, lines 26-30). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because there are typographical errors, and the length is beyond the 150 word limit. Additionally, the language of the Abstract is somewhat unclear for similar reasons to those discussed below regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues of claim 1, and should be corrected for clarity regarding the phrase “which pulse cascade”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Additionally, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 11, lines 28-32 (and the following portion on p. 12) disagrees with Fig. 1 regarding the numbering of items 126 and 128, however, this appears to be an issue with the Fig. as discussed above;
Page 14, lines 3-4 has a typographical error, and should read ‘and the cross axis is 0.5-2mR, or about 1mR (or lower or higher or intermediate ranges or divergences.’;
Page 15, line 19 refers to “input 452”, which should read ‘input 456’;
Page 16, line 19 refers to “delay line 408”, which should read ‘delay line 418’;
Page 17, lines 3-5 refers to “points 452 and 454”, however, 452 and 454 were previously indicated to be ‘conjugated planes’ (p. 15, line 26); it is unclear if perhaps Applicant intended this to refer to ‘points 456 and 458’, which are the input and output, respectively;
Page 17, line 18 refers to ‘across sectional view of cascader’, which Examiner believes should read ‘a cross-sectional view of cascader 504’ or ‘a cross-sectional view of the cascader’;
Page 18, lines 3-6 refers to conjugated planes at 510 and 562, however, Examiner believes this may have been a typographical error that should read ‘conjugated planes at 510 and 512’, as that is where the conjugated planes appear to be in Fig. 5;
Page 21, lines 18-19 refers to “replacing mirrors 444 of delay line 446 FIG. 4A and/or replacing mirrors 444b of delay line 446b FIG. 4B”, which does not make sense upon plain reading and also appears to have errors regarding the item numbers used; The delay line of Fig. 4A is item 418, not 446; in Fig. 4A, item 446 refers to the second curved mirror, while ‘mirrors’, if referring to both of the curved mirrors, should refer to ‘mirrors 444, 446’; The delay line of Fig. 4B is item 418b, not 446b; in Fig. 4B, item 446b refers to the second curved mirror, while ‘mirrors’, if referring to both of the curved mirrors, should refer to ‘mirrors 444b, 446b’; Accordingly, it is believed this portion should read ‘replacing mirrors 444, 446 of delay line 418 in/of FIG. 4A and/or replacing mirrors 444b, 446b of delay line 418b in/of FIG. 4B’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 15, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 4 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 3 depends on claim 1 only and requires “…wherein said delay line light output has a same beam area as said light received at said delay line input.”, while claim 4 also only depends on claim 1 and requires “wherein a magnification of said delay line is one.” Magnification is not immediately clear in this context, and as such, Examiner looked to Applicant’s disclosure for instruction on what form of magnification is being limited. According to Applicant’s specification, the magnification being unity is defined as “a beam area of the outputted light is the same as the beam area of that received by the delay line”. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret claim 4 to require ‘a beam area of the outputted light is the same as the beam area of that received by the delay line’, and the delay line can only receive and output light through the delay line input and output, respectively, and as such claim 4 requires the same limitations as claim 3 under the broadest reasonable interpretation. However, as claim 3 has not been found allowable, claim 4 is not objected to herein.
Claim 5 refers to “a delay line light path light”, which Examiner believes is a typographical error and should read ‘a delay line light path’, as claim 6 (which depends on claim 5), subsequently refers to “the delay line light path”, which would otherwise lack antecedent basis; Accordingly, the claim is not indefinite, but should be amended, and the limitation is understood, in light of the specification, as ‘a delay line light path’;
Claim 15 recites “…wherein a plurality of splitters each associated with a loop of said plurality of loops comprise…”; While definite in context, the limitation is nevertheless somewhat unclear without additional punctuation and/or rephrasing; Examiner suggests ‘…wherein a plurality of splitters, each respectively associated with a loop of said plurality of loops, comprise…’;
Claim 17 recites “…wherein splitters each associated with a loop of said plurality of loops have different transmissions.”; While definite in context, the limitation is nevertheless somewhat unclear without additional punctuation and/or rephrasing; Examiner suggests ‘…wherein splitters, respectively associated with different loops of said plurality of loops, have different transmissions.’;
Claim 20 recites “said second portion”, which should read ‘said second light portion’ to maintain consistent terminology in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites “…a pulse cascader, optically coupled to said illumination source to receive said ultraviolet illumination, which pulse cascade comprising a chain of a plurality of loops, each loop comprising…”, which is vague and indefinite. In particular, it is unclear what is intended by the phrase ‘which pulse cascade’. One could reasonably read this portion as ‘a pulse cascader…, the pulse cascader configured to pulse cascade, the pulse cascader comprising a chain of a plurality of loops…’. One could also reasonably read this portion as ‘to receive said ultraviolet illumination, the ultraviolet illumination pulse cascades, the pulse cascader comprising a chain of a plurality of loops’. Examiner additionally entertained ‘each pulse cascade’ or ‘each pulse cascader’, but concluded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not read the limitations as such in light of the specification. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear what element ‘comprising a chain…’ is intended to refer to because of the above discussed portion, although one of ordinary skill in the art would presumably understand this to refer to the pulse cascader, as it would not make sense for this to point to the UV illumination or other elements. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…a pulse cascader, optically coupled to said illumination source to receive said ultraviolet illumination, the pulse cascader comprising a chain of a plurality of loops, each loop comprising…’.
Claim 9 recites “…wherein splitters and delay lines associated with each loop of said plurality of loops are configured to orient path of light exiting the associated loop in different directions.”, which is vague and indefinite. First, the limitation does not make sense upon plain reading. Second, the limitations do not agree in number, and as such, it is not clear which limitations are required of which elements. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein splitters and delay lines associated with each loop of said plurality of loops are configured to orient respective paths of light exiting their respectively associated loop in different directions.’.
Claim 18 recites “a delay line having a delay line input optically coupled to a loop input and a delay line output, which delay line is configured to output a delay line light output, from said delay line output, comprising an image of light received at said delay line input, after a time delay from a time of receipt of light received at said delay line input”. It is unclear what is intended by ‘which delay line’, which does not make sense upon plain reading. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a delay line having a delay line input optically coupled to a loop input and a delay line output, the delay line is configured to output a delay line light output, from said delay line output, comprising an image of light received at said delay line input, after a time delay from a time of receipt of light received at said delay line input’.
Claim 19 recites “delaying said second light portion which second light portion has a same beam area and divergence as said received laser light pulse”, which is indefinite for similar reasons to claims 1 and 18 discussed above regarding ‘which’. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘delaying said second light portion, such that the second light portion has a same beam area and divergence as said received laser light pulse’.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 1-6, 8-10, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chuang (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20150364895 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches an illumination module of a wafer inspection system (Title; Abstract; [0003]) comprising:
an illumination source providing ultraviolet illumination with wavelengths below 300nm ([0005]-[0009]; [0067]; [0069]; [0093]; [0095]; [0108]);
a pulse cascader (See Fig. 1B; Abstract; [0003]; [0013]; [0016]; [0058]-[0059]), optically coupled to said illumination source to receive said ultraviolet illumination ([0005]-[0009]; [0032]), which pulse cascade comprising a chain of a plurality of loops (See Fig. 1B, 1D, 3B, each having a plurality of loops connected in sequence, and thus achieve a formation that reads on ‘a chain’), each loop comprising:
a loop input and a loop output (See Figs. 1B, 1D, 3B, items 101 and 112, 101 and 132, and 301 and 312, respectively), a first loop output optically coupled to a loop input of a subsequent loop in said chain (See Figs. 1B, 1D, 3B, output of first loop feeds input of subsequent loop in each); and a delay line (See Figs. 1B, 1D, 3B, items indicated as ‘Ring cavity’) having:
a delay line input optically coupled to said loop input (See Figs. 1B, 1D, 3B, items 101, 101, and 301 each input into the delay line); and
a delay line output (See Figs. 1B, 1D, 3B, items 112, 132, and 312 each output from the delay line), the delay line configured to output a delay line light output, from said delay line output, comprising an image of light received at said delay line input (See Figs. 1B, 1D, 3B, showing delay line light output from delay line output; [0032]-[0038]; [0058]-[0064]; [0079]-[0080]; [0092]), after a time delay from a time of receipt of light received at said delay line input (See Figs. 1B, 1D, 3B, showing a path that would inherently delay the incoming pulse for a time from the receipt of light at the delay line input to the output of the delay line light output; [0032]-[0038]; [0058]-[0064]; [0079]-[0080]; [0092]); and
a splitter (See Figs. 1B, 1D, 3B, showing items 103 and 113, 123 and 133, and 303 and 313, respectively; [0032]-[0033]; [0059]-[0060]; [0074]-[0076]) configured to receive light at a splitter input (See Figs. 1B, 1D, 3B, showing items 103 and 113, 123 and 133, and 303 and 313, respectively, receiving light 101, 101, and 301, respectively; [0032]-[0033]; [0059]-[0060]; [0074]-[0076]) and output a first portion of said light from said loop through a loop output (See Figs. 1B, 1D, 3B, showing items 103 and 113, 123 and 133, and 303 and 313, respectively, which each reflect a portion of their light and transmit a portion; [0032]-[0033]; [0059]-[0060]; [0074]-[0076]) and to pass a second portion of said light to said delay line input (See Figs. 1B, 1D, 3B, showing items 103 and 113, 123 and 133, and 303 and 313, respectively, which each reflect a portion of their light and transmit a portion to their respective ring cavity (i.e., delay line equivalent); [0032]-[0033]; [0059]-[0060]; [0074]-[0076]).
Examiner notes for completeness that additional embodiments of Chuang satisfy all of the requirements of the claim except “comprising a chain of a plurality of loops”, as they only have a single loop and use repeated reflection to create a multiplicity of pulses with controlled timings. However, as discussed later, some of these embodiments could have been equivalently applied in view of [0090].
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 1.
Chuang further teaches wherein said delay line light output has a same divergence as said light received at said delay line input ([0034]; [0037]; [0040]; [0043]; [0060]; [0068]; [0075]; [0084]).
Examiner notes for completeness that the prior art Knowles (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20020154668 A1) discusses, in regards to a similar dual mirror splitter arrangement (See Figs. 22A and 22C, and [0165]-[0166]), that the mirrors are chosen to image the output beam to be virtually the same, while if the mirror were flat, the beam divergences would spread for each repetition, but this does not occur with the arrangement of Knowles.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 1.
Chuang further teaches wherein said delay line light output has a same beam area as said light received at said delay line input ([0034]; [0037]; [0040]; [0043]; [0060]; [0068]; [0075]; [0084]).
Examiner notes for completeness that the prior art Knowles discusses, in regards to a similar dual mirror splitter arrangement (See Figs. 22A and 22C, and [0165]-[0166]), that the mirrors are chosen to image the output beam to be virtually the same, while if the mirror were flat, the beam divergences would spread for each repetition, but this does not occur with the arrangement of Knowles.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 1.
Chuang further teaches wherein a magnification of said delay line is one ([0034]; [0037]; [0040]; [0043]; [0060]; [0068]; [0075]; [0084]; Examiner notes that, as discussed above, magnification is understood as the ratio of the beam size of the input and output beams of the delay line).
Examiner notes for completeness that the prior art Knowles discusses, in regards to a similar dual mirror splitter arrangement (See Figs. 22A and 22C, and [0165]-[0166]), that the mirrors are chosen to image the output beam to be virtually the same, while if the mirror were flat, the beam divergences would spread for each repetition, but this does not occur with the arrangement of Knowles.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 1.
Chuang further teaches wherein said delay line includes at least one optical element defining a delay line light path [[light]] through said delay line (See Fig. 1B, items 106, 107, 108, 116, 117, 118; See Fig. 1D, items 108, 126, 137, 138; See Fig. 3B, items 304, 305, 306, 314, 315, 316; Each of the recited elements are optical elements and in part define a delay line light path through the ring cavity (i.e., delay line equivalent) that they are a part of);
wherein said time delay is a time taken for light to traverse said delay line light path through said delay line (See Figs. 1B, 1D, 3B, showing path of light through two delay line light paths of their respective two delay lines; Examiner notes such a light path would inherently include a time taken for light to traverse the delay line light paths of the delay lines, and that this time would be inherently the same as the time delay of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 5.
Chuang further teaches wherein said delay line light path comprises conjugate focal planes located at said delay line input and said delay line output (See Fig. 2A, showing two sets of overlapping pulses; [0033]-[0034]; [0036]; [0043]; input and output of delay line are overlapping in Chuang and thus comprise conjugate focal planes, as Chuang does not spatially separate the input and output).
For completeness, Examiner notes that in the pulser multiplier unit of Knowles, the respective sets of mirrors are positioned such that the input and output of each set comprise conjugate focal planes, which are separated in space.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 1.
Chuang further teaches wherein said splitter and said delay line are configured to orient an optical path of light exiting said loop output in a different direction to said light received by said splitter (See Figs. 1C, 1E, 3A, 4B).
However, Examiner notes that these embodiments (except for Fig. 4B) do not have a plurality of loops, as required by claim 1. Nevertheless, they disclose the concept, and Fig. 4B in view of [0090], would achieve the limitation, which discloses coupling two or more pulse multipliers such as those in Figs. 4A and 4B in the manner of Figs. 1 and 3. The arrangement of Fig. 4B coupled to a duplicate pulse multiplier would satisfy this limitation.
Furthermore, in [0080], Chuang notes that Fig. 3B displays components in a plane, but the real layout may be three dimensional, stating “For example, the input laser pulses from the direction 101 may travel above or below the optical components of the second ring cavity.
Examiner notes for completeness that, for instance, there would be nothing to stop one of ordinary skill in the art from merely applying an additional loop to those disclosed in Figs. 1D and 3B, or in fact, by applying any arbitrary odd number of additional loops to those arrangements (see [0015]; [0054]; [0072]; [0090]).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 6.
Chuang further teaches wherein splitters and delay lines associated with each loop of said plurality of loops are configured to orient path of light exiting the associated loop in different directions (See Fig. 4B; [0090], which discloses that that two or more the multipliers of Figs. 4A and 4B may be coupled together to achieve higher multiplication rates in a similar manner to those of Figs. 1 and 3; In such and an embodiment, the limitation is achieved by a coupling of two of the pulse multiplier disclosed in Fig. 4B, which would result in the light output of the second loop being in a different direction to the first).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 1.
Chuang further teaches wherein said delay line comprises a first curved mirror surface and a second curved mirror surface (See Figs. 1B and 3B, items 106/116 and 107/116, and 305/315 and 306/316), light traversing an optical path through said delay line being reflected by said first curved mirror surface and then said second curved mirror surface (See Figs. 1B and 3B, showing path of light hitting respective first and second curved mirrors and reflecting), where said first and said second curved mirror surfaces are positioned and orientated to transfer said image of light received by said delay line input to said delay line output (See Figs. 1B and 3B, showing light received by delay line input being transferred to delay line output by the first and second curved mirror surfaces).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 10.
Chuang further teaches wherein one or both of said curved mirror surfaces are spherical mirrors ([0034]; The mirrors have radii of curvature, implying at least circular; [0055]; [0080]-[0081]; Three dimensional, real embodiment would imply spherical mirrors, as cylindrical would likely be impractical).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 1.
Chuang further teaches wherein a plurality of splitters each associated with a loop of said plurality of loops comprise at least two of splitters (See Figs. 1B, 1D, 3B, as well as Figs. 4A and 4B in view of [0090], showing at least two splitters, i.e., items 103, 112, 123, 133, 303, 313) configured to direct light outputted from said cascader to an overlapping region of space ([0007]; [0016]; [0091]-[0092]; Examiner additionally notes that in each embodiment of Chuang, the ultimate output of each of the pulses is shown along the same path, and would thus inherently correspond to an overlapping region of space, except in the case of the specific disclosure of moving samples, which Chuang is not limited to).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 1.
Chuang further teaches comprising a pulsed laser light source optically coupled to said splitter input (Abstract; [0006]; [0010]; [0013]); and wherein a time taken for light to traverse said delay line is longer than a pulse duration of said light source (See Figs. 2A-2B, showing pulse lengths; [0035], disclosing exemplary optical path length, that would correspond to 3.994 ns traversal time, which is longer than a pulse duration of the light source shown in Figs. 2A-2B).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 1.
Chuang further teaches wherein splitters each associated with a loop of said plurality of loops have different transmissions (Abstract; [0045]; [0061]; [0085]).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches an illumination module of a wafer inspection system (Title; Abstract; [0003]) comprising:
a pulse cascader comprising at least one loop (See Figs. 1, 3-4; Abstract; [0003]; [0013]; [0016]; [0032]-[0040]; [0058]-[0072]; [0072]-[0080]; [0081]-[0090]) comprising:
a delay line (See Figs. 1, 3-4, see items labeled ‘ring cavity’) having a delay line input (See Figs. 1, 3-4, items 101, 121, 301, 401, 411) optically coupled to a loop input (See Figs. 1, 3-4, items 101, 121, 301, 401, 411; Examiner notes the loop input and delay line input are schematically located together) and a delay line output (See Figs. 1, 3-4, items 102, 112, 122, 132, 302, 312, 402, 412), which delay line is configured to output a delay line light output, from said delay line output, comprising an image of light received at said delay line input (See Figs. 1, 3-4, showing delay line light output from delay line output; [0032]-[0040]; [0058]-[0072]; [0072]-[0080]; [0081]-[0090]; [0092]), after a time delay from a time of receipt of light received at said delay line input (See Figs. 1, 3-4, showing a path that would inherently delay the incoming pulse for a time from the receipt of light at the delay line input to the output of the delay line light output; [0032]-[0040]; [0058]-[0072]; [0072]-[0080]; [0081]-[0090]; [0092]); and
a splitter (See Figs. 1, 3-4, items 103, 113, 123, 133, 303, 313, 407, 413, 417) configured to receive light at a splitter input (See Figs. 1, 3-4, items 103, 113, 123, 133, 303, 313, 407, 413, 417, receiving light at an input thereto; [0032]-[0040]; [0058]-[0072]; [0072]-[0080]; [0081]-[0090]) and output a first portion of said light from said loop through a loop output (See Figs 1, 3-4, showing each of the items 103, 113, 123, 133, 303, 313, 407, 413, 417, which each reflect a portion of their light and transmit a portion; [0032]-[0033]; [0059]-[0060]; [0074]-[0076]; [0082]; [0085]-[0087]) and to pass a second portion of said light to said delay line input (See Figs 1, 3-4, showing each of the items 103, 113, 123, 133, 303, 313, 407, 413, 417, which each reflect a portion of their light and transmit a portion, some of which passes to the delay line input; [0032]-[0033]; [0059]-[0060]; [0074]-[0076]; [0082]; [0085]-[0087]).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches a method of optical inspection (Abstract; [0003]; [0005]; [0010]; [0016]) comprising:
receiving a laser light pulse having a beam area and a divergence (Abstract; [0006]; [0010]; [0013]; The laser pulses inherently have beam areas and divergences);
splitting said laser light pulse into a first light portion and a second light portion (See Figs 1, 3-4, showing each of the items 103, 113, 123, 133, 303, 313, 407, 413, 417, which each reflect a portion of their light and transmit a portion, which reads on ‘splitting’ into ‘a first light portion’ and ‘a second light portion’; [0032]-[0033]; [0059]-[0060]; [0074]-[0076]; [0082]; [0085]-[0087]);
outputting said first light portion (See Figs 1, 3-4, showing each of the items 103, 113, 123, 133, 303, 313, 407, 413, 417, which each reflect a portion of their light and transmit a portion, wherein the transmitted portion corresponds to the first light portion that is outputted; [0032]-[0033]; [0059]-[0060]; [0074]-[0076]; [0082]; [0085]-[0087]);
delaying said second light portion which second light portion has a same beam area and divergence as said received laser light pulse (See Figs. 1, 3-4, items labeled ‘ring cavity’, each of which delay the portion of light directed therethrough, whilst maintaining beam characteristics; [0032]-[0033]; [0034]; [0040]; [0043]; [0059]-[0060]; [0068]; [0074]-[0076]; [0082]; [0084]; [0085]-[0087]); and
repeating said splitting with said second light portion, at least once (See Figs 1, 3-4, either the portion which is re-split for another route through the ring cavity just traversed, or splitting the portion that has just traversed the ring cavity to a downstream ring cavity, which will have a splitter at the start thereof; [0032]-[0033]; [0034]; [0040]; [0043]; [0059]-[0060]; [0068]; [0074]-[0076]; [0082]; [0084]; [0085]-[0087]; [0090]).
Examiner notes for completeness that the prior art Knowles discusses, in regards to a similar dual mirror splitter arrangement (See Figs. 22A and 22C, and [0165]-[0166]), that the mirrors are chosen to image the output beam to be virtually the same, while if the mirror were flat, the beam divergences would spread for each repetition, but this does not occur with the arrangement of Knowles.
Regarding claim 20, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the method according to claim 19.
Chung further teaches wherein delaying comprises changing a direction of said second portion from a direction of said received laser light pulse (See Figs. 1, 3-4, each showing the reflected (i.e., not transmitted portion), which corresponds to the second light portion, changing directions from the direction of the received laser light pulse, i.e., toward the first mirror; [0032]-[0033]; [0034]; [0040]; [0043]; [0059]-[0060]; [0068]; [0074]-[0076]; [0082]; [0084]; [0085]-[0087]).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20150364895 A1) in view of Knowles (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20020154668 A1).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 6.
Chuang does not explicitly teach wherein said loop output is separated from said loop input by a distance.
However, Chuang does disclose an embodiment which is capable of having loop output separated from loop input by a distance, given a modification, and having the input and output be at conjugate focal planes in Fig. 4B. However, as disclosed, this is insufficient to teach the limitation.
Knowles teaches wherein said loop output is separated from said loop input by a distance (See Figs. 22A and 22C, wherein loop input is where light 20 enters and impinges on splitter 22/22a, and for Fig. 22A, the loop output is after the light hits second splitter 29, and for Fig. 22C, the loop output is either after splitter 22B or 22C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chuang to include wherein said loop output is separated from said loop input by a distance, as taught by Knowles.
Doing so would be obvious, as separating the input from the output spatially is disclosed by Knowles, and because Chuang discloses controlling the size of the ring cavity to position the beam waist specifically within the optical path of the cavity, and thus could adapt for such a difference in path length via a known method, with a reasonable expectation of success, which would allow one to use the physical spacing of the input and the output to control the pulse spacing via an equivalent prior art disclosed alternative.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20150364895 A1).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang teaches the illumination module according to claim 10.
Chuang further teaches comprising a third mirror surface (See Fig. 4B, mirror 416) where light traversing said optical path is reflected by said third mirror between reflections at said first and said second curved mirror surfaces (See Fig. 4B, showing first reflection off mirror 415, then to mirror 416, then to mirror 415 again at a different portion of mirror 415; [0090]).
However, in this embodiment of Chuang, there is only a single curved mirror surface, in place of two mirror surfaces. This single curved mirror surface works equivalently to the required two mirror surfaces, and thus only differs in construction as being integral, rather than in various parts. Furthermore, in various other embodiments, Chuang discloses plural curved mirror surfaces, and discloses embodiments including plural curved mirror surfaces combined with additional mirror surfaces (e.g. flat mirrors).
In other words, Chuang discloses the claimed invention except for the mirror surface that cooperates with the third mirror in the manner required by the claim being integral, rather than the required various elements of the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chuang to explicitly include modifying the single curved surface 415 in Fig. 4B to be in plural elements (e.g., merely cutting out a section of unused middle surface), since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang, as modified, teaches the illumination module according to claim 11.
Chuang, as modified, further teaches wherein said third mirror surface changes a direction of said optical path by at least 90 degrees, folding said optical path (See Fig. 4B, item 416, shown folding the optical path by more than 90°; [0085]; [0090]).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Chuang, as modified, teaches the illumination module according to claim 12.
Chuang, as modified, further teaches wherein said third mirror surface is a planar mirror surface (See Fig. 4B, item 416, shown as a planar mirror surface; [0085]; [0090]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Otsuki (TW 469501 B);
Marchitto (US 20050010198 A1);
Chuang’596 (US 20140153596 A1);
Chuang’540 (US 20160099540 A1);
Ershov (US 7999915 B2);
Messinis (Messinis, C. (2022). Dark-Field Digital Holographic Microscopy For Advanced Semiconductor Metrology. [PhD Thesis - Research and graduation internal, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam]);
Smith (US 6535531 B1);
Ohshima (US 20070070337 A1);
Nguyen (US 7813406 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights