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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/29/2023. The
submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the
information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Fig. 2 does not depict an element number 102. Specification recites at least,
[0065]: “Attention is now drawn to Fig. 2, which describes a non-limitative example of an architecture that can be used in the examination tool 102”, and [0066]: “examination tool 102 can include a light source 207 producing an illumination beam 215, and a scanner 120 including a plurality of optical devices 2021, 2022,..202N.”. Examiner notes that “examination tool 102” is referred to several times in describing Fig.2 and how it is related to other components depicted therein, (see also [0068],and [0070]), but the number does not appear in Fig. 2 and it is not clear how “scanner 120” (as recited in [0066]) is integrated into “examination tool 102” as recited and depicted in Fig. 1.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 3-5, 8, 10-18, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by KASAI (US 20040232237 A1).
With respect to Claims 1, 18, and 20, KASAI teaches
A system usable to calibrate an examination tool, (KASAI in same technical field, [0024]: “optical apparatus having an adjustment apparatus and an optical unit comprising a plurality of optical elements, the adjustment apparatus sequentially providing control signals”; using computer control methods, [0034]: “optical apparatus adjustment method described above may consist of an electronic computer”, and [0035]: “storage medium…stores a processing program executed by the electronic computer”, [0089]: “program that implements the functions of the adjustment algorithm execution unit…may be stored in or on hard disk…semiconductor memory”, and Claim 40.; Examiner interprets “calibrate” using broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) and plain meaning, as enactment of adjustment, tuning, or standardization to optimize system accuracy.)
a light source producing an illuminating beam transmitted along a light path (Light source/light path, FIG. 1, numeral 7 “LIGHT GENERATOR”, with, [0038] and [0078] “numerals 8 and 9 indicate light input”, path through apparatus; and [0080] : “adjustment light generator 7 can be an apparatus that generates adjustment light according to signal 5T from the adjustment apparatus 5 or it can be an apparatus that independently generates adjustment light”.)
a plurality of optical devices located on said light path, (multiple optical elements, FIG. 1, with [0130]: “optical elements 2 wherein the optical characteristics of the optical element are varied optically”)
at least one given optical device of the plurality of optical devices being associated with a given moveable element, (multiple adjustable optical elements, FIG.1, with [0081], numeral 2 “adjustable optical elements”, numeral 4 “drive mechanism”, element labeled “CS” “control signal”, and numeral 5 “adjustment apparatus”.)
at least one of a position or an orientation of the given moveable element having to be calibrated, (Adjustments to optical elements, FIG.2 with [0022]: “optical apparatus requires an overall adjustment of the position, direction, optical characteristics and such (hereinafter called parameters) of a plurality of optical elements”; and FIG.1 with [0085]: “parameters of the optical elements 2 that are adjusted must be given fine adjustments…for the characteristics of the optical apparatus to satisfy the specifications required of it.”)
at least one processing circuitry (Circuit, FIG. 3, with [0086]: “symbol 4C a comparator circuit, and symbol 4D a motor drive circuit”)
obtain a data set comprising values for one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by the at least one given optical device for different values of the position or of the orientation of the given moveable element, ([0031]: “possible to measure (i.e., obtain) the parameter values (i.e., data set values) while the parameters of the optical elements are being adjusted”, and FIGs. 11,12, 13, with [0122]: “FIG. 11 shows a structural example of an optical element in the case in which the variable element parameter is the transmittance or coefficient of absorption (i.e. one or more given parameters characterizing)…numeral 212 output light”; Examiner interprets “obtain” as analogous to “measure”.)
obtain one or more required values for the one or more given parameters, ([0024-27]: “stipulated specifications (i.e., “required values”)”; Examiner interprets “obtain one or more required values” using BRI to mean pre-determined or known criterion, or set of criteria, which define a desired system performance to be compared with measured data, with support from in at least [005], [006], [0013], [0020], and FIGs. 4A-B with [0085]. )
use the data set and the one or more required values (As above, [0031]: “measure the parameter values” (i.e., data set), and [0026]: “satisfy stipulated specifications”, (i.e., “required values”); using both, [0027]: “performance of an optical apparatus can be represented by a function F which takes arguments of the individual parameters (i.e., “data set”)…that can be adjusted…functions of an optical apparatus satisfy stipulated specifications (i.e., required values”) is equivalent to finding the optimum solution to the function F.”)
to determine data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of the given moveable element ([0024]: “a probabilistic search technique, change the parameters of a stipulated plurality of optical elements among the optical elements to become parameters that cause functions of the optical apparatus to satisfy stipulated specifications”; and [0025]: “searching for optimal values at which functions of the optical apparatus satisfy stipulated specifications.” (i.e., data informative of a calibrated position”; Examiner interprets limitation applying BRI to mean determination of a calibrate, desired, or optimized configuration of movable elements, analogous to reference adjustment method.)
enabling the one or more parameters characterizing light transmitted by the at least one given optical device to have values matching the one or more required values according to a matching criterion. (Abstract: “adjustment apparatus sequentially provides control signals that…change the parameters of a stipulated plurality of optical elements (i.e., “enabling the one or more parameters”) among the optical elements to become parameters that cause the functions of the optical apparatus to satisfy stipulated specifications (i.e., “matching…required values”)”; details as above, [0024-25]; Examiner interprets “matching criterion” analogous to “satisfy stipulated specifications”.)
With respect to Claim 3, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 1.
KASAI further teaches:
determine the data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of the given moveable element after a plurality of iterations, (Loop calculation process, FIGs.17, 25-26, with [0175]: “values of the element parameters corresponding to the register values changed in Step S41… loop from Step S42 to Step S45,(i.e., “plurality of iterations”) the values of the element parameters are gradually changed…by the drive mechanism controller…plurality of pairs of the values of the element parameters”; Examiner interprets “determine the data informative…” as above.)
for at least one given iteration of the plurality of iterations, to use a data set comprising values for one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by the at least one given optical device for one or more positions or one or more orientations of the given moveable element, (As above, [0031]: “measure (i.e., obtain) the parameter values (i.e., data set values) while the parameters of the optical elements are being adjusted (i.e., “one or more positions”)”,
wherein at least part of said values correspond to one or more positions or one or more orientations of the at least one given optical device, determined at one or more previous iterations of the plurality of iterations. (As above, FIGs.17, 25-26, with [0175]: loop from Step S42 to Step S45,(i.e., “plurality of iterations”), and FIG. 28, adjustment method, with FIG. 31, and [0025]: “adjustment method…sequentially providing control signals that, according to a probabilistic search technique, change parameters of a specific plurality of optical elements among the optical elements, and searching for optimal values at which functions of the optical apparatus satisfy stipulated specifications”; Examiner interprets “at least part of” to mean generally any previous data value of an optical component. Examiner interprets “said values” as referring to data values from optical component relative to a given position/orientation, analogous to reference method.)
With respect to Claim 4, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 1.
KASAI further teaches:
determine the data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of the given moveable element after a plurality of iterations, (Measure at different positions, [0031]; Calculation, as above, [0024-27], loop process, as above, FIGs.17, 25-26, with [0175])
wherein, for at least one given iteration of the plurality of iterations, the system is configured to: use values for one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by the at least one given optical device for different values of the position or of the orientation of the given moveable element to determine data informative of at least one of an updated position or an updated orientation of the given moveable element, (As above, [0031]; loop structure, i.e., updating method, FIG. 17, element S3, and FIG. 29, with [0199] and Fig. 21 with [0166].)
obtain one or more updated values for one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by the at least one given optical device at said updated position or at said updated orientation, and use said one or more updated values at a next iteration of the plurality of iterations. (As above, loop structure, FIG.17)
With respect to Claim 5, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 1.
feed the data set and the one or more required values to an optimization algorithm to determine data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of the given moveable element, ([0141]: “performance of an optical apparatus can be represented by an evaluation function F which takes arguments of a plurality of element parameters. To have the functions of an optical apparatus satisfy stipulated specifications is equivalent to finding the parameter values that optimize the evaluation function F (i.e., “optimization algorithm”)…discovered that the aforementioned genetic algorithms are applicable to the adjustment of an optical apparatus”, using loop process, FIG. 17).
wherein the optimization algorithm is operable to determine the data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of the given moveable element without requiring prior training. (Untrained algorithm, FIG. 3 with [0086]: “structural example of the adjustment apparatus 5…symbol 5R denotes a register for storing data, and symbol 5RG…symbol 5A denotes an adjustment algorithm execution unit that executes an adjustment sequence”)
With respect to Claim 8, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 1.
KASAI further teaches:
at least one, or more, of the one or more given parameters is informative of a quality of a light transmitted by the at least one given optical device. (Light characteristics, [0015]: “light output consists of the power (intensity of the light output), position and direction of the light path, wavelength, phase, wave front, pulse width (i.e., informative of quality of a light”… large number of evaluation values are obtained”)
With respect to Claim 10, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 1.
KASAI further teaches:
one or more processing circuitries are configured to communicate with the examination tool to obtain the one or more values for the one or more given parameters. (FIG. 1, with [0081]: “number of control signals CS input to the drive mechanism 4 will be determined by the number of parameters required for the adjustment of the optical element.”; Examiner interprets “communicate with examination tool” as analogous to reference “control signals input to drive mechanism”, and “examination tool” as analogous to “observation apparatus (element 6)” with “adjustment apparatus (element 5)”.)
With respect to Claim 11, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 1.
KASAI further teaches:
at least one of (i) or (ii) is met:
(i) the given moveable element is associated with at least one given actuator enabling moving the given moveable element, (FIG. 4 with [0041]: “example of a drive mechanism (i.e., actuator) for translational movement” ) wherein the at least one processing circuitry is configured to generate a command enabling the at least one given actuator to displace the given moveable element to the calibrated position or to the calibrated orientation; (Circuit, as above, FIG. 3, with [0086]; enablement FIG. 5, rotational movement device in FIG. 7, adjustment mechanisms, and FIG. 1, with [0081]: “number of control signals CS input to the drive mechanism 4 (i.e., command)will be determined by the number of parameters required for the adjustment of the optical element.”; Examiner note interpretation as above.)
(ii) the given moveable element is associated with at least one given actuator enabling moving the given moveable element, wherein the at least one processing circuitry implements an interface enabling transmitting the command to the examination tool, wherein the command instructs the at least one given actuator to displace the given moveable element to the calibrated position or to the calibrated orientation.
With respect to Claim 12, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 1.
KASAI further teaches:
each given optical device of a set of optical devices of the examination tool is associated with a given moveable element of a set of moveable elements, (As above, FIG. 1 with [0081], and at least FIGs. 3, 4, 6)
and at least one of a position or an orientation of each given moveable element of the set of moveable elements has to be calibrated, (As above, [0022]: “optical apparatus requires an overall adjustment of the position, direction, optical characteristics and such (hereinafter called parameters) of a plurality of optical elements”; [0097]: “number of drive mechanisms 4 is normally the same as the number of adjustment locations of the optical elements 2”)
wherein the at least one processing circuitry is configured, for each given optical device of the set optical devices (Circuit, as above FIG. 3, with [0086]),
obtain one or more given values for one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by said each given optical device for one or more values of the position or of the orientation of the given moveable element of said each given optical device, (As above, [0031]: “measure (i.e., “obtain”) the parameter values (i.e., “data set values”) while the parameters of the optical elements are being adjusted”, and FIGs. 11,12, 13, with [0122]: “FIG. 11 shows a structural example of an optical element in the case in which the variable element parameter is the transmittance or coefficient of absorption (i.e. “one or more given parameters characterizing”) … numeral 212 output light”; Examiner notes interpretation discussed above.) thereby obtaining a data set informative of the set of optical devices; (As above, [0031])
obtain one or more given required values for the one or more given parameters of each given optical device of the set of optical devices, thereby obtaining a set of required values (As above, [0024-27]: “stipulated specifications (i.e., “required values”); Examiner notes interpretation of “required values” as above.)
use the data set and the set of required values to determine data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of each given moveable element of the set of moveable elements, (As above, using measured data with pre-determined specifications, Abstract, and FIG.1 with [0077]; FIG.3 element “5F EVALUATION FUNCTION UNIT”; data set and specifications used in calculation loop, FIGs.17, 25-26, with [0175]: “values of the element parameters corresponding to the register values changed in Step S41… loop from Step S42 to Step S45”; Examiner interprets “determine the data informative…” as above.)
enabling the one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by each given optical device of the set of optical devices to have values matching the one or more given required values according to a matching criterion. (Abstract: “adjustment apparatus sequentially provides control signals that…change the parameters of a stipulated plurality of optical elements (i.e., “enabling the one or more parameters”) among the optical elements to become parameters that cause the functions of the optical apparatus to satisfy stipulated specifications (i.e., “matching…required values…matching criterion”)”; details recited [0024-25]; Examiner interprets “matching criterion” analogous to “satisfy stipulated specifications”.)
With respect to Claim 13, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 12.
KASAI further teaches: wherein at least one of (i) or (ii) is met:
(i) the one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by a first given optical device of the set of optical devices is different from at least one of the one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by a second given optical device of the set of optical devices; (Variety of optical components, [0082]: “mirrors, lenses, optical filters, prisms, diffraction gratings, polarization elements, electro-optical elements, acousto-optical elements, optical crystals (laser crystals), slits or optical elements consisting of a combination of the aforementioned optical elements” and [0084]: “parameters of the optical elements 2 are defined to be the position, orientation and optical characteristics…optical characteristics are defined to be the reflectance, transmittance, coefficient of absorption, coefficient of amplification, wavelength conversion efficiency, index of refraction, polarization characteristics (retardation), transmission characteristics (phase, light intensity, lateral modes, etc.), distribution ratio, modulation rate, along with the wavelength characteristics, focusing conditions (shape of the focus, aberration), coherence and light-path conditions of the aforementioned.)
(ii) the at least one processing circuitry is configured to determine, simultaneously, data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of each given moveable element of the set of moveable elements, enabling the one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by each given optical device of the set of optical devices, to have values matching the one or more given required values according to a matching criterion.
With respect to Claim 14, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 1.
KASAI further teaches:
obtain a data set including, for each given optical device of one or more optical devices of the examination tool, wherein said each given optical device is associated with a given moveable element, ([0097]: “number of drive mechanisms 4 is normally the same as the number of adjustment locations of the optical elements 2”) one or more values for one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by said each given optical device for one or more values of the position or the orientation of the given moveable element, ([0031]: “possible to measure (i.e., obtain) the parameter values (i.e., data set values) while the parameters of the optical elements are being adjusted”, and FIGs. 11,12, 13, with [0122]: “variable element parameter is the transmittance or coefficient of absorption”)
obtain one or more given required values for the one or more given parameters of each given optical device, thereby obtaining a set of one or more required values, (As above, [0024-27]: “stipulated specifications (i.e., “required values”); Examiner notes interpretation of “required values” as above.)
use the data set and the set of one or more required values to determine data informative of at least one of a given updated position or a given updated orientation of the given moveable element of each given optical device of the one or more optical devices. (As above, [0031]: “possible to measure the parameter values” (i.e., data set), and [0025]: “searching for optimal values at which functions of the optical apparatus satisfy stipulated specifications.” (i.e., “required values”); using both, [0027]: “performance of an optical apparatus can be represented by a function F which takes arguments of the individual parameters (i.e., “data set”)…that can be adjusted…functions of an optical apparatus satisfy stipulated specifications (i.e., required values”) is equivalent to finding the optimum solution to the function F.” ; updating, loop process FIG.17, step S7 (i.e., “update”), and FIGs. 25-26, with [0175]; Examiner notes interpretation as above.)
With respect to Claim 15, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 14.
KASAI further teaches:
(1) obtain a set of one or more updated values, (as above, loop process FIG.17, step S7 (i.e., “update”)) wherein the set of one or more updated values comprises, for each given optical device, given updated values for the one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by said each given optical device, (FIG.17, step S7 (i.e., “update”), and FIGs. 25-26, with [0175], and FIG.1 with [0085]: “parameters of the optical elements 2 that are adjusted must be given fine adjustments…for the characteristics of the optical apparatus to satisfy the specifications required of it.”) wherein the given moveable element of said each given optical device of the one or more optical devices complies with said given updated position or with said given updated orientation thereby enabling augmenting the data set with the set of one or more updated values, (FIG. 1 with [0077]: “numeral 1 denotes an optical unit that effects a stipulated function…optical element 2 is an adjustable element wherein the parameters of the element can be varied depending on the value of a control signal (adjustment signal) CS, (i.e., “complies with…updated position”)…numeral 4 denotes a drive mechanism…to vary the parameters of the adjustable optical element…depending on the value of the control signal CS.”; data update in evaluation and adjustment loop, FIG.17, step S7 (i.e., “update”); Examiner interprets “augment” as analogous to “update” in evaluation loop.)
(2) use at least part of the data set and the set of one or more required values to determine data informative of at least one of a given updated position or a given updated orientation of the given moveable element of each given optical device of the one or more optical devices, (As above, [0027]: “performance of an optical apparatus can be represented by a function F which takes arguments of the individual parameters (i.e., “data set”)…that can be adjusted…functions of an optical apparatus satisfy stipulated specifications (i.e., “required values”) is equivalent to finding the optimum solution to the function F.”; update in loop structure as discussed above, and Fig. 21 with [0166] : “adjustment algorithm execution unit 5A judges whether or not the performance of the optical apparatus 1 lies within the tolerances that satisfy the stipulated specifications”)
(3) repeat (1) and (2) until the one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by said each given optical device of the one or more optical devices have values matching the one or more given required values according to a matching criterion. (Loop evaluation process as above, FIGs.17, 25-26, with [0175]: “values of the element parameters corresponding to the register values changed in Step S41… loop from Step S42 to Step S45, the values of the element parameters are gradually changed…by the drive mechanism controller…plurality of pairs of the values of the element parameters in the middle of the change and the results of observation corresponding to those values are stored in memory”)
With respect to Claim 16, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 15.
KASAI further teaches:
at least one processing circuitry (Circuit, as above, FIG. 3, with [0086]) is configured to send a command to the examination tool to displace the given moveable element of said each given optical device of the one or more optical devices to the updated position or to the updated orientation. (FIG. 5, and rotational movement device in FIG. 7, adjustment mechanisms, and FIG. 1, with [0081]: “number of control signals CS input to the drive mechanism 4 (i.e., “command”) will be determined by the number of parameters required for the adjustment of the optical element.”; FIGs. 28 and 31 with [0237]: “results of observation by the adjustment apparatus 5 in Step 51 are used by the adjustment apparatus 5 in Step S52 to calculate the evaluation function value…this evaluation function value is compared against the evaluation function value from the previous loop to determine whether or not the value has been improved”)
With respect to Claim 17, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 15.
KASAI further teaches:
obtain, for each given optical device, the one or more updated values for the one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by said each given optical device, ([0031]: “measure (i.e., “obtain”) the parameter values (i.e., “data set values”) while the parameters of the optical elements are being adjusted”, and FIGs. 11,12, 13, with [0122]: “FIG. 11 shows a structural example of an optical element in the case in which the variable element parameter is the transmittance or coefficient of absorption (i.e. “one or more given parameters characterizing”) … numeral 212 output light”; Examiner notes interpretation discussed above.)
following an input from an operator instructing the given moveable element of said each given optical device of the one or more optical devices to reach the updated position or the updated orientation. (user input for adjustments, [0184] “end user is able to perform adjustments when needed”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over KASAI (US 20040232237 A1) in view of FANG (Fang, Joyce, “ONLINE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATION FOR AUTOMATED OPTICAL SYSTEM ALIGNMENT AND PHASE RETRIEVAL ALGORITHM”, A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, August 2018)
With respect to Claim 2, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 1.
KASAI further teaches:
use the data set and the one or more required values to determine data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of the given moveable element. (As above, [0027]: “performance of an optical apparatus can be represented by a function F which takes arguments of the individual parameters (i.e., “data set”)…that can be adjusted…functions of an optical apparatus satisfy stipulated specifications (i.e., required values”) is equivalent to finding the optimum solution to the function F.”)
KASAI does not teach:
use a Bayesian optimizer to determine data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of the given moveable element.
FANG teaches:
a Bayesian optimizer to determine data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of the given moveable element. (FANG is in pertinent technical field, Pg5, “method which corrects the misalignment of an optical systems”; general method for application of Bayesian statistics to solve the problem of optimization of an optical system, Pg7: “assume the uncertainly of the system is an unobserved Markov process, and combine Bayesian filter for estimating focus diversity and iterative phase retrieval algorithms.”, and Pg106: “Bayesian filter approach takes the past measurements into account by propagating the previous state through a state transition step and updates the estimate once a new measurement is received.”; determination of optical element placement from analysis, Pg11: “optimization for the estimation of the moving lens position.”; analysis/optimization as part of system calibration, Pg18-19, Fig. 2.5.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a Bayesian optimizer analysis technique, using iterative modeling methods, as taught by FANG with the system and method of KASAI because including the known and robust method of Bayesian optimization allows for efficient optimization of complex and/or non-linear systems, handles noisy measurements robustly, and incorporates prior knowledge to reduce uncertainty in an optical system. One of ordinary skill would see the advantage of including this particularly effective analysis method for high-dimensional, expensive-to-evaluate systems where traditional, exhaustive search methods would be too slow or resource-intensive, and would reduce calibration time and be cost effective because it requires fewer evaluations of the system to find the optimum performance configuration.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over KASAI (US 20040232237 A1) in view of MIAO (Miao, et al., “Numerical calibration method for a multiple spectrometer-based OCT system”, Biomedical Optics Express Vol. 13, Issue 3, pp. 1685-1701, 2022)
With respect to Claim 6, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 1.
KASAI further teaches:
system configured to use the data set, the one or more required values and an optimization algorithm to determine data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of the given moveable element, (As above, [0027]: “performance of an optical apparatus can be represented by a function F which takes arguments of the individual parameters (i.e., “data set”)…that can be adjusted…functions of an optical apparatus satisfy stipulated specifications (i.e., required values”) is equivalent to finding the optimum solution to the function F.” ; updating, loop process FIG.17, step S7 (i.e., “update”), and FIGs. 25-26, with [0175]; Examiner notes interpretation as above.)
KASAI does not teach:
wherein a cost function used by the optimization algorithm is selected to be convex.
MAIO teaches:
wherein a cost function used by the optimization algorithm is selected to be convex. (MAIO in pertinent technical field, Pg. 1685, Abstract: “numerical calibration method for the easy and practical implementation of multiple spectrometer-based spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) systems”; optimization algorithm, Pg. 1690, “(2) Iterative search for optimal remap coefficients…<MSE>, set as the cost function…optimization algorithm can be described as coordinate descent method…”; Examiner asserts one of ordinary skill would recognize reference “MSE” (Mean square error) as an example of a convex cost function commonly used in optimization methods.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KASAI as taught above, to include a convex cost function for an optimization algorithm, such as that of MAIO because it would be generally recognized as an effective and efficient way to achieve optimized performance. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that use of a convex cost function in an optimization algorithm finds the global minimization point, avoiding errors caused by knowledge of only a local minimum. as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. uses a cost function as part of determination and cost function is convex
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over KASAI (US 20040232237 A1) in view of GELLINEAU (US 20230228692 A1).
With respect to Claim 7, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 1.
KASAI does not teach:
system configured to: responsive to a failure of determination of data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of the given moveable element enabling the one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by the at least one given optical device, to have values matching the one or more required values according to the matching criterion, determine that the at least one given optical device is faulty, or that the examination tool is faulty.
GELLENEAU teaches:
system configured to: responsive to a failure of determination of data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of the given moveable element enabling the one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by the at least one given optical device, to have values matching the one or more required values according to the matching criterion, determine that the at least one given optical device is faulty, or that the examination tool is faulty. (GELLINEAU in same technical field, [0001]: “methods and systems for improved measurement of semiconductor structures.”, and [0051]: X-ray illumination source 110 produces x-ray…focusing optical elements.”; estimation of parameter values for optical components, FIG. 9 with [0035]: “flowchart…for estimating values of one or more targeted measurement quality indicators indicative of a measurement quality”; classification of component/system failure based on comparative analysis with model, [0058]: “model includes…adjustable parameters…representative of…the optical properties of the measurement system…includes…model based regression, tomography, machine learning, or any combination thereof…target profile parameters are estimated by solving for values of a parameterized measurement model that minimize errors between the measured scattered x-ray intensities and modeled results.”, and FIG. 5 with [0086]: “model estimates a value of a parameter of interest from measurement signals and another value of the same parameter of interest from the corresponding measurement response signals generated by the trained measurement model…When the values predicted by the trained monitor model based on the two different data sets are disparate, this indicates the prediction associated with a particular parameter of interest by the trained measurement model is in error.”, and [0089]: “targeted measurement quality indicator 168C is determined for a known, reference wafer…only the system can be at fault.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KASAI as taught above, to include system configured to: responsive to a failure of determination of data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of the given moveable element enabling the one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by the at least one given optical device, to have values matching the one or more required values according to the matching criterion, determine that the at least one given optical device is faulty, or that the examination tool is faulty, such as that of GELLINEAU because it would be and efficient way to quickly recognize and categorize specific points of error or failure in a complex, multi-component optical metrology system. One of ordinary skill in the art would see the advantage of this comparative analysis based on a predictive model to quickly identify a particular element and/or rule out total system failure.
With respect to Claim 19, KASAI teaches the limitations of claim 1.
KASAI does not teach:
system comprising using the predictive model to estimate, for a given value of the position or of the orientation of a first given moveable element of a first given optical device of the set of optical devices, one or more predicted values for one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by at least one of the first given optical device or by a second given optical device different from the first given optical device.
GELLINEAU teaches:
system comprising using the predictive model to estimate, for a given value of the position or of the orientation of a first given moveable element of a first given optical device of the set of optical devices, one or more predicted values for one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by at least one of the first given optical device or by a second given optical device different from the first given optical device. (As above, predictive model, estimation of parameter values, FIG. 9 with [0035and [0041]: “value of a targeted measurement quality indicator is determined for each measurement sample… measurement involves inferring values of one or more parameters of interest from measurement data…measurement model is a machine learning based measurement model (e.g., linear model, neural network model, convolutional network model, etc.). If the estimated value of the targeted measurement quality indicator indicates that measurement quality is insufficient, the measurement is flagged. In some examples, repeated instances of insufficient measurement quality indicate that the measurement model is outdated and requires re-training.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KASAI as taught above, to include using a predictive model to estimate, for a given value of the position or of the orientation of a first given moveable element of a first given optical device of the set of optical devices, one or more predicted values for one or more given parameters characterizing light transmitted by at least one of the first given optical device or by a second given optical device different from the first given optical device, such as that of GELLINEAU because it provides a way to do efficient real-time adjustments for any identified mis-alignment or drift in optical components. One of ordinary skill would understand the advantage of utilizing a predictive model to produce an estimated parameter value for quick comparison such that the calibration process could be sped up, saving time and cost. Using a predictive estimate would also provide an effective way to effectively manage complex or non-linear systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base Claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 9, KASAI is identified as the closest prior art, teaching all limitations of Claim 1. KASAI further teaches:
“wherein, after the at least one given optical device has been calibrated at least once using the data set, the system is configured to:
obtain one or more required values for the one or more given parameters, (KASAI teaches comparison of observed data with pre-determine stipulated specification, as above, [0086])
obtain one or more current values for one or more given parameters
characterizing light transmitted by the at least one given optical device, (KASAI teaches observation of current optical component parameters following adjustments, as above, FIG.1 with [0077]”)
enabling the one or more parameters characterizing light transmitted by the at least one given optical device to have values matching the one or more required values according to a matching criterion. (KASAI teaches adjustments until determined conditions are met, as above, by control and adjustment of optical components in a loop process with updating and evaluation, FIGs. 28 and 31 with [0237])
However, KASAI does not teach:
“wherein, after the at least one given optical device has been calibrated at least once using the data set, the system is configured to:
obtain a current uncalibrated position value or a current uncalibrated orientation value of the given moveable element of the at least one given optical device
use the data set, the one or more current values for the one or more given parameters, and at least one of the current uncalibrated position value or the current uncalibrated orientation value to determine data informative of at least one of a calibrated position or a calibrated orientation of the given moveable element”
Specifically, KASAI does not teach obtaining values from uncalibrated positions, teaching away from this concept with adjustments made to calibrate optical components prior to system process. Examiner finds KASAI individually or in combination with other discovered prior art available on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention does not teach use of a current uncalibrated position value or the current uncalibrated orientation of an optical device.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DEN BOEF (US 20150346609 A1) – teaches metrology system with movable optics; apparatus and method for optimizing inspection usable with lithography applications using a calibration prism and movable optical elements; teaches modeling for system optimization using measured parameter values compared with optimal values using an accessible library.
GOORDEN (US 20200103772 A1) – teaches methods and apparatus usable in manufacture using lithographic techniques; teaches a metrology sensor apparatus with a variable illumination system operable and comparative analysis of polarization states by measurement of scattered light; teaches “tuning” as system optimization, and alignment.
HILL (US 20110310388 A1) – teaches moving optical elements after measurements are made while elements are stationary to enable high speed and reduction of systematic errors that are associated with optical calibration drifts.
HUANG (US 20210174200 A1) – teaches training device and a training method for a neural network model used for system optimization.
ISHII (US 20160360966 A1) – teaches an optical examination tool and optimization by comparison of detected light distribution with a model and repositioning optics in a biological application
JAK (US 20170184977 A1) – teaches method, apparatus, and substrate for metrology in manufacturing setting, with optical elements using analysis of polarized light to determine optimized calibration, by using movable optics to optimize accuracy on a lithography system, both position and orientation; movable optical elements for optimization, where changes due to variation in position are used for analysis and prediction.
JOHNSON (US 20180328715 A1) – teaches calibration of an optical system by comparison to a reference.
KAIZERMAN (US 20130279796 A1) – teaches a method for classification of inspection data and system optimization; using automated process in manufacturing setting.
KWAN (US 20100235127 A1) – teaches method for calibrating a position measuring device using reference elements and a movable positioning device unit using a first and second measurements device with an iterative method.
LIANG (US 20160029017 A1) – teaches calibration of a camera system based on actual position and orientation of optical components with position is determined using multiple iterations with computational analysis until criteria are met, with use of previous calculations to refine calibration.
MAEDA (US 20180172983 A1) – teaches a machine learning device for learning a procedure for aligning an optical part of a light source unit, and a light-source unit manufacturing apparatus.
NORDSTROM (US 20050159646 A1) – teaches optical devices with application to biological systems and calibration methods for system optimization.
NORTON (US 7660696 B1) – teaches design of an optical metrology system to measure a structure formed on a workpiece; method and apparatus for focusing the position of workpiece using previously calibrated best position, using a motion control system.
SEZGINER (US 20030147070 A1) – teaches an automated calibration process for an optical system without iterative determination suitable for highly precise and highly accurate surface metrology measurements; an optical inspection tool including movable optics system characterized in terms of position and wavelength dependent quantities over a range of motion; teaches use of algorithmic methods; teaches method of analyzing light output compared with a physical quantity of interest, and adjustments until threshold values are achieved.
SEZGINER (US 20060164632 A1) – teaches calibration method suitable for highly precise and highly accurate surface metrology measurements using position-dependant quantities at various wavelengths and positioning of optical elements. Measurements are stored and used to interpret subsequent measurements.
SHMAREV (US 20180067057 A1) – teaches method and metrology apparatus for lithography applications including movement of optical components for optimization.
SIRAT (US 20170336326 A1) – teaches use of statistical methods for
optical measuring system optimization, where system is treated as an inverse Bayesian problem with a modified reconstruction algorithm MAP, with reconstruction algorithm.
TARABRIN (EP 3477392 A1) – teaches adjustment and re-positioning of optical
elements to optimize system and comparison to desired result, including transmitted intensities by varying illumination radiation distribution and comparing with expected values where differences are parameterized into a mathematical model to optimize radiation distribution for calibration by achieving a sufficient match.
TIAN (US 20090319075 A1) - teaches optimization of an optical metrology system for inspection in a manufacturing setting; calibration method using varying design goals, to qualify accuracy of measurement based on reference comparison in various microscope applications; includes reflectance and simulated reflectance signal, with modeling to optimize metrology tool.
BERGER, et al., “Bayesian Sensor Calibration”, IEEE SENSORSJOURNAL, VOL. 22, NO. 20, 15 OCTOBER 2022 (Date of publication 23 August 2022) – teaches use of Bayesian statistical methods for calibration of multisensor system.
HENNA, et al., “Optimizing Hybrid Metrology: Rigorous Implementation of Bayesian and Combined Regression”, J Micro Nanolithogr MEMS MOEMS. 2015 ; 14(4): 044001-1–044001-8 – teaches use of optical critical dimension measurements with application to hybrid metrology system including statistical modeling for optimization of measurement results.
RESHADAT, et al., “Improving the Performance of Automated Optical Inspection (AOI) Using Machine Learning Classifiers”, ICoDSE 2021 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers – teaches machine learning methods for performing automated optical inspection as applied to semiconductor manufacturing.
SHEWMAKER, et al., “Microsimulation model calibration with approximate Bayesian computation in R: A tutorial”, Med Decis Making. 2022 Mar 21;42(5):557–570 – teaches general application of Bayesian-based calibration methods using R and with applications to biological systems.
YASWANTH (Yashwanth, NVS “Machine Learning - Why convexity is the key to optimization: It is easy with convex cost functions”, Medium, online data science publication, 2020) – teaches basic motivation for use of a convex cost function in an optimization algorithm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONI D SAUNCY whose telephone number is (703)756-4589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/TONI D SAUNCY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights