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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 09 April 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, and 13 remain pending in the application (claims 6, 9, and 12 have been cancelled). The Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Final Rejection dated 11 February 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 April 2026 have been fully considered but some are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8, the Applicant argues against the combination of Franz with the other references since Franz does not image the entire structure, but only a portion/section of the structure. While the Examiner agrees that this is true, regarding claim 1, Franz was only brought in to teach an annular shape. The shape of the structure has nothing to do with the image processing method, therefore, Franz will remain in combination with the other references for teaching this limitation. However, since Franz does include a processing method fundamentally different from the other references, Franz will only be used to teach the device shape, while other, more pertinent, references will be used to teach the method.
Additionally, on pages 8-9, the Applicant argues that the current combination of references fails to teach the newly added limitation to claims 1 and 13. The Examiner agrees, therefore additional reference Rezaee et al. (USPGPub 20130170719 A1) has been added.
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 8 and 10-11 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 8, “an evaluation result” in line 5 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 5, on which claim 8 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same evaluation result mentioned previously or a different evaluation result? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same evaluation result mentioned previously.
Claims 10-11 are rejected for their dependency on claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, “the evaluation step” in lines 1-2 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear.
Regarding claim 11, “the evaluation step” in lines 1-2 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-3, 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridgeway et al. (USPGPub 20220276125 A1) in view of Franz (EP 2619526 B1), Yuan (CN 101458441 A), and Rezaee et al. (USPGPub 20130170719 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ridgeway teaches a device (116) to provide an image to an optical system (104) to be tested, the device (116) comprising: a first device section (309) having a first degree of transmission for electromagnetic waves (see figures 3A and 3B, dark material 309; and ¶79, For an implementation featuring transmitted light illumination, the darker material is more light-absorbing and the brighter material better transmits light (more light-transmitting)); and a second device section (313) having a second degree of transmission for the electromagnetic waves, wherein the second degree of transmission is greater than the first degree of transmission (see figures 3A and 3B, bright features 313; and ¶79, For an implementation featuring transmitted light illumination, the darker material is more light-absorbing and the brighter material better transmits light (more light-transmitting)). However, Ridgeway fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the device sections has an annular shape, wherein a complete image of the second device section is projected onto the optical system to be tested such that a second image is generated by the optical system, the second image being completely representative of the complete image of the second device section, wherein the second image is directly provided from the optical system to be tested to an evaluation device to determine a two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system, and wherein the evaluation device is designed to determine the two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system by evaluating the second image in a plurality of azimuthal orientations of the annularly shaped device section.
However, Franz teaches wherein at least one of the device sections has an annular shape (¶16, The measuring structure may preferably consist of longitudinal slots, but may also be formed of concentrically arranged rings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ridgeway to incorporate the teachings of Franz to change the shape of the device sections to an annular shape because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein a complete image of the second device section is projected onto the optical system to be tested such that a second image is generated by the optical system, the second image being completely representative of the complete image of the second device section, wherein the second image is directly provided from the optical system to be tested to an evaluation device to determine a two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system, and wherein the evaluation device is designed to determine the two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system by evaluating the second image in a plurality of azimuthal orientations of the device section.
However, Yuan teaches wherein a complete image of the second device section is projected onto the optical system to be tested such that a second image is generated by the optical system, the second image being completely representative of the complete image of the second device section (¶12, Determine whether the bolded frame pattern of the test line pair on the image board is completely imaged onto the image sensor through the lens under test, and whether it is symmetrical about the center of the image sensor. If it is not completely imaged onto the image sensor or is not symmetrical about the center of the image sensor, move the lens under test until the bolded frame pattern of the test line pair on the image board is completely imaged onto the image sensor and is symmetrical about the center of the image sensor. If the bolded frame pattern of the test line pair on the image board is completely imaged onto the image sensor and is symmetrical about the center of the image sensor, then measure the optical resolution capability of the lens under test for the test line pair pattern on the test line pair on the image board), wherein the second image is directly provided from the optical system to be tested to an evaluation device to determine a two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system (¶5, The working principle of this lens optical resolution measurement system is to directly calculate the physical optical resolution modulation transfer function (MTF) using digital image processing, thereby characterizing the lens's optical resolution capability).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ridgeway and Franz to incorporate the teachings of Yuan to have the entire image of the patterning device imaged in order to determine not only alignment of the object under test, but also the proper focus of the object under test. Additionally, it would have been obvious to determine a modulation transfer function since it provides a quantifiable and standardized way to determine and compare the performance of different optical elements. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the evaluation device is designed to determine the two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system by evaluating the second image in a plurality of azimuthal orientations of the device section.
However, Rezaee teaches teach wherein the evaluation device (118) is designed to determine the two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system by evaluating the second image in a plurality of azimuthal orientations of the device section (208) (see figure 2F, radial lines 210 (i.e. azimuthal orientations); abstract, The method may further include detecting the circular shaped feature within the image. The method may additionally include defining at least one line extending from a point within the detected circular shaped feature to a point outside of the circular shaped feature. The method may also include determining an edge spread function based at least in part on the defined at least one line. The method may further include determining the modulation transfer function of the imaging system based at least in part on the determined edge spread function; and see ¶¶44-45 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ridgeway, Franz, and Yuna to incorporate the teachings of Rezaee to further include determining the MTF using a plurality of azimuthal orientations in order to account for positional variations of the device along differing directions, allowing for increased accuracy of the determined modular transfer function.
Regarding claim 2, Ridgeway as modified by Franz, Yuan, and Rezaee teaches the device according to Claim 1, wherein the second device section (Ridgeway 313) has an annular shape (Franz, see figures 1 and 2b, plate 7 having a plurality of light areas (i.e. second section) arranged between a plurality of dark areas (i.e. first section); and ¶16, The measuring structure may preferably consist of longitudinal slots, but may also be formed of concentrically arranged rings), wherein the second device section (Ridgeway 313) is arranged between a first subsection and a second subsection of the first device section (Ridgeway 309) (Ridgeway, see figure 3A, dark material 309 surrounding light material 313).
Regarding claim 3, Ridgeway as modified by Franz, Yuan, and Rezaee teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the first device section (Ridgeway 309) has an annular shape, wherein the first device section (Ridgeway 309) is arranged between a first subsection and a second subsection of the second device section (Ridgeway 313) (Franz, see figures 1 and 2b, plate 7 having a plurality of light areas (i.e. second section) arranged between a plurality of dark areas (i.e. first section); and ¶16, The measuring structure may preferably consist of longitudinal slots, but may also be formed of concentrically arranged rings).
Regarding claim 5, Ridgeway as modified by Franz, Yuan, and Rezaee teaches a test system comprising: the device according to claim 1 (Ridgeway see figures 3A and 3B; and Franz, see figure 1); and an optical sensor arranged in the evaluation device which is designed to evaluate the second image of to determine an evaluation result for the testing of the optical system (Ridgeway, abstract, For testing the imaging performance of an optical system, a test target is positioned at an object plane of the optical system, and illuminated to generate an image beam. One or more images of the test target are acquired from the image beam. From the imaging data acquired, Edge Spread Functions at a plurality of locations within the test target are calculated; and Yuan, ¶5, The working principle of this lens optical resolution measurement system is to directly calculate the physical optical resolution modulation transfer function (MTF) using digital image processing, thereby characterizing the lens's optical resolution capability; and Rezaee, ¶5, The apparatus of this example embodiment comprises at least one processor. The at least one processor may be configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to at least access an image of a phantom having a substantially circular shaped feature captured by the imaging system. The at least one processor may be further configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to detect the circular shaped feature within the image. The at least one processor may be additionally configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to define at least one line extending from a point within the detected circular shaped feature to a point outside of the circular shaped feature. The at least one processor may also be configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to determine an edge spread function based at least in part on the defined at least one line. The at least one processor may be further configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to determine the modulation transfer function of the imaging system based at least in part on the determined edge spread function).
Regarding claim 8, Ridgeway as modified by Franz, Yuan, and Rezaee teaches a method for testing, the method comprising: providing the test system according to claim 5 (Franz, see ¶39); providing the complete image of the second device section (Ridgeway 313) to the optical system (Ridgeway 104); generating the second image via the optical system (Ridgeway 104) (Yuan, ¶12, Determine whether the bolded frame pattern of the test line pair on the image board is completely imaged onto the image sensor through the lens under test, and whether it is symmetrical about the center of the image sensor. If it is not completely imaged onto the image sensor or is not symmetrical about the center of the image sensor, move the lens under test until the bolded frame pattern of the test line pair on the image board is completely imaged onto the image sensor and is symmetrical about the center of the image sensor. If the bolded frame pattern of the test line pair on the image board is completely imaged onto the image sensor and is symmetrical about the center of the image sensor, then measure the optical resolution capability of the lens under test for the test line pair pattern on the test line pair on the image board); and evaluating the second image in order to determine an evaluation result for the testing of the optical system (Ridgeway 104) (Ridgeway, abstract, For testing the imaging performance of an optical system, a test target is positioned at an object plane of the optical system, and illuminated to generate an image beam. One or more images of the test target are acquired from the image beam. From the imaging data acquired, Edge Spread Functions at a plurality of locations within the test target are calculated; and Yuan, ¶5, The working principle of this lens optical resolution measurement system is to directly calculate the physical optical resolution modulation transfer function (MTF) using digital image processing, thereby characterizing the lens's optical resolution capability; and Rezaee, ¶5, The apparatus of this example embodiment comprises at least one processor. The at least one processor may be configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to at least access an image of a phantom having a substantially circular shaped feature captured by the imaging system. The at least one processor may be further configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to detect the circular shaped feature within the image. The at least one processor may be additionally configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to define at least one line extending from a point within the detected circular shaped feature to a point outside of the circular shaped feature. The at least one processor may also be configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to determine an edge spread function based at least in part on the defined at least one line. The at least one processor may be further configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to determine the modulation transfer function of the imaging system based at least in part on the determined edge spread function).
Regarding claim 10, Ridgeway as modified by Franz, Yuan, and Rezaee teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein, in the evaluation step, the two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function is determined from a point spread function of the optical system by a Fourier transform, and wherein the point spread function is mathematically determined from a plurality of line spread functions of the optical system obtained in different cross-sectional planes (Rezaee, ¶37, the MTF measurement unit 118 may be configured to derive a line spread function, which may be used to determine the MTF, from the edge spread function (e.g., the average edge spread function in some example embodiments wherein multiple sampling lines are used) by calculating a derivative of the edge spread function; ¶38, The MTF measurement unit 118 may use the line spread function to determine the MTF of the imaging system. In this regard, the MTF measurement unit 118 may, for example, be configured to determine the MTF by calculating the modulus of the discrete Fourier transform of the line spread function; and ¶44, the MTF measurement unit 118 may define a plurality of radial lines 210 to the circular shaped feature 208. It will be appreciated that the number of lines illustrated in FIG. 2F and the offset between each line is illustrated merely by way of example, and not by way of limitation. The MTF measurement unit 118 may sample pixel values along the radial lines to determine an edge spread function for each of the radial lines).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridgeway et al. (USPGPub 20220276125 A1) in view of Franz (EP 2619526 B1), Yuan (CN 101458441 A), and Rezaee et al. (USPGPub 20130170719 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katsura (CN 108139205 B).
Regarding claim 4, Ridgeway as modified by Franz, Yuan, and Rezaee teaches the annularly shaped one of the device sections (Franz, see figures 1 and 2b; and ¶16, The measuring structure may preferably consist of longitudinal slots, but may also be formed of concentrically arranged rings). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein one of the device sections takes the form a slit or annular gap.
However, Katsura teaches wherein one of the device sections takes the form a slit or annular gap (see figures 25A and 25B; and ¶183, The optical element 133 has a structure in which the inner annular member 133g is arranged at the center of the outer annular member 133h, thereby forming an annular transmission hole 133a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ridgeway, Franz, Yuan, and Rezaee to incorporate the teachings of Katsura to have a slit or annular gap in order to shape the light beam without additional optical materials needed, as well as easing the manufacturing process.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridgeway et al. (USPGPub 20220276125 A1) in view of Franz (EP 2619526 B1), Yuan (CN 101458441 A), and Rezaee et al. (USPGPub 20130170719 A1) as applied to claims 5 and 8 above, and further in view of Tian et al. (CN 108663197 A).
Regarding claim 7, Ridgeway as modified by Franz, Yuan, and Rezaee teaches wherein the evaluation device is designed to determine an evaluation result, by using the image of the device generated by the optical system to be tested (Ridgeway, abstract, For testing the imaging performance of an optical system, a test target is positioned at an object plane of the optical system, and illuminated to generate an image beam. One or more images of the test target are acquired from the image beam. From the imaging data acquired, Edge Spread Functions at a plurality of locations within the test target are calculated; and Yuan, ¶5, The working principle of this lens optical resolution measurement system is to directly calculate the physical optical resolution modulation transfer function (MTF) using digital image processing, thereby characterizing the lens's optical resolution capability; and Rezaee, ¶5, The apparatus of this example embodiment comprises at least one processor. The at least one processor may be configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to at least access an image of a phantom having a substantially circular shaped feature captured by the imaging system. The at least one processor may be further configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to detect the circular shaped feature within the image. The at least one processor may be additionally configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to define at least one line extending from a point within the detected circular shaped feature to a point outside of the circular shaped feature. The at least one processor may also be configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to determine an edge spread function based at least in part on the defined at least one line. The at least one processor may be further configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to determine the modulation transfer function of the imaging system based at least in part on the determined edge spread function). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the evaluation result is an effective focal length and/or a direction-dependent magnification capability of the optical system.
However, Tian teaches wherein the evaluation result is an effective focal length and/or a direction-dependent magnification capability of the optical system (¶5, the performance test parameters of the lens include optical transfer function, effective focal length, flange focal length and eccentricity error, etc. The qualification of the lens is judged based on these parameters; and ¶25, using the graticule as a reference, the objective lens group together with the image receiver moves in the direction of the mechanical central axis, and when the image on the surface of the image receiver is the clearest, the effective focal length of the lens under test is calculated according to the image height).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ridgeway, Franz, Yuan, and Rezaee to incorporate the teachings of Tian to measure the effective focal length in order to determine how the optical element will function in certain environments and devices.
Regarding claim 11, Ridgeway as modified by Franz, Yuan, and Rezaee teaches wherein in the evaluation step, an evaluation result is determined (Ridgeway, abstract, For testing the imaging performance of an optical system, a test target is positioned at an object plane of the optical system, and illuminated to generate an image beam. One or more images of the test target are acquired from the image beam. From the imaging data acquired, Edge Spread Functions at a plurality of locations within the test target are calculated; and Yuan, ¶5, The working principle of this lens optical resolution measurement system is to directly calculate the physical optical resolution modulation transfer function (MTF) using digital image processing, thereby characterizing the lens's optical resolution capability; and Rezaee, ¶5, The apparatus of this example embodiment comprises at least one processor. The at least one processor may be configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to at least access an image of a phantom having a substantially circular shaped feature captured by the imaging system. The at least one processor may be further configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to detect the circular shaped feature within the image. The at least one processor may be additionally configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to define at least one line extending from a point within the detected circular shaped feature to a point outside of the circular shaped feature. The at least one processor may also be configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to determine an edge spread function based at least in part on the defined at least one line. The at least one processor may be further configured to cause the apparatus of this example embodiment to determine the modulation transfer function of the imaging system based at least in part on the determined edge spread function). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the evaluation result is an effective focal length and/or a direction-dependent magnification capability of the optical system.
However, Tian teaches wherein the evaluation result is an effective focal length and/or a direction-dependent magnification capability of the optical system (¶5, the performance test parameters of the lens include optical transfer function, effective focal length, flange focal length and eccentricity error, etc. The qualification of the lens is judged based on these parameters; and ¶25, using the graticule as a reference, the objective lens group together with the image receiver moves in the direction of the mechanical central axis, and when the image on the surface of the image receiver is the clearest, the effective focal length of the lens under test is calculated according to the image height).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ridgeway, Franz, Yuan, and Rezaee to incorporate the teachings of Tian to measure the effective focal length in order to determine how the optical element will function in certain environments and devices.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ridgeway et al. (USPGPub 20220276125 A1) in view of Franz (EP 2619526 B1), Katsura (CN 108139205 B), Yuan (CN 101458441 A), and Rezaee et al. (USPGPub 20130170719 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ridgeway teaches a test system to determine an imaging performance of an optical system (104) to be tested, the test system comprising: a device (116) to provide an image to the optical system (104) to be tested, the device (116) comprising: a first device section (309) having a first degree of transmission for electromagnetic waves (abstract, For testing the imaging performance of an optical system; see figures 3A and 3B, dark material 309; and ¶79, For an implementation featuring transmitted light illumination, the darker material is more light-absorbing and the brighter material better transmits light (more light-transmitting)); and a second device section (313) having a second degree of transmission for the electromagnetic waves, wherein the second degree of transmission is greater than the first degree of transmission (see figures 3A and 3B, bright features 313; and ¶79, For an implementation featuring transmitted light illumination, the darker material is more light-absorbing and the brighter material better transmits light (more light-transmitting)); and an evaluation device (¶75, the system controller (or controller) 108 is configured to control the operations of the various components of the optical system 104… The system controller 108 is further configured to process the imaging data outputted by the imaging devices 124 and 128 (e.g., data acquisition and signal analysis, including digitizing and recording/storing images, formatting images for display on a display device such as a computer screen, etc.). The system controller 108 is further configured to run performance testing of the optical system 104 according to the method disclosed herein, including executing any algorithms associated with the method). However, Ridgeway fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the device sections has an annular shape in the form of a slit or annular gap; and the evaluation device to evaluate a second image generated by the optical system to be tested, the second image being a complete representation of the image provided by the device, in order to determine an imaging performance as an evaluation result for the testing of the optical system, wherein the evaluation device is designed to determine a two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system by evaluating the second image in a plurality of azimuthal orientations of the annularly shaped device section.
However, Franz teaches wherein at least one of the device sections has an annular shape (¶16, The measuring structure may preferably consist of longitudinal slots, but may also be formed of concentrically arranged rings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ridgeway to incorporate the teachings of Franz to change the shape of the device sections to an annular shape because a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions (MPEP 2144.05 II A). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the device is in the form of a slit or annular gap; and the evaluation device to evaluate a second image generated by the optical system to be tested, the second image being a complete representation of the image provided by the device, in order to determine an imaging performance as an evaluation result for the testing of the optical system, wherein the evaluation device is designed to determine a two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system by evaluating the second image in a plurality of azimuthal orientations of the annularly shaped device section.
However, Katsura teaches wherein the device is in the form of a slit or annular gap (see figures 25A and 25B; and ¶183, The optical element 133 has a structure in which the inner annular member 133g is arranged at the center of the outer annular member 133h, thereby forming an annular transmission hole 133a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ridgeway and Franz to incorporate the teachings of Katsura to have a slit or annular gap in order to shape the light beam without additional materials needed, as well as easing the manufacturing process. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach the evaluation device to evaluate a second image generated by the optical system to be tested, the second image being a complete representation of the image provided by the device, in order to determine an imaging performance as an evaluation result for the testing of the optical system, wherein the evaluation device is designed to determine a two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system by evaluating the second image in a plurality of azimuthal orientations of the annularly shaped device section.
However Yuan teaches the evaluation device to evaluate a second image generated by the optical system to be tested, the second image being a complete representation of the image provided by the device, in order to determine an imaging performance as an evaluation result for the testing of the optical system (¶12, Determine whether the bolded frame pattern of the test line pair on the image board is completely imaged onto the image sensor through the lens under test, and whether it is symmetrical about the center of the image sensor. If it is not completely imaged onto the image sensor or is not symmetrical about the center of the image sensor, move the lens under test until the bolded frame pattern of the test line pair on the image board is completely imaged onto the image sensor and is symmetrical about the center of the image sensor. If the bolded frame pattern of the test line pair on the image board is completely imaged onto the image sensor and is symmetrical about the center of the image sensor, then measure the optical resolution capability of the lens under test for the test line pair pattern on the test line pair on the image board; and ¶5, The working principle of this lens optical resolution measurement system is to directly calculate the physical optical resolution modulation transfer function (MTF) using digital image processing, thereby characterizing the lens's optical resolution capability).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ridgeway, Franz, and Katsura to incorporate the teachings of Yuan to have the entire image of the patterning device imaged in order to determine not only alignment of the object under test, but also the proper focus of the object under test. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the evaluation device is designed to determine a two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system by evaluating the second image in a plurality of azimuthal orientations of the annularly shaped device section.
However, Rezaee teaches teach wherein the evaluation device (118) is designed to determine a two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system by evaluating the second image in a plurality of azimuthal orientations of the device section (208) (see figure 2F, radial lines 210 (i.e. azimuthal orientations); abstract, The method may further include detecting the circular shaped feature within the image. The method may additionally include defining at least one line extending from a point within the detected circular shaped feature to a point outside of the circular shaped feature. The method may also include determining an edge spread function based at least in part on the defined at least one line. The method may further include determining the modulation transfer function of the imaging system based at least in part on the determined edge spread function; and see ¶¶44-45 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ridgeway, Franz, Katsura, and Yuna to incorporate the teachings of Rezaee to further include determining the MTF using a plurality of azimuthal orientations in order to account for positional variations of the device along differing directions, allowing for increased accuracy of the determined modular transfer function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights