DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 14 April 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 14-17, and 22-28 are pending in the instant application where claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 14, 16-17, and 22 have been amended, claims 6-8, 10-11 and 22 are withdrawn due to a requirement for restriction, claims 23-28 are newly added, and claims 5, 9, 12-13, and 18-21 have been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome most but not all rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 07 November 2025. Those rejections overcome are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102”, filed 14 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference of record WO 2019/149467 A1 to De Groot.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were filed on 25 March 2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and therefore are considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “the ratio is close to a value” on lines 1-3 recites the term “close” that is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner is unsure to what degree the claimed ratio must be within to be considered “close to” a value which results in reduction of variation in an interference map in a central region in a measurement plane. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any value within any order of magnitude to any claimed ratio will read on the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 14-17, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/149467 A1 by Pieter De Groot et al. (herein after “De Groot”). Examiner notes the reference De Groot was cited in the IDS filed 09 November 2023.
Regarding claim 1, De Groot discloses a diffraction grating for a phase-stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map for a projection system (De Groot abstract recites verbatim), the diffraction grating comprising a substrate provided with a two-dimensional array of circular through-apertures (De Groot [00035] discloses a diffraction grating with square array [2-dimensional array] of circular through apertures).
De Groot does not explicitly disclose wherein, for two adjacent circular through-apertures of the plurality of circular through-apertures, a ratio of the radius of the two adjacent circular through-apertures to a distance between centers of the two adjacent circular through-apertures is between 0.34 and 0.38.
However, De Groot does suggest this limitation.
De Groot suggests or renders obvious “wherein, for two adjacent circular through-apertures of the plurality of circular through-apertures, a ratio of the radius of the two adjacent circular through-apertures to a distance between centers of the two adjacent circular through-apertures is between 0.34 and 0.38” (De Groot [00035]-[00036] discloses a two dimensional diffraction grating having circular through apertures where a ratio of the radius of the apertures to the distance between centers may be “approximately 0.3” and “approximately 0.43”, depending on the diffraction orders desired for suppression; while a range of 0.34-0.38 is not explicitly disclosed by De Groot, the ratio of radius for two adjacent through-apertures of the plurality of circular through-apertures and the distance between the named two adjacent circular through-apertures is a result effective variable; one of ordinary skill in the art may find the optimum value for said ratio, where that optimum value may well be in a range between 0.34 and 0.38; especially given De Groot’s disclosure of the ratio being “approximately 0.3” and “approximately 0.43” where these values are less than a 13% difference with the bounds of the claimed range, an optimization to the claimed range would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art; further, it has been held that optimization of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art – see MPEP §2144.05 II(A) and II(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform such an optimization as suggested by De Groot for the advantage of adequately suppressing various diffraction orders with the two-dimensional diffraction grating as needed to result in the grating efficiency map (De Groot [00034]-[00036]).
Regarding claim 2, De Groot discloses or renders obvious the diffraction grating according to claim 1, and further teaches the grating wherein the ratio is a value that results in a reduction of gain and cross-talk errors when the diffraction grating is used as a wafer level patterning device of a phase-stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map for a projection system in combination with a reticle level patterning device that comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating with a 50% duty cycle and wherein a reconstruction algorithm of the phase-stepping measurement system assumes that the diffraction grating used as the wafer level patterning device is of a form of a checkerboard grating (De Groot [00016] and fig. 4 discloses a phase stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map which comprises a first grating or first patterned region 31 and a second grating or second pattern region 32 [wafer level patterning device – i.e. the claimed diffraction grating]; [00022] discloses that the first patterned region comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating with 50% duty cycle; [00027] discloses the use of a checkerboard grating within the phase stepping measurement system and [00098] discloses the reconstruction of wavefronts; claims 15-18 discloses the assumption for grating type (i.e. checkerboard pattern, 50% duty cycle, etc.) when selecting parameters related to the aberration map [i.e. a reconstruction algorithm assumes that the grating used as a wafer level patterning device is of the form of a checkerboard grating]; additionally, as was noted in the previous rejection, the language of the claim is in the form of an intended result and is essentially a recitation of what the device does rather than what the device is, (namely, as amended, “the ratio [being] a value that results in a reduction of gain and cross-talk errors with when the diffraction grating is used as a wafer level patterning device”, among the remaining limitations of the claim); under MPEP §2114 I and II, such recitations, in this case, do not establish novelty in the claimed subject matter; see In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 3, De Groot discloses or renders obvious the diffraction grating according to claim 1, and further teaches the grating, wherein the ratio is a value that results in a reduction of variation in an interference beam map in a central region in a measurement plane,
wherein a value of the interference beam map at a given position in the measurement plane is given by an amplitude of a first harmonic of an oscillating phase-stepping signal that would result when the diffraction grating is used as a wafer level patterning device of a phase-stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map for a projection system in combination with a reticle level patterning device that comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating with a 50% duty cycle for zero aberrations, and
wherein the central region in the measurement plane corresponds to an overlap between first and second diffraction beams that result from a 0th order diffraction beam from the reticle level patterning device illuminating the diffraction grating used as a wafer level patterning device, the first diffraction grating being a +1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction and the second diffraction beam being a -1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction (De Groot [00022] discloses related to the phase stepping measurement system interference strengths for pairs of diffraction beams which contribute to a first harmonic of an oscillating phase-stepping signal; as with claim 2, [00016] and fig. 4 discloses the first patterned region 31 comprising a one-dimensional diffraction grating with 50% duty cycle, and second patterned region 32 [wafer level patterning device – i.e. the claimed diffraction grating]; [00059] and [000121] discloses a plurality of first and second diffraction beams in various shearing/non-shearing directions, and figs 8A – 10C and [00063] disclose various portions of the radiation detector [measurement plane] where an overlap of diffraction beams occurs; [000111] and fig. 4 discloses a central diffraction beam corresponding to a 0th order diffraction beam 35; [000120] and fig. 5A discloses a corresponding second diffraction beam 35a and first diffraction beam are incident on a region 39 [central region] of the radiation detector 23; [000124] discloses the presence of multiple orders of both first and second diffraction beams in shearing and non-shearing directions, enabling the intended result of “a first diffraction beam being the +1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction and the second diffraction beam being the -1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction” as claimed; additionally, as was noted in the previous rejection, and has been noted in the previous claim, the language of the claim is in the form of an intended result and essentially is a recitation of what the device does rather than what the device is, (namely, as amended, “the ratio [being] a value that results in a reduction of variation in an interference beam bam in a central region in a measurement plane”, among the remining limitations of the claim); under MPEP §2114 I and II, such recitations, in this case, do not establish novelty in the claimed subject matter; see In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 4, De Groot discloses a diffraction grating for a phase-stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map for a projection system (De Groot abstract recites verbatim), the diffraction grating comprising a substrate provided with a two-dimensional array of circular through-apertures (De Groot [00035] discloses a diffraction grating with square array [2 dimensional array] of circular through apertures; [00035]-[00036] discloses the two-dimensional diffraction grating having circular through-apertures wherein a ratio of the radius of the apertures to the distance between centers being approximately 0.3 and approximately 0.43, depending on the diffraction orders desired for suppression), wherein a ratio of the radius of the circular through-apertures to a distance between centers of two adjacent circular through-apertures is between 0.34 and 0.38
(De Groot does not explicitly disclose this limitation, but De Groot does suggest this limitation: De Groot [00035]-[00036] discloses a two dimensional diffraction grating having circular through apertures where a ratio of the radius of the apertures to the distance between centers may be “approximately 0.3” and “approximately 0.43”, depending on the diffraction orders desired for suppression; while a range of 0.34-0.38 is not explicitly disclosed by De Groot, the ratio of radius for two adjacent through-apertures of the plurality of circular through-apertures and the distance between the named two adjacent circular through-apertures is a result effective variable; one of ordinary skill in the art may find the optimum value for said ratio, where that optimum value may well be in a range between 0.34 and 0.38; especially given De Groot’s disclosure of the ratio being “approximately 0.3” and “approximately 0.43” where these values are less than a 13% difference with the bounds of the claimed range, an optimization to the claimed range would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art; further, it has been held that optimization of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art – see MPEP §2144.05 II(A) and II(B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform such an optimization as suggested by De Groot for the advantage of adequately suppressing various diffraction orders with the two-dimensional diffraction grating as needed to result in the grating efficiency map (De Groot [00034]-[00036])), and wherein:
(a) the ratio is a value that results in a reduction of gain and cross-talk errors when the diffraction grating is used as a wafer level patterning device of a phase-stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map for a projection system in combination with a reticle level patterning device that comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating with a 50% duty cycle, and a reconstruction algorithm of the phase-stepping measurement system assumes that the diffraction grating used as the wafer level patterning device is of a form of a checkerboard grating (De Groot [00016] and fig. 4 discloses a phase stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map which comprises a first grating or first patterned region 31 and a second grating or second pattern region 32 [wafer level patterning device – i.e. the claimed diffraction grating]; [00022] discloses that the first patterned region comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating with 50% duty cycle; [00027] discloses the use of a checkerboard grating within the phase stepping measurement system and [00098] discloses the reconstruction of wavefronts; claims 15-18 discloses the assumption for grating type (i.e. checkerboard pattern, 50% duty cycle, etc.) when selecting parameters related to the aberration map [i.e. a reconstruction algorithm assumes that the grating used as a wafer level patterning device is of the form of a checkerboard grating]; additionally, as was noted in the previous rejection, the language of the claim is in the form of an intended result and is essentially a recitation of what the device does rather than what the device is, (namely, as amended, “the ratio being a value that results in a reduction of gain and cross-talk errors with when the diffraction grating is used as a wafer level patterning device”, among the remaining limitations of the claim); under MPEP §2114 I and II, such recitations, in this case, do not establish novelty in the claimed subject matter; see In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); or
(b) the ratio is a value that results in a reduction of variation in an interference beam map in a central region in a measurement plane, a value of the interference beam map at a given position in the measurement plane is given by an amplitude of a first harmonic of an oscillating phase-stepping signal that would result when the diffraction grating is used as a wafer level patterning device of a phase-stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map for a projection system in combination with a reticle level patterning device that comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating with a 50% duty cycle for zero aberrations, and the central region in the measurement plane corresponds to an overlap between first and second diffraction beams that result from a 0th order diffraction beam from the reticle level patterning device illuminating the diffraction grating used as a wafer level patterning device, the first diffraction grating being a +1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction and the second diffraction beam being a -1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction (while there is an “or” statement, both limitations are addressed here; De Groot [00022] discloses related to the phase stepping measurement system interference strengths for pairs of diffraction beams which contribute to a first harmonic of an oscillating phase-stepping signal; as with claim 2, [00016] and fig. 4 discloses the first patterned region 31 comprising a one-dimensional diffraction grating with 50% duty cycle, and second patterned region 32 [wafer level patterning device – i.e. the claimed diffraction grating]; [00059] and [000121] discloses a plurality of first and second diffraction beams in various shearing/non-shearing directions, and figs 8A – 10C and [00063] disclose various portions of the radiation detector [measurement plane] where an overlap of diffraction beams occurs; [000111] and fig. 4 discloses a central diffraction beam corresponding to a 0th order diffraction beam 35; [000120] and fig. 5A discloses a corresponding second diffraction beam 35a and first diffraction beam are incident on a region 39 [central region] of the radiation detector 23; [000124] discloses the presence of multiple orders of both first and second diffraction beams in shearing and non-shearing directions, enabling the intended result of “a first diffraction beam being the +1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction and the second diffraction beam being the -1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction” as claimed; additionally, as was noted in the previous rejection, and has been noted in the previous claim, the language of the claim is in the form of an intended result and essentially is a recitation of what the device does rather than what the device is, (namely, as amended, “the ratio [being] a value that results in a reduction of variation in an interference beam bam in a central region in a measurement plane”, among the remining limitations of the claim); under MPEP §2114 I and II, such recitations, in this case, do not establish novelty in the claimed subject matter; see In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 14, De Groot discloses or renders obvious the diffraction grating according to claim 1, and further teaches a measurement system for determining an aberration map for a projection system (De Groot abstract; measurement system for determining an aberration map for a projection system), comprising:
a patterning device comprising a first patterned region arranged to receive a radiation beam and to form a plurality of first diffraction beams, the first diffraction beams being separated in a shearing direction (De Groot [00059] discloses a patterning device comprising a first patterned region, arranged to receive a radiation beam and form a plurality of first diffraction beams, said first diffraction beams separated in a shearing direction);
a sensor apparatus comprising a second patterned region, the second patterned region comprising a two-dimensional diffraction grating according to claim 1 (De Groot [00059] discloses a sensor apparatus comprising a second patterned region, the second patterned region comprising a two-dimensional diffraction grating “of the first [or] third aspect of the invention (i.e. the two-dimensional diffraction grating rendered obvious by De Groot in [00035]-[00036] of claim 1 above)), and a radiation detector, wherein the projection system is configured to project the first diffraction beams onto the sensor apparatus, the second patterned region being arranged to receive the first diffraction beams from the projection system and to form a plurality of second diffraction beams from each of the first diffraction beams (De Groot [00059] discloses a radiation detector, the projection system configured to project first diffraction beams onto the sensor, the second patterned region arranged to receive first diffraction beams from the projection system and form a plurality of second diffraction beams from each of the first diffraction beams); and
a controller (De Groot [00059] discloses a controller]) configured to:
control a positioning apparatus so as to move the patterning device and/or the sensor apparatus in the shearing direction such that an intensity of radiation received by each part of the radiation detector varies as a function of the movement in the shearing direction so as to form an oscillating signal (De Groot [00059] discloses that the controller is configured to control a positioning apparatus so as to move at least one of the patterning device and the sensor apparatus in the shearing direction [move the first patterning device and/or the sensor apparatus in the shearing direction]; the radiation received by the detector variers as a function of movement in the shearing direction to form an oscillating signal);
determine from the radiation detector a phase of a harmonic of the oscillating signal at a plurality of positions on the radiation detector (De Groot [00059], phase of a harmonic of the oscillating signal obtained at a plurality of positions on the radiation detector); and
determine a set of coefficients that characterize the aberration map of the projection system from the phase of a harmonic of the oscillating signal at the plurality of positions on the radiation detector (De Groot [00059], set of coefficients that characterize the aberration map of the projection system from the phase of the harmonic of the oscillating signal at the plurality of positions on the detector).
Regarding claim 15, De Groot discloses the measurement system of claim 14, and further teaches a lithographic apparatus comprising the measurement system of claim 14 (De Groot [00062] discloses a lithographic apparatus and the measurement system according to claim 14 above).
Regarding claim 16, De Groot discloses or renders obvious the diffraction grating of claim 4, and further teaches the grating wherein the ratio is a value that results in a reduction of gain and cross-talk errors when the diffraction grating is used as a wafer level patterning device of a phase-stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map for a projection system in combination with a reticle level patterning device that comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating with a 50% duty cycle, and a reconstruction algorithm of the phase-stepping measurement system assumes that the diffraction grating used as the wafer level patterning device is of a form of a checkerboard grating (De Groot [00016] and fig. 4 discloses a phase stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map which comprises a first grating or first patterned region 31 and a second grating or second pattern region 32 [wafer level patterning device – i.e. the claimed diffraction grating]; [00022] discloses that the first patterned region comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating with 50% duty cycle; [00027] discloses the use of a checkerboard grating within the phase stepping measurement system and [00098] discloses the reconstruction of wavefronts; claims 15-18 discloses the assumption for grating type (i.e. checkerboard pattern, 50% duty cycle, etc.) when selecting parameters related to the aberration map [i.e. a reconstruction algorithm assumes that the grating used as a wafer level patterning device is of the form of a checkerboard grating]; additionally, as was noted in the previous rejection, the language of the claim is in the form of an intended result and is essentially a recitation of what the device does rather than what the device is, (namely, as amended, “the ratio being a value that results in a reduction of gain and cross-talk errors with when the diffraction grating is used as a wafer level patterning device”, among the remaining limitations of the claim); under MPEP §2114 I and II, such recitations, in this case, do not establish novelty in the claimed subject matter; see In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 17, De Groot discloses or renders obvious the diffraction grating of claim 4, and further teaches the grating, wherein the ratio is close to a value that results in a reduction of variation in an interference beam map in a central region in a measurement plane, a value of the interference beam map at a given position in the measurement plane is given by an amplitude of a first harmonic of an oscillating phase-stepping signal that would result when the diffraction grating is used as a wafer level patterning device of a phase-stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map for a projection system in combination with a reticle level patterning device that comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating with a 50% duty cycle for zero aberrations, and the central region in the measurement plane corresponds to an overlap between first and second diffraction beams that result from a 0th order diffraction beam from the reticle level patterning device illuminating the diffraction grating used as a wafer level patterning device, the first diffraction grating being a +1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction and the second diffraction beam being a -1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; De Groot [00022] discloses, related to the phase stepping measurement system, interference strengths for pairs of diffraction beams which contribute to a first harmonic of an oscillating phase-stepping signal; as with claim 2, [00016] and fig. 4 discloses the first patterned region 31 comprising a one-dimensional diffraction grating with 50% duty cycle, and second patterned region 32 [wafer level patterning device – i.e. the claimed diffraction grating]; [00059] and [000121] discloses a plurality of first and second diffraction beams in various shearing/non-shearing directions, and figs 8A – 10C and [00063] disclose various portions of the radiation detector [measurement plane] where an overlap of diffraction beams occurs; [000111] and fig. 4 discloses a central diffraction beam corresponding to a 0th order diffraction beam 35; [000120] and fig. 5A discloses a corresponding second diffraction beam 35a and first diffraction beam are incident on a region 39 [central region] of the radiation detector 23; [000124] discloses the presence of multiple orders of both first and second diffraction beams in shearing and non-shearing directions, enabling the intended result of “a first diffraction beam being the +1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction and the second diffraction beam being the -1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction” as claimed; additionally, as was noted in the previous rejection, and has been noted in the previous claim, the language of the claim is in the form of an intended result and essentially is a recitation of what the device does rather than what the device is, (namely, as amended, “the ratio [being] a value that results in a reduction of variation in an interference beam bam in a central region in a measurement plane”, among the remining limitations of the claim); under MPEP §2114 I and II, such recitations, in this case, do not establish novelty in the claimed subject matter; see In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 23, De Groot discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising stored instructions (De Groot [000214] discloses the embodiments of their invention as capable of being read and executed by one or more processors, on a machine readable medium, comprising storing and transmitting information, and storing and executing instructions), the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to (De Groot [000214] discloses the execution of stored instructions by a computer system, that cause the computer system to perform certain actions) at least:
cause or control irradiation of a diffraction grating comprising a substrate provided with a two-dimensional array of circular through-apertures (De Groot [00035] discloses a diffraction grating with square array [2 dimensional array] of circular through apertures; [00035]-[00036] discloses the two-dimensional diffraction grating having circular through-apertures; [00059] discloses a second patterned region comprising the two-dimensional diffraction grating according to the first aspect or third aspect of the invention (i.e. the two-dimensional diffraction grating of [00035]-[00036]), where patterned illumination is incident onto the two-dimensional diffraction grating [irradiate the diffraction grating]; this is also seen in fig. 4, and [000120], where second patterned region 32 receives projected light; [000214] has disclosed the execution of instructions to cause the computer to perform aspects of the claimed invention [cause or control irradiation of the diffraction grating]), and determine, based on a phase-stepping measurement of radiation from the irradiated diffraction grating, an aberration map (De Groot [000168] discloses the determination of an aberration map within a phase-stepping measurement system from the diffraction grating).
De Groot does not explicitly disclose wherein, for two adjacent circular through-apertures of the plurality of circular through apertures, a ratio of the radius of the two adjacent circular through apertures to a distance between centers of the two adjacent circular through-apertures is between 0.34 and 0.38.
However, De Groot does suggest this limitation.
De Groot suggests or renders obvious “wherein, for two adjacent circular through-apertures of the plurality of circular through-apertures, a ratio of the radius of the two adjacent circular through-apertures to a distance between centers of the two adjacent circular through-apertures is between 0.34 and 0.38” (De Groot [00035]-[00036] discloses a two dimensional diffraction grating having circular through apertures where a ratio of the radius of the apertures to the distance between centers may be “approximately 0.3” and “approximately 0.43”, depending on the diffraction orders desired for suppression; while a range of 0.34-0.38 is not explicitly disclosed by De Groot, the ratio of radius for two adjacent through-apertures of the plurality of circular through-apertures and the distance between the named two adjacent circular through-apertures is a result effective variable; one of ordinary skill in the art may find the optimum value for said ratio, where that optimum value may well be in a range between 0.34 and 0.38; especially given De Groot’s disclosure of the ratio being “approximately 0.3” and “approximately 0.43” where these values are less than a 13% difference with the bounds of the claimed range, an optimization to the claimed range would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art; further, it has been held that optimization of a result-effective variable requires only routine skill in the art – see MPEP §2144.05 II(A) and II(B)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform such an optimization as suggested by De Groot for the advantage of adequately suppressing various diffraction orders with the two-dimensional diffraction grating as needed to result in the grating efficiency map (De Groot [00034]-[00036]).
Regarding claim 24, De Groot discloses or renders obvious the medium according to claim 23, and further teaches the medium wherein, during the irradiation, the diffraction grating is used in the phase-stepping measurement as a patterning device at an output side of an optical system (De Groot [000109], [000120] and fig. 4 discloses a second patterning region 32 which receives diffraction beams 34-36 [irradiated] generated by a projection system; radiation 38 received via the diffraction grating [patterning device at an output side] is used to determine the aberration map [i.e. used in the phase-stepping measurement]) in combination with a patterning device at an input side of the optical system that comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating (De Groot fig. 4 and [000108]-[000109] discloses first patterned region 31 which receives illumination light 33, within measurement system 30 [input side of an optical system]; [00012] discloses the first patterned region comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating).
Regarding claim 25, De Groot discloses or renders obvious the medium according to claim 23, and further teaches the medium, wherein a reconstruction algorithm of the phase-stepping measurement assumes that the diffraction grating is of a form of a checkerboard grating (De Groot [00027] and [000158] disclose the use of a checkerboard grating within the phase stepping measurement system as the second patterned region 32 and [00098], [000162] disclose the reconstruction of wavefronts; claims 15-18 discloses the assumption for grating type (i.e. checkerboard pattern, 50% duty cycle, etc.) when selecting parameters related to the aberration map [i.e. a reconstruction algorithm assumes that the diffraction grating as the patterning device at the output side of the optical system is of the form of a checkerboard grating]).
Regarding claim 26, De Groot discloses or renders obvious the medium according to claim 23, and further teaches the medium, wherein the ratio is a value that results in a reduction of gain and cross-talk errors when the diffraction grating is used in the phase-stepping measurement as a patterning device at an output side of an optical system in combination with a patterning device at an input side of the optical system that comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating with a 50% duty cycle and wherein a reconstruction algorithm of the phase-stepping measurement system assumes that the diffraction grating used as the wafer level patterning device is of a form of a checkerboard grating (De Groot [00016] and fig. 4 discloses a phase stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map which comprises a first grating or first patterned region 31 and a second grating or second pattern region 32 [patterning device at an output side of an optical system]; [00022] discloses that the first patterned region comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating with 50% duty cycle; [00027] discloses the use of a checkerboard grating within the phase stepping measurement system and [00098] discloses the reconstruction of wavefronts; claims 15-18 discloses the assumption for grating type (i.e. checkerboard pattern, 50% duty cycle, etc.) when selecting parameters related to the aberration map [i.e. a reconstruction algorithm assumes that the grating used as a wafer level patterning device is of the form of a checkerboard grating];
the independent claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which cause the computer system to (generally) cause or control irradiation of a diffraction grating, and determine an aberration map; while the independent claim is essentially a computer implemented method, the limitation in question “wherein the ratio is a value that results in a reduction of gain and cross-talk errors when the diffraction grating is used in the phase-stepping measurement as a patterning device…” is a recitation of a quality of the diffraction grating and is not related to a particularly claimed and pointed out method step to reduce said gain and cross-talk errors; in light of MPEP §2114 IV, the diffraction grating of De Groot having been rendered obvious in claim 23 (with the claimed ratio being a quality of said diffraction grating) can thus result in a reduction of gain and cross-talk errors as claimed, since the limitation is a feature of the structure of the diffraction grating, and the reduction of gain and cross-talk errors is not claimed in a positively recited method step, nor being recited as a computer implemented functional limitation to successfully narrow the functionality of the device - see Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 739 F.3d 1339, 1345, 109 USPQ2d 1258, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Regarding claim 27, De Groot discloses or renders obvious the medium according to claim 23, and further teaches the medium, wherein: the ratio is a value that results in a reduction of variation in an interference beam map in a central region in a measurement plane (as with the preceding claim 26, the independent claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which cause the computer system to (generally) cause or control irradiation of a diffraction grating, and determine an aberration map; while the independent claim is essentially a computer implemented method, the limitation in question “wherein the ratio is a value that results in a reduction of variation in an interference beam map in a central region in a measurement plane” is a recitation of a quality of the diffraction grating and is not related to a particularly claimed and pointed out method step to reduce variation in an interference beam map; in light of MPEP §2114 IV, the diffraction grating of De Groot having been rendered obvious in claim 23 (with the claimed ratio being a quality of said diffraction grating) can thus result in a reduction of variation of an interference beam map, since the limitation is a feature of the structure of the diffraction grating, and the reduction of said variation is not claimed in a positively recited method step, nor being recited as a computer implemented functional limitation to successfully narrow the functionality of the medium - see Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., 739 F.3d 1339, 1345, 109 USPQ2d 1258, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2014)));
a value of the interference beam map at a given position in the measurement plane is given by an amplitude of a first harmonic of an oscillating phase-stepping signal that would result when the diffraction grating is used in the phase-stepping measurement as a patterning device at an output side of an optical system in combination with a patterning device at an input side of the optical system that comprises a one-dimensional diffraction grating with a 50% duty cycle for zero aberrations, and
the central region in the measurement plane corresponds to an overlap between first and second diffraction beams that result from a 0th order diffraction beam from the patterning device at the input side of the optical system illuminating the diffraction grating used as the patterning device at the output side of the optical system, the first diffraction beam being a +1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction and the second diffraction beam being a -1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction (De Groot [00022] discloses interference strengths for pairs of diffraction beams which contribute to a first harmonic of an oscillating phase-stepping signal; [000138 discloses overlapping diffraction beams, where each pair of diffraction beams result in an interference term, where the g is an amplitude of the interference term, and the amplitude of the interference term contributes to the first harmonic of the phase stepping signal [a value of an interference beam map is given by an amplitude of a first harmonic of an oscillating-phase stepping signal]; [00045] discloses the reduction of certain interference strengths; [00016] and fig. 4 discloses the first patterned region 31 comprising a one-dimensional diffraction grating with 50% duty cycle, and second patterned region 32 [patterning device at an output side of an optical system]; [00059] and [000121] discloses a plurality of first and second diffraction beams in various shearing/non-shearing directions, and figs 8A – 10C and [00063] disclose various portions of the radiation detector [measurement plane] where an overlap of diffraction beams occurs; [000111] and fig. 4 discloses a central diffraction beam corresponding to a 0th order diffraction beam 35; [000120] and fig. 5A discloses a corresponding second diffraction beam 35a and first diffraction beam are incident on a region 39 [central region] of the radiation detector 23; [000124] discloses the presence of multiple orders of both first and second diffraction beams in shearing and non-shearing directions, enabling the intended result of “a first diffraction beam being the +1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction and the second diffraction beam being the -1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction and the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction” as claimed).
Regarding claim 28, De Groot discloses or renders obvious the medium according to claim 23, and further teaches the medium, wherein the instructions are further configured to:
cause or control movement of a patterning device configured to produce diffraction beams and/or movement of the diffraction grating arranged to have the diffraction beams incident thereon, in a shearing direction such that an intensity of radiation received by each part of a radiation detector from the diffraction grating varies as a function of the movement in the shearing direction so as to form an oscillating signal (De Groot [000214] has disclosed the execution of instructions to cause the computer to perform aspects of the claimed invention [cause or control movement]; De Groot claim 26 and [00059] discloses a controller configured to control the position of either the first patterning device [patterning device] or the sensor apparatus 21 ([000109] and fig. 4; which comprises the second patterned region 32 [i.e. the diffraction grating]) in a shearing direction, so as to generate an oscillating signal via varied intensity of radiation received by radiation detector);
obtain from the radiation detector a phase of a harmonic of the oscillating signal at a plurality of positions on the radiation detector (De Groot [00059], claim language verbatim); and
determine a set of coefficients that characterize the aberration map from the phase of a harmonic of the oscillating signal at the plurality of positions on the radiation detector (De Groot [00059], again, claim language appears verbatim).
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 JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights