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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-11 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected device, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 26 August 2025.
Claims 12 and 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 26 August 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-4 and 14-17) in the reply filed on 26 August 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Restriction Requirement dated 18 July 2025 does not provide a sufficient showing of how the various independent claims do not have a technical relationship among those claims involving one or more of the same or corresponding technical features. This is not found persuasive because no arguments for why the various independent claims do not have a technical relationship among those claims involving one or more of the same or corresponding technical features – the mere allegation that the independent claims do not have a technical relationship without example or reasoning is not a persuasive argument.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 09 November 2023. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and therefore is considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the ratio of the circular apertures” on line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations in the claim. “Circular through-apertures” have been recited in the claim, and examiner is unsure whether “the circular apertures” corresponding to “circular through-apertures” previously disclosed. Examiner will interpret the claim such that the any ratio of any circular apertures will read on the limitation.
The claim recites the limitation “the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures” on line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any distance between any centers of adjacent apertures will read on the claim. Examiner also suggests referring to the claimed apertures as “circular through-apertures”, “circular apertures”, or “apertures” instead of including all three options.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “close to an optimum value” on line 3 contains relative terms which render 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 ratio of radius of circular apertures the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures must be within to be “close to” an optimum value. Further, examiner is unsure the scope of an “optimum value” – there is no way to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim where an “optimum value” is recited, unless a definition or a way to determine whether a value is “optimum” is included within the claim or specification. Appearances in the specification of “optimum value” are included within language similar to that of the claims or in reference to the numerical range of the ratio in claim 1 (between 0.34 and 0.38). There is no explicit definition provided for “optimum value”. Examiner will interpret the claim such that any value within any order of magnitude to any “ratio of the radius of circular apertures to the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures” value will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the grating” on line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is unsure whether the intended “grating” is “the diffraction grating” of claim 1, the “one-dimensional diffraction grating” on line 7 of claim 2, or some other grating. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any grating will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the form of a checkerboard grating” on line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any form of a checkerboard grating will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “close to an optimum value” on line 3 contains relative terms which render 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 ratio of radius of circular apertures the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures must be within to be “close to” an optimum value. Further, examiner is unsure the scope of an “optimum value” – there is no way to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim where an “optimum value” is recited, unless a definition or a way to determine whether a value is “optimum” is included within the claim or specification. Appearances in the specification of “optimum value” are included within language similar to that of the claims or in reference to the numerical range of the ratio in claim 1 (between 0.34 and 0.38). There is no explicit definition provided for “optimum value”. Examiner will interpret the claim such that any value within any order of magnitude to any “ratio of the radius of circular apertures to the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures” value will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the 0th order diffraction beam” on lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any 0th order diffraction beam will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the 1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction” on lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any 1st order diffraction beam will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction” on lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is unsure whether “the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction” is intended as the “0th order diffraction beam” disclosed in the paragraph above, or another 0th order diffraction beam. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the -1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction” on lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any -1st order diffraction beam will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “the ratio of the circular apertures” on line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations in the claim. “Circular through-apertures” have been recited in the claim, and examiner is unsure whether “the circular apertures” corresponding to “circular through-apertures” previously disclosed. Examiner will interpret the claim such that the any ratio of any circular apertures will read on the limitation.
The claim recites the limitation “the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures” on lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitations in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any distance between any centers of adjacent apertures will read on the claim. Examiner also suggests referring to the claimed apertures as “circular through-apertures”, “circular apertures”, or “apertures” instead of including all three options.
The phrase “close to an optimum value” appearing in lines 6 and 15 contains relative terms which render 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 ratio of radius of circular apertures the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures must be within to be “close to” an optimum value. Further, examiner is unsure the scope of an “optimum value” – there is no way to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim where an “optimum value” is recited, unless a definition or a way to determine whether a value is “optimum” is included within the claim or specification. Appearances in the specification of “optimum value” are included within language similar to that of the claims or in reference to the numerical range of the ratio in claim 1 (between 0.34 and 0.38). There is no explicit definition provided for “optimum value”. Examiner will interpret the claim such that any value within any order of magnitude to any “ratio of the radius of circular apertures to the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures” value will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the grating” on line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is unsure whether the intended “grating” is “the diffraction grating” of claim 1, the “one-dimensional diffraction grating” on line 7 of claim 2, or some other grating. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any grating will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the form of a checkerboard grating” on line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any form of a checkerboard grating will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the 0th order diffraction beam” on lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any 0th order diffraction beam will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the 1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction” on lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any 1st order diffraction beam will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is unsure whether “the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction” is intended as the “0th order diffraction beam” disclosed in the preceding paragraphs, or another 0th order diffraction beam. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the -1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any -1st order diffraction beam will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “close to an optimum value” on line 2 contains relative terms which render 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 ratio of radius of circular apertures the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures must be within to be “close to” an optimum value. Further, examiner is unsure the scope of an “optimum value” – there is no way to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim where an “optimum value” is recited, unless a definition or a way to determine whether a value is “optimum” is included within the claim or specification. Appearances in the specification of “optimum value” are included within language similar to that of the claims or in reference to the numerical range of the ratio in claim 1(between 0.34 and 0.38). There is no explicit definition provided for “optimum value”. Examiner will interpret the claim such that any value within any order of magnitude to any “ratio of the radius of circular apertures to the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures” value will read on the claim.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “close to an optimum value” on line 2 contains relative terms which render 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 ratio of radius of circular apertures the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures must be within to be “close to” an optimum value. Further, examiner is unsure the scope of an “optimum value” – there is no way to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim where an “optimum value” is recited, unless a definition or a way to determine whether a value is “optimum” is included within the claim or specification. Appearances in the specification of “optimum value” are included within language similar to that of the claims or in reference to the numerical range of the ratio in claim 1 (between 0.34 and 0.38). There is no explicit definition provided for “optimum value”. Examiner will interpret the claim such that any value within any order of magnitude to any “ratio of the radius of circular apertures to the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures” value will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the 0th order diffraction beam” on lines 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any 0th order diffraction beam will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the 1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction” on lines 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any 1st order diffraction beam will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction” on lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is unsure whether “the 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction” is intended as the “0th order diffraction beam” disclosed in the paragraph above, or another 0th order diffraction beam. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any 0th order diffraction beam in a non-shearing direction will read on the claim.
The claim recites the limitation “the -1st order diffraction beam in a shearing direction” on lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret the limitation such that any -1st order diffraction beam will read on the claim.
Claim 15 is rejected due to its dependence on the deficiencies of claim 14.
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 1-4 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over WO 2019/149467 A1 by Pieter De Groot et al. (“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), wherein a ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the centers of adjacent 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; De Groot names a range between 0.3 and 0.43, where the range of 0.34 and 0.38 is anticipated within the broader range 0.3 and 0.43).
Regarding claim 2, De Groot discloses the diffraction grating according to claim 1, and further teaches the diffraction grating wherein the ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the centers of the adjacent apertures is close to an optimum value that results in a minimization 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 grating used as the wafer level patterning device is of the form of a checkerboard grating (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; De Groot has disclosed a diffraction grating according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the centers is defined by a numerical range; regarding claim 2, the claim as written is in the form of an intended result – based on the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and subsequent interpretation, the scope of the claim is unclear and thus the device of De Groot with a specified numerical ratio range is considered the intended result within claim 2 [namely, a minimization of gain and cross-talk errors with any ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the aperture centers]; since the language of the claim is in the form of an intended result, it therefore does not add any structure or place any constraints on the diffraction grating of the claim since the language of the claim is not defining a feature or structure of the diffraction grating [i.e. “the phase-stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map for a projection system…” places no constraints on the diffraction grating claimed];
Regardless of the intended use/intended result form of the claim, De Groot discloses the additional structures within claim 2; 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]).
Regarding claim 3, De Groot discloses the diffraction grating according to claim 1, and further teaches the diffraction grating wherein the ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures is close to an optimum value that results in a minimization 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 the 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 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 (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; De Groot has disclosed a diffraction grating according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the centers is defined by a numerical range; for claim 3, as with claim 2 above, the claim as written is in the form of an intended result – based on the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the scope of the claim is unclear, and thus the device of De Groot with a specified numerical ratio range is considered the intended result within claim 3 [namely, a minimization of variation in an interference beam map in a central region in a measurement plane with any ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the aperture centers]; since the language of the claim is in the form of an intended result, it therefore does not add any structure or place any constraints on the diffraction grating of the claim since the language of the claim is not defining a feature or structure of the diffraction grating [i.e. “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…” places no constraints on the diffraction grating claimed];
Regardless of the intended use/intended result form of the claim, De Groot discloses the additional structures within claim 3; 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).
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) the ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the centers of the adjacent apertures is close to an optimum value that results in a minimization 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 grating used as the wafer level patterning device is of the form of a checkerboard grating (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; De Groot above has disclosed an explicit numerical range between which the ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the centers of the apertures, where the ratio is chosen based on a desired result [i.e. suppression of different diffraction orders]; this limitation in claim 4 is written in the form of an intended result – based on the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and subsequent interpretation, the scope of the claim is unclear and thus the device of De Groot with a specified numerical ratio range is considered this intended result [namely, a minimization of gain and cross-talk errors with any ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the aperture centers]; since the language of the claim is in the form of an intended result, it therefore does not add any structure or place any constraints on the diffraction grating of the claim since the language of the claim is not defining a feature or structure of the diffraction grating [i.e. “the phase-stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map for a projection system…” places no constraints on the diffraction grating claimed];
Regardless of the intended use/intended result form of the claim, De Groot discloses the additional structures within; 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])); or
(b) a ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures is close to an optimum value that results in a minimization 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 the 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 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 (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; De Groot above has disclosed an explicit numerical range between which the ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the centers of the apertures, where the ratio is chosen based on a desired result [i.e. suppression of different diffraction orders]; this limitation in claim 4 is written in the form of an intended result – based on the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and subsequent interpretation, the scope of the claim is unclear and thus the device of De Groot with a specified numerical ratio range is considered this intended result [namely, a minimization of variation in an interference beam map in a central region in a measurement plane with any ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the aperture centers]; since the language of the claim is in the form of an intended result, it therefore does not add any structure or place any constraints on the diffraction grating of the claim since the language of the claim is not defining a feature or structure of the diffraction grating [i.e. “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…” places no constraints on the diffraction grating claimed];
Regardless of the intended use/intended result form of the claim, De Groot discloses the additional structures within; 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 the preceding limitation, [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”).
Regarding claim 14, De Groot discloses 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 described 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 configured to:
control a positioning apparatus so as to move the first 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 a controller 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 the diffraction grating of claim 4, and further teaches the grating wherein the ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the centers of the adjacent apertures is close to an optimum value that results in a minimization 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 grating used as the wafer level patterning device is of the form of a checkerboard grating (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; De Groot above has disclosed an explicit numerical range between which the ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the centers of the apertures, where the ratio is chosen based on a desired result [i.e. suppression of different diffraction orders]; as with claim 4 above, this limitation is written in the form of an intended result – based on the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and subsequent interpretation, the scope of the claim is unclear and thus the device of De Groot with a specified numerical ratio range is considered this intended result [namely, a minimization of gain and cross-talk errors with any ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the aperture centers]; since the language of the claim is in the form of an intended result, it therefore does not add any structure or place any constraints on the diffraction grating of the claim since the language of the claim is not defining a feature or structure of the diffraction grating (i.e. “the phase-stepping measurement system for determining an aberration map for a projection system…” places no constraints on the diffraction grating];
Regardless of the intended use/intended result form of the claim, De Groot discloses the additional structures within claim 16; 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]).
Regarding claim 17, De Groot discloses the diffraction grating of claim 4, and further teaches the grating wherein the ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the centers of adjacent apertures is close to an optimum value that results in a minimization 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 the 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 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 (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above; De Groot above has disclosed an explicit numerical range between which the ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the centers of the apertures, where the ratio is chosen based on a desired result [i.e. suppression of different diffraction orders]; as with claim 4 above, this limitation is written in the form of an intended result – based on the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and subsequent interpretation, the scope of the claim is unclear and thus the device of De Groot with a specified numerical ratio range is considered this intended result [namely, a minimization of variation in an interference beam map in a central region in a measurement plane with any ratio of the radius of the circular apertures to the distance between the aperture centers]; since the language of the claim is in the form of an intended result, it therefore does not add any structure or place any constraints on the diffraction grating of the claim since the language of the claim is not defining a feature or structure of the diffraction grating [i.e. “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…” places no constraints on the diffraction grating claimed];
Regardless of the intended use/intended result form of the claim, De Groot discloses the additional structures within claim 17; 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 16, [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”).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The following document(s) were considered but not relied up on for the rejection set forth in this action:
US 8,158,917 B2 by Xiang Li et al.
US 7,286,216 B2 by Kazuya Fukuhara et al.
US 5,989,756 A by Akihiro Nakae
US 5,424,552 A by Toshihiko Tsuji et al.
Conclusion
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