DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 09 December 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-11 remain pending in the application, as well as newly added claim 13 (claim 12 has been cancelled). The Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every objection and rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 17 July 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 09 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Ridgeway et al. (USPGPub 20220276125 A1) in view of Franz (EP 2619526 B1) and Yuan (CN 101458441 A).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 5-6, and 8-9 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) and Yuan (CN 101458441 A).
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.
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.
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.
Regarding claim 2, Ridgeway as modified by Franz and Yuan 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 and Yuan 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 and Yuan 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 (Franz, ¶39, Since each section is unique and thus clearly identifiable within the measurement structure of the image of the measuring mark, its position within the image of the measurement structure can be determined exactly. For this purpose, image evaluation software is available which searches for the section captured by the receiver matrix 6 within the stored image of the measuring structure 3 in order to mathematically determine the center point of the image of the measuring structure 3 and to determine its offset relative to the optical axis 5).
Regarding claim 6, Ridgeway as modified by Franz and Yuan teaches the test system according to claim 5, wherein the evaluation device is designed to determine a two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system as the evaluation result by using the image of the device generated by the optical system to be tested (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).
Regarding claim 8, Ridgeway as modified by Franz and Yuan 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) (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 Franz, ¶39, Since each section is unique and thus clearly identifiable within the measurement structure of the image of the measuring mark, its position within the image of the measurement structure can be determined exactly. For this purpose, image evaluation software is available which searches for the section captured by the receiver matrix 6 within the stored image of the measuring structure 3 in order to mathematically determine the center point of the image of the measuring structure 3 and to determine its offset relative to the optical axis 5).
Regarding claim 9, Ridgeway as modified by Franz and Yuan teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein in the evaluation step, the two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function of the optical system is determined as the evaluation result (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).
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) and Yuan (CN 101458441 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katsura (CN 108139205 B).
Regarding claim 4, Ridgeway as modified by Franz and Yuan 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, and Yuan 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) and Yuan (CN 101458441 A) 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 and Yuan 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 (Franz, ¶39, Since each section is unique and thus clearly identifiable within the measurement structure of the image of the measuring mark, its position within the image of the measurement structure can be determined exactly. For this purpose, image evaluation software is available which searches for the section captured by the receiver matrix 6 within the stored image of the measuring structure 3 in order to mathematically determine the center point of the image of the measuring structure 3 and to determine its offset relative to the optical axis 5). 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, and Yuan 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 and Yuan teaches wherein in the evaluation step, an evaluation result is determined (Franz, ¶39, Since each section is unique and thus clearly identifiable within the measurement structure of the image of the measuring mark, its position within the image of the measurement structure can be determined exactly. For this purpose, image evaluation software is available which searches for the section captured by the receiver matrix 6 within the stored image of the measuring structure 3 in order to mathematically determine the center point of the image of the measuring structure 3 and to determine its offset relative to the optical axis 5). 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, and Yuan 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 10 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) and Yuan (CN 101458441 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Smith (USPGPub 20040174506 A1) and Brown et al. (USPGPub 20210199495 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ridgeway as modified by Franz and Yuan teaches determining the two-dimensionally measured modulation transfer function (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). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the modulation transfer function is determined from a point spread function of the optical system, by a Fourier transform, 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.
However, Smith teaches wherein the modulation transfer function is determined from a point spread function of the optical system, by a Fourier transform (¶27, The approach that is best utilized is one that could measure the spread function from a point or a line (commonly known as point spread function and line spread functions respectively). For a linear, locally-stationary system, the Fourier Transform of these functions will lead to a modulation transfer function).
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 Franz and Dumitrescu to incorporate the teachings of Smith to determine the MSF from point and line spread functions as this is a common method for detecting and characterizing aberrations in optical elements. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach 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.
However, Brown teaches 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 (¶23, the two-dimensional point spread function is approximated by simpler one-dimensional line spread functions that may be applied to one slice of an image at a time; and see figure 8A, plurality of slices along different planes).
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 Franz, Dumitrescu, and Smith to incorporate the teachings of Brown to determine the PSF from the LSF as the LSFs are a simpler function, and therefore easier on which to perform mathematical operations.
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), and Yuan (CN 101458441 A).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878