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 .
Claims status: amended claims: 1 & 24; the rest is unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in 1st para. of pg.8 of the remarks that the prior arts do not teach “a detector positioned in a path of light between a light source in an optical system and a specimen for which the optical system performs a process, which includes: a center cut-out configured to allow only a first portion of the light from the light source to pass therethrough and be directed to the specimen by the optical system during the process; and four or more detector segments positioned around the center cut-out and in a path of only a second portion of the light from the light source and configured to separately generate output responsive to the second portion of the light from the light source that has not been returned from the specimen”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Litman et al. et al. teach: a detector (fig.1 item 70) positioned in a path of light (fig.1 item 21) between a light source (fig.1 item 61) in an optical system and a specimen (fig.1 item 10) for which the optical system performs a process, which includes: a center cut-out (fig.1 item 76) configured to allow only a first portion of the light from the light source to pass therethrough and be directed to the specimen by the optical system during the process; and four or more (fig.1 items 71-74) detector segments positioned around the center cut-out and in a path of only a second portion of the light from the light source and configured to separately generate output responsive to the second portion of the light from the light source that has not been returned from the specimen (para. [0036]). Therefore, the rejection is maintained and made finale because the amendment changes the scope of the claim.
In 1st para. of pg.9 of the remarks that Litman et al. do not teach the amendments to claims 1 & 24: detector 70 does not detect light from the light source that has not been returned from the specimen. The examiner respectfully disagrees, in para. [0036] Litman et al. teach detectors 70 detect light that did not pass through pellicle 30. Therefore, the rejection is maintained and made finale because the amendment changes the scope of the claim.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 13-15, 18-21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litman et al. (US 2015/0028203 A1; pub. Jan. 29, 2015) in view of Juschkin et al. (US 2021/0262944 A1; pub. Aug. 26, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Litman et al. disclose: A system configured for determining one or more characteristics of light in an optical system, comprising: a detector (fig.1 items 71-74) positioned in a path of light (fig.1 item 21) between a light source (fig.1 item 61) in the optical system and a specimen (fig.1 item 10) for which the optical system performs a process, wherein the detector (para. [0024], [0026], [0032]) comprises:
a center cut-out (fig.1 item 76) configured to allow only a first portion of the light from the light source to pass therethrough, wherein the first portion of the light is directed to the specimen by the optical system during the process (para. [0024], [0026], [0032]); and
four or more detector segments (fig.1 items 71-74) positioned around the center cut-out (fig.1 item 76) and in a path of only a second portion of the light from the light source (para. [0024], [0026], [0032], [0036]), wherein the four or more detector segments are configured to separately generate output responsive to the light incident thereon (para. [0024], [0026], [0032]) and wherein the light incident thereon is the second portion of the light from the light source that has not been returned from the specimen (para. [0036]).
Litman et al. are silent about: a control subsystem configured for determining one or more characteristics of the light from the light source based on the output separately generated by the four or more detector segments.
In a similar field of endeavor, Juschkin et al. disclose: a control subsystem configured for determining one or more characteristics of the light from the light source based on the output separately generated by the four or more detector segments (abstract, para. [0033], fig.3A & 3B) motivated by the benefits for improved imaging without an equivalent increase in cost or complexity of the optics or the radiation source (Juschkin et al. para. [0020]).
In light of the benefits for improved imaging without an equivalent increase in cost or complexity of the optics or the radiation source as taught by Juschkin et al., 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 apparatus of Litman et al. with the teachings of Juschkin et al.
Regarding claim 2, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the first portion is greater than a majority of the light and less than all of the light (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, para. [0032] of Litman et al. teaches that the detectors can have different shape & size).
Regarding claim 3, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the second portion of the light is approximately equal to a minimum amount of the light required for determining the one or more (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the first and second portions of the light are mutually exclusive (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the light from the light source has one or more wavelengths shorter than 190 nm (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the detector is positioned in the path of the light between the light source and the specimen while the optical system is detecting the light from the specimen during the process to thereby determine information for the specimen (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the detector is configured to have a fixed position in the optical system during use (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the one or more characteristics comprise one or more spatial characteristics of the light (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, especially see para. [0034] of Juschkin et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the four or more detector segments comprise six or more detector segments, wherein the one or more characteristics comprise one or more spatial characteristics and one or more shape characteristics of the light, and wherein the control subsystem is further configured for simultaneously determining the one or more spatial characteristics and the one or more shape characteristics based on the output separately generated by the six or more detector segments (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the center cut-out is further configured to allow the first portion of the light to pass therethrough without any attenuation of power of the first portion of the light (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2).
Regarding claim 14, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the four or more detector segments are further configured to block the second portion of the light from reaching the specimen (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2).
Regarding claim 15, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the control subsystem is further configured for altering one or more parameters of the optical system based on the determined one or more characteristics (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 2).
Regarding claim 18, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the light is extreme ultraviolet light (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, + see para. [0023] of Juschkin et al.).
Regarding claim 19, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the light is vacuum ultraviolet light (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, + see para. [0023] of Juschkin et al.).
Regarding claim 20, Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. disclose: the light is soft x-rays (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 1, + see para. [0023] of Juschkin et al.).
Regarding claim 21, Litman et al. disclose: the optical system is configured as an inspection system (para. [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 23, Litman et al. disclose: the optical system is configured as an inspection system (para. [0051]).
Claims 10, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litman et al. (US 2015/0028203 A1; pub. Jan. 29, 2015) in view of Juschkin et al. (US 2021/0262944 A1; pub. Aug. 26, 2021) and further in view of Derstine et al. (US 2021/0022233 A1; pub. Jan. 21, 2021).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. are silent about: the one or more shape characteristics comprise beam aberration.
In a similar field of endeavor, Derstine et al. disclose: the one or more shape characteristics comprise beam aberration (para. [0044], [0063]) motivated by the benefits for efficient light focus (Derstine et al. para. [0063]).
In light of the benefits for efficient light focus as taught by Juschkin et al., 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 apparatus of Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. with the teachings of Derstine et al.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Litman et al., Juschkin et al. and Derstine et al. disclose: the optical system is configured as a metrology system (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 10).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litman et al. (US 2015/0028203 A1; pub. Jan. 29, 2015) in view of Juschkin et al. (US 2021/0262944 A1; pub. Aug. 26, 2021) and further in view of Komatsuda et al. (US 2013/0128248 A1; pub. May 23, 2013).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. are silent about: the one or more shape characteristics comprise anisotropy in the light.
In a similar field of endeavor, Komatsuda et al. disclose: the one or more shape characteristics comprise anisotropy in the light (para. [0092]) motivated by the benefits for improved illumination (Komatsuda et al. para. [0092]).
In light of the benefits for improved illumination as taught by Komatsuda et al., 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 apparatus of Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. with the teachings of Komatsuda et al.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litman et al. (US 2015/0028203 A1; pub. Jan. 29, 2015) in view of Juschkin et al. (US 2021/0262944 A1; pub. Aug. 26, 2021) and further in view of Ebert et al. (US 2017/0235230 A1; pub. Aug. 17, 2017).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. are silent about: the one or more shape characteristics comprise one or more characteristics of multi-pole components of the light.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ebert et al. disclose: the one or more shape characteristics comprise one or more characteristics of multi-pole components of the light (para. [0070]) motivated by the benefits for a scalable illumination (Ebert et al. para. [0096]).
In light of the benefits for a scalable illumination as taught by Ebert et al., 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 apparatus of Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. with the teachings of Ebert et al.
Claims 16-17, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Litman et al. (US 2015/0028203 A1; pub. Jan. 29, 2015) in view of Juschkin et al. (US 2021/0262944 A1; pub. Aug. 26, 2021) and further in view of Muller (US; pub. Jan. 6, 2002).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. are silent about: the control subsystem is further configured for outputting the determined one or more characteristics to a computer subsystem of the optical system, and wherein the computer subsystem is configured for altering one or more parameters of the optical system based on the determined one or more characteristics.
In a similar field of endeavor, Muller discloses: the control subsystem is further configured for outputting the determined one or more characteristics to a computer subsystem of the optical system, and wherein the computer subsystem is configured for altering one or more parameters of the optical system based on the determined one or more characteristics (para. [0005], [0027], claim 7) motivated by the benefits for optimal beam quality (Muller para. [0014]).
In light of the benefits for optimal beam quality as taught by Muller, 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 apparatus of Litman et al. and Juschkin et al. with the teachings of Muller.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Litman et al., Juschkin et al. and Muller disclose: the control subsystem or a computer subsystem is configured for altering one or more parameters of the optical system based on the determined one or more characteristics, and wherein the one or more parameters comprise one or more parameters of a movable optical element in the optical system configured to control a position of the light on the specimen (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 16).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Litman et al., Juschkin et al. and Muller disclose: A system configured for determining one or more characteristics of light in an optical system, comprising: a light source configured for generating light having one or more wavelengths shorter than 190 nm; optical elements configured for directing the light generated by the light source to a specimen and directing the light from the specimen to one or more first detectors configured to generate first output responsive to the light from the specimen; a computer subsystem configured for determining information for the specimen based on the first output; a second detector positioned in a path of the light between the light source and the specimen, wherein the second detector comprises: a center cut-out configured to allow only a first portion of the light from the light source to pass therethrough, wherein the first portion of the light is directed to the specimen by one or more of the optical elements; and four or more detector segments positioned around the center cut-out and in a path of a second portion of the light from the light source, wherein the four or more detector segments are configured to separately generate second output responsive to the light incident thereon and wherein the light incident thereon is the second portion of the light from the light source that has not been returned from the specimen; and a control subsystem configured for determining one or more characteristics of the light from the light source based on the second output and for altering at least one of one or more parameters of the light source, one or more parameters of the optical elements, one or more parameters of the one or more first detectors, and one or more parameters used by the computer subsystem to determine the information based on the determined one or more characteristics (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 16).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884