DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
1- A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Amendment
2- The Request for Continued Examination amendment filed has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-8 and 10-15 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
3- Applicant’s amendments and their corresponding arguments, with respect to the rejection of the pending claims under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection, as set forth in the final office action, mailed 01/02/2026, has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection, based on the change of scope of the claimed invention, is over the prior art used in the previous office action in view of
PNG
media_image1.png
305
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Axis AA’)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First
surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (q)]
Annotated Fig. 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4- 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
5- Claims 1-2, 10-11 and 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemar et al. (PGPUB No. 2002/186879, cited by Applicants)
As to amended claims 1, 15, Hemar teaches an inspection system (Abstract and Figs. 1-4), and its corresponding lithography system (¶ 24, 42 for ex.), comprising: a projection system comprising: a radiation source (module 3 and/or 3/5) configured to transmit an illumination beam along an illumination path (Figs. 1-2 and ¶ 40-41 for ex.) toward an object (1) comprising first surface and a second surface (Figs. 1-2 and ¶ 40-41 for ex.), and an aperture stop (any of elements 5 or 7, or combination thereof. For element 5, its limited size aperture stops out the rays hitting its rim) configured to select a portion of the illumination beam (¶ 41, 48-49), wherein the radiation source is configured to irradiate, through the aperture stop, a first region of the first surface and a second region of the second surface that is at a different location and a different depth level within the object than the first region, and wherein the second surface comprises a third region located below the first region, with dimensions corresponding to the first region, that is not irradiated when the first region is irradiated to eliminate any light from reflecting from the third region (See annotated Fig. 1 when the original Fig. 1 is considered upside down, as direction of the illumination and set up is merely arbitrary. The oblique rays reach different regions on the two surfaces); an optical system (module 6, 10 and 12) configured to transmit the selected portion of the illumination beam toward the object and transmit a signal beam comprising radiation scattered from the first and second regions (¶ 42-46 for ex.); an imaging system comprising a detector (12/13/14 with any combination of cameras 16-18) configured to detect the signal beam (¶ 43-47, 50-53 for ex.) and to define a field of view -FOV- of the first surface including the first region (Hemar’s imaging system measures illuminated areas, i.e. FOVs from both surfaces); and processing circuitry (101/102) configured to: determine coordinates for the first region; discard image data from the signal beam not received from the coordinates for the first region to eliminate interference of reflections from the second region; and construct a composite image comprising image data from across the first region without interference signals from the lithographic pattern at the second surface(part of the detection of the defects/particles; Hemar’s ¶ 10-13, 16-25 for ex. Moreover, ¶ 27-29, 35-43, 46-47, 57-62; the images taken from a given first region, such as in annotated Fig. 1, necessarily avoids the third region on the second surface).
Hemar does not teach expressly the second surface comprising a lithographic pattern; and the illumination beam is incident on the first surface at an oblique incidence angle relative to an axis perpendicular to the first surface.
However, Hemar’s object 1 being a reticle, it would be obvious to one PHOSITA to consider that lithographic patterns of the reticle be on either surface and/or in the volume (See MPEP § 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Hemar so that the second surface comprising a lithographic pattern, with the advantage of effectively inspecting the lithographic patterns on Hemar’s reticle.
Moreover, see annotated Fig. 1, Hemar’s focused illumination beam necessarily comprises rays that form an incidence angle, showed as q for illustration, with respect to the axis AA’, perpendicular to the first surface. Hemar still does not teach expressly the central axis of the illumination beam forming an angle with axis AA’, similarly to Fig. 4 of the instant Application.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, DenBoef teaches method/apparatus for angular resolved lithography characterization (Abstract, Figs. 1-), wherein the normal and oblique incidences are disclosed as mere suitable alternatives (¶ 35-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Hemar, according to DenBoef’s suggestions so that the illumination beam is incident on the first surface at an oblique incidence angle relative to an axis perpendicular to the first surface, as mere suitable alternatives (See MPEP § 2144.07), and with the advantage of effectively collecting off-axis scattering in inspecting the lithographic patterns on Hemar’s reticle.
Moreover, Hemar teaches:
(claim 2) wherein the aperture stop comprises an apodized aperture (¶ 49).
(claims 10-11) wherein: the aperture stop comprises an electro-optical aperture module configured to control transmission of the illumination beam through the aperture stop; the electro-optical aperture module controls transmission of the illumination beam in three degrees of freedom; and wherein the three degrees of freedom comprise radial extent, angular extent, and intensity; (claim 11) wherein: the aperture stop comprises an opto-mechanical aperture module configured to control transmission of the illumination beam through the aperture stop; and the opto-mechanical aperture module comprises a plurality of aperture masks (¶ 41).
6- Claims 3-8, 12-14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemar and DenBoef in view of Wardenier et al. (PGPUB No. 20160370710), hereinafter ASML
As to claims 3-5, the combination of Hemar and DenBoef teaches the inspection system of claim 1.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein the aperture stop comprises a central obscuration configured to limit a low numerical aperture - NA - portion of the illumination beam to increase visibility of a projected pattern. (claim 4) wherein: the imaging system further comprises an imaging aperture stop; the imaging aperture stop comprises a central obscuration configured to limit a low numerical aperture - NA - portion of the signal beam to increase contrast of out-of-focus features within the signal beam; the imaging aperture stop is disposed at a predetermined distance from the detector; and the imaging aperture stop includes a transmissive modifier or a reflective modifier, and wherein an optical system layout depends on the type of imaging aperture stop modifier; (claim 5) wherein: the imaging system further comprises an imaging aperture stop including a central obscuration configured to limit a low numerical aperture - NA - portion of the signal beam to increase contrast of in-focus features within the signal beam by removing ghost signals, and the detector is configured to process the signal beam after passing through the imaging aperture stop.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, ASML teaches a method and apparatus for optimizing a target arrangement (Abstract and Figs. 1-8) wherein, in Figs. 3 and ¶ 49-50, 54, a aperture device 13 with blocked central illumination, and off-axis openings, is used to provide angularly sensitive off axis illumination in a known dark field mode to reduce the system’s depth of focus, i.e. increase its visibility; wherein: the imaging system further comprises an imaging aperture stop (13 in Figs. 3 and ¶ 49-50, 54); the imaging aperture stop comprises a central obscuration configured to limit a low NA portion of the signal beam to increase contrast of out-of-focus features within the signal beam (See rejection of claim 3); the imaging aperture stop is disposed at a predetermined distance from the detector (Figs. 3); and the imaging aperture stop includes a transmissive modifier or a reflective modifier (The open aperture transmitting light), and wherein an optical system layout depends on the type of imaging aperture stop modifier (the optical layout of the lenses is designed to collect the light from the corresponding aperture in Figs. 3); (claim 5) wherein: the projection system is further configured to: irradiate, through the aperture stop, a first surface of the object, a first parameter of the illumination beam defining a region of the first surface of the object, and irradiate, through the aperture stop, a second surface of the object, a second parameter of the illumination beam defining a region of the second surface, wherein the second surface is at a different depth level within the object than the first surface (Hemar’s Figs. 1, 2 and ASML figs. 3); and the imaging system further comprises an imaging aperture stop including a central obscuration configured to limit a low NA portion of the signal beam to increase contrast of in-focus features within the signal beam by removing ghost signals (See rejection of claim 3), and the detector is configured to process the signal beam after passing through the aperture stop (Hemar’s Fig. 3 and ¶ 62 for ex.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Hemar and DenBoef in view of ASML’s suggestions so that the aperture stop comprises a central obscuration configured to limit a low NA portion of the illumination beam to increase visibility of a projected pattern; wherein: the imaging system further comprises an imaging aperture stop; the imaging aperture stop comprises a central obscuration configured to limit a low NA portion of the signal beam to increase contrast of out-of-focus features within the signal beam; the imaging aperture stop is disposed at a predetermined distance from the detector; and the imaging aperture stop includes a transmissive modifier or a reflective modifier, and wherein an optical system layout depends on the type of imaging aperture stop modifier; wherein: the projection system is further configured to: irradiate, through the aperture stop, a first surface of the object, a first parameter of the illumination beam defining a region of the first surface of the object, and irradiate, through the aperture stop, a second surface of the object, a second parameter of the illumination beam defining a region of the second surface, wherein the second surface is at a different depth level within the object than the first surface; and the imaging system further comprises an imaging aperture stop including a central obscuration configured to limit a low NA portion of the signal beam to increase contrast of in-focus features within the signal beam by removing ghost signals, and the detector is configured to process the signal beam after passing through the aperture stop, with the advantage of effectively reducing the depth of focus and increase its resolution/visibility.
Moreover, Hemar suggests:
(claim 6) wherein: the first region of the first surface does not overlap the second region of the second surface within the FOV; and the processing circuitry is further configured to rotate the imaging aperture stop and construct the composite image based on the image data (Hemar’s first and second regions do not overlap with the oblique light rays. Moreover, ASML’s ¶ 63 for ex with the different apertures illuminating the sample at different locations on both surfaces depending on the angles of the illumination and the distances between the optical elements and the sample. One PHOSITA would find it obvious, as a known technique in the art, to collect the corresponding non-overlapping images and subsequently stitch them numerically for a thorough imaging of the sample. See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
(claim 7) wherein: the projection system is further configured to generate a second beam of radiation and to irradiate the first surface of the object, the second beam defining another region of the first surface within the FOV; the detector is further configured to receive, through the imaging aperture stop, radiation scattered from the another region of the first surface and at least one other region of the second surface, wherein the another region of the first surface and the at least one other region of the second surface do not overlap in the FOV; and the processing circuitry is further configured to: discard image data not received from the another region of the first surface, and construct the composite image to include the image data from across the first region of the first surface and across the another region of the first surface (See rejection of claim 6).
(claim 8) wherein: the processing circuitry is further configured to determine, from the composite image, whether a particle is located within the FOV (this is construed as a mere intended use as no specific limitations are claimed to pertain to a particle detection. Hemar does disclose the capability of detecting particles, ¶ 22, 25 for ex.); and a shape of the first region of the first surface is independent of a shape of the another region of the first surface (ASML’s different angles of illumination necessarily provide different shapes and sizes of the illumination spots, depending on the illumination angles, respective distances between the optical elements).
As to claims 12-14, the combination of Hemar and DenBoef teaches the inspection system of claim 1.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein: the illumination system comprises an electro-optical illumination module configured to electronically control the illumination beam; the electro-optical illumination module comprises a digital micromirror device DMD, a liquid crystal modulator LCM, a spatial light modulator SLM, glass plates with patterns and/or some combination thereof to generate a series of patterns; the electro-optical illumination module controls a numerical aperture of the illumination beam; and the processing circuitry is configured to provide real-time feedback for image acquisition of the signal beam; (claim 13) wherein: the illumination beam comprises a structured light pattern, the structured light pattern comprises amplitude modulation AM; and the AM comprises three patterns configured to identify a particle signal, a particle depth, and/or a ghost light contribution of the object based on an image characteristic of a location of interest within the FOV of the detector; (claim 14) wherein: the structured light pattern comprises frequency modulation FM; the illumination beam is encoded in the spatial, spectral, or temporal domain; and the illumination beam comprises a plurality of narrow spectral bands.
However, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to use one of the claimed readily available species in the art among a limited genus of masks/reticles. (See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered). For ex.; ASML teaches using deformable mirrors and SLMs (¶ 63), i.e. temporally structured light pattern in the AM to detect the defects/particle. FM modulation would be considered as an obvious alternative to AM modulation; See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D. Moreover, as for the circuitry configured to provide real-time feedback for image acquisition of the signal beam, and given the 112 issues, it is not clear which part of the inspection system the circuitry pertains to and obtains feedback from, but the camera systems in Hemar are used in Fig. 3 to give feedback to the different modules of the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Hemar and DenBoef in view the ASML’s suggestions, so that the illumination system comprises an electro-optical illumination module configured to electronically control the illumination beam; the electro-optical illumination module comprises a digital micromirror device (DMD), a liquid crystal modulator (LCM), a spatial light modulator (SLM), glass plates with patterns and/or some combination thereof to generate a series of patterns; the electro-optical illumination module controls a numerical aperture of the illumination beam; and the circuitry is configured to provide real-time feedback for image acquisition of the signal beam; wherein: the illumination beam comprises a structured light pattern [[.]], the structured light pattern comprises amplitude modulation AM; and the AM comprises three patterns configured to identify a particle signal, a particle depth, and/or a ghost light contribution of the object based on an image characteristic of a location of interest within a field of view FOV of the detector; wherein: the structured light pattern comprises frequency modulation FM; the illumination beam is encoded in the spatial, spectral, or temporal domain; and the illumination beam comprises a plurality of narrow spectral bands. , with the advantage of effectively controlling the pattern in the aperture.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights