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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2026 with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach "wherein all the light that is redirected at the substrate or the desired location toward the optical element forms redirected light, and a second portion configured to transmit the redirected light received to the optical element from the substrate or the desired location" and "wherein the redirected light received to the optical element from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion" because Mathijssen teaches that zeroth order diffractions redirected from the substrate are incident on the first portion (see remarks page 8).
However, it is unclear what part of the claimed invention differs from Mathijssen in order to allow zeroth order diffractions, which reflect diametrically based on applicant’s Fig. 3B, from the substrate or the desired location to be incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion. Further, the applicant's specification does not explain how zeroth order diffractions are included in "all the light that is redirected". In reference to the claimed embodiment, it is only taught that zeroth order may be used for calibration and setting up the metrology system and that the second portion receives at least first order diffractions which include sufficient information related to structures on the substrate ([0097]). Thus, based on the applicant’s specification and claims, it does not appear possible that zeroth order diffractions are included in "all the light that is redirected". The examiner also draws attention to the additional prior art cited in the conclusion which explains the zeroth and first order diffractions using a quadrant illumination profile.
As such, the newly recited limitation have been rejected under 112b and interpreted to exclude zeroth order diffractions for the purposes of examination. However, for the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner has attempted to address the plain meaning of the limitation in an alternate rejection. Claims 1-20 and 22 have been rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “light that is redirected at” in line 7 which should read “light that is redirected from” to be consistent with the language used in the rest of the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “light that is redirected at” in line 5 which should read “radiation that is redirected from” to be consistent with the language used in the rest of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 and 22 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 claims 1 and 18, claim 1 recites "wherein all the light that is redirected at the substrate or the desired location toward the optical element forms redirected light, and a second portion configured to transmit the redirected light received to the optical element from the substrate or the desired location" (line 7) and "wherein the redirected light received to the optical element from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion.” (line 17). Claim 18 recites equivalent limitations in lines 4-6 and 11-13. However, it is unclear what light is included in "all the light that is redirected". Does it include all of zeroth order, first order, and higher order diffractions? If so, how does it include zeroth order diffractions?
Based on paragraph [0097] of the applicant's specification, it appears that the second portion receives at least first order diffractions which include sufficient information related to structures on the substrate. Further, higher order diffraction may not be transmitted or may get rejected by the optical element, which implies that if they are not rejected, they would be transmitted ([0097]). However, it is only taught that zeroth order may be used for calibration and setting up the metrology system ([0097]). Further, Fig. 3B shows zeroth order ray (solid line 0) reflects at the same angle it was incident at ([0069]) which would mean the zeroth order ray in the claimed embodiment would reflect back to the diametrically opposed region of the first portion and thus would not be incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion. The examiner further points out that claim 11 recites that the second portion specifically corresponds to a region of the optical element that receives first order diffraction. Thus, based on the applicant’s specification and claims, it does not appear possible that zeroth order diffractions are included in "all the light that is redirected".
Therefore, for the purposes of examination, "all the light that is redirected at the substrate" which forms "redirected light" is interpreted to include at least first order diffractions and exclude the zeroth order diffractions. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-12, 13-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US20150261097A1 by Mathijssen (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Mathijssen teaches an optical tool comprising (at least Fig. 10):
an objective lens (lens 424) configured to direct light from an illumination source (radiation source 420) to a substrate or a desired location in the optical tool (spot 406 on alignment mark 202 on the wafer W; [0083]); and
an optical element (beam splitter 454; [0084]) comprising:
a first portion configured to reflect the light received from the illumination source towards the substrate or desired location (discrete mirror segments 470, 472; [0084]) wherein all the light that is redirected at the substrate or the desired location toward the optical element forms redirected light ([0083] information-carrying beam 426; this limitation is interpreted under 112b to exclude zeroth order diffractions that are reflected by the first portion) and
a second portion configured to transmit the redirected light received to the optical element from the substrate or the desired location (Fig 10 shows transmitted beam 426; information-carrying beam 426 passes through beam splitter 454; [0083]; [0085]), the first portion having higher coefficient of reflectivity than the second portion, and the second portion having a higher coefficient of transmissivity than the first portion ([0084]-[0085] mirrors have higher coefficient of reflectivity and the part of beamsplitter which transmits beam 426 has higher coefficient of transmissivity),
wherein the light received to the optical element from the illumination source is incident on the first portion without being directly incident on the second portion ([0084] discrete mirror segments may be formed on its internal interface, in a pattern corresponding to the desired illumination profile 448; thus if the pattern of the first portion matches the pattern of illumination, then the light will only be incident on the first portion; compare to Applicant's Fig. 10 source illumination pattern SO matches pattern of first portion) and
wherein the redirected light received from the optical element from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion (the redirected light is interpreted under 112b to exclude zeroth order diffraction, see 112b for further explanation; [0085] the zero order signals can be removed from the information-carrying beam 426, where beam 426 is the portion transmitted by the second portion; the light incident on the first portion is not transmitted and portion of light incident on the second portion is transmitted and thus not directly incident on both the first and second portions).
Even arguendo, if "all the light that is redirected at the substrate" which forms "redirected light" is interpreted to include zeroth order diffractions such that Mathijssen does not explicitly teach wherein the redirected light received to the optical element from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion, Mathijssen does address this limitation in an alternate embodiment.
Mathijssen teaches alternatively, the diffracted radiation, possibly including a zero order signal when a partially transparent surface is used in beam splitter 454 can be directed towards a second detection arrangement 431 ([0086]). Thus, if one segmented mirror was considered to be part of the first portion, and the diametrically opposite segmented mirror was considered to be part of the second portion and the diametrically opposite segmented mirror was partially transparent, then Mathijssen would include wherein the redirected light received to the optical element from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion. Additionally, since the claim does not include wherein all of the light received to the optical element from the illumination source is incident on the first portion without being directly incident on the second portion, it can be considered that the light directed at the diametrically opposite segmented mirror from the illumination source is not included.
Further, the claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit zeroth order diffractions for detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first embodiment of Mathijssen to include wherein the redirected light received to the optical element from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion when the redirected light includes zeroth order diffractions in order to perform a more robust measurement to detect defocus and/or tilt of the substrate ([0086]).
Regarding claim 2, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the optical element is positioned at a distance within a specified range from an entrance pupil or a conjugate pupil of the objective lens (Fig. 10), wherein the specified range is between the entrance pupil and a conjugate plane, and the distance is measured between a point on the first portion, and the entrance pupil or the conjugate pupil ([0083] An input beam 422 is delivered via beam splitter 454 to an objective lens 424 having a pupil plane P.; only light reflected by the first portion reaches the lens; range is further shown in Fig. 10, compare to applicant’s figure 8).
Regarding claim 3, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the specified range is a range at which the optical element captures a diffraction pattern caused by the light directed from the first portion onto the substrate ([0083] reflection surface for a zero order signal of the diffracted radiation) and diffracted from the substrate ([0085] zero order signal is reflected by the target).
Further, even if Mathijssen does not explicitly teach the range is selected such that light is diffracted without causing vignetting, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a range such that there is no vignetting in order to avoid measurement error.
Regarding claim 4, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first portion has the coefficient of reflectivity between 51% to 100% ([0084] mirrors has a coefficient of reflectivity greater the 51%).
Regarding claim 6, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first portion comprises one or more mirrors positioned to receive the light from the illumination source and reflect the light to the substrate or the desired location ([0084] discrete mirror segments).
Regarding claim 7, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second portion has the coefficient of transmissivity between 51% to 100% ([0083] the portion of the beamsplitter which transmits beam 426 must have a coefficient of transmissivity greater than 51%, otherwise it would reflect the beam).
Regarding claim 8, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and although Mathijssen does not explicitly teach wherein the second portion comprises a transparent glass material, a high transmission coating on a transparent glass material, no coating with two transparent glass materials contacted together, or one or more holes for pure transmission, Mathijssen does teach the beam splitter may use a partially transparent surface ([0086]). Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been well-known obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a transparent glass material because transparent glass is a cost, effective transmissive material.
Regarding claim 9, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first portion corresponds to a region of the optical element that receives the light from the illumination source and further directs the light toward the substrate to be measured ([0084]-[0085]; Fig. 10; discrete mirror segments reflect light to wafer W).
Regarding claim 10, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second portion corresponds to a region of the optical element that receives the light redirected from the substrate or the desired location ([0085] information-carrying beam 426 passes through beam splitter 454, the portion that transmits or passes the beam is the second region; see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 11, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 10, and further teaches wherein the second portion corresponds to a region of the optical element that receives first order diffractions of the light from the substrate causing the first order diffractions to pass through the optical element ([0085] the zero order signals can be removed from the information-carrying beam 426; [0086] both zero order or high order signals can be passed though the transmissive part of the beam splitter or the second portion; thus at least first order signals are transmitted; [0078] segmented illumination is used to obtain clear first order signals).
Regarding claim 12, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and although Mathijssen does not explicitly teach wherein the first portion comprises a first quadrant region and a third quadrant region of the optical element; and the second portion comprises a second quadrant region and a fourth quadrant region of the optical element, Mathijssen teaches the regions of the first portion need to have 180 degree symmetry in order to reflect the zero order signal of the diffracted radiation ([0085]). Further, Mathijssen teaches that the first portion is configured to match the illumination pattern ([0084])
Further, Mathijssen does address this limitation in a separate embodiment.
Mathijssen teaches a segmented illumination pattern (Fig. 7) where two diametrically opposite quadrants, labeled a and b, are bright in this aperture pattern (transparent), while the other two quadrants are dark (opaque).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a quadrant illumination pattern for scatterometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify to implement the quadrant illumination pattern and corresponding discrete mirror in the embodiment of Fig. 10 such that he first portion comprises a first quadrant region and a third quadrant region of the optical element; and the second portion comprises a second quadrant region and a fourth quadrant region of the optical element as suggested the second embodiment as it maintains 180 degree symmetry and reduces measurement error as this segmented illumination pattern can be exploited to obtain clear first order signals from an alignment mark ([0078]).
Regarding claim 13, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches comprising sensor configured to receive the light transmitted through the second portion of the optical element (detector 630; [0083]).
Regarding claim 14, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 13, and further teaches comprising a processor ([0060] processing unit PU; [0104]) configured to determine a physical characteristic ([0083] spatial resolution detector) of a patterned substrate ([0083] alignment mark 202 on the wafer W; thus a patterned substrate) based on a diffraction pattern detected by the sensor ([0083] spatial resolution detector 630 is an arrangement similar to the known alignment sensor of FIG. 3; [0060]).
Regarding claim 15, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 14, and further teaches wherein the physical characteristic is a critical dimension of a pattern on the patterned substrate, or overlay between patterns on a first layer and a second layer of the patterned substrate ([0059]-[0060] alignment sensor used in Fig. 10 measures critical dimension of mark on substrate).
Regarding claim 16, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the optical element is located within a specified distance from an entrance pupil or a conjugate pupil of the objective lens near the substrate (([0083] An input beam 422 is delivered via beam splitter 454 to an objective lens 424 having a pupil plane P; Fig. 10 shows distance).
Regarding claim 17, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the optical element is a beam splitter ([0084] beam splitter 454).
Regarding claim 18, Mathijssen teaches a system for measuring overlay (at least Fig. 10), the system comprising:
an optical element (beam splitter 454; [0084]) comprising a first portion configured to reflect radiation received to the optical element from an illumination source towards a patterned substrate (discrete mirror segments 470, 472; wafer with alignment mark is a patterned substrate [0084]), wherein all the light that is redirected at the substrate or the desired location toward the optical element forms redirected light ([0083] information-carrying beam 426; this limitation is interpreted under 112b to exclude zeroth order diffractions that are reflected by the first portion), and a second portion configured to transmit the redirected light received to the optical element from the patterned substrate (partially transparent surface of beamsplitter 454 that transmits light towards detection arrangements; Fig 10 shows transmitted beam 426; information-carrying beam 426 passes through beam splitter 454; [0083]; [0085]), the first portion having a higher coefficient of reflectivity than the second portion and the second portion having a higher coefficient of transmissivity than the first portion ([0084]-[0085] mirrors have higher coefficient of reflectivity and the part of beamsplitter which transmits beam 426 has higher coefficient of transmissivity), wherein the radiation received to the optical element from the illumination source is incident on the first portion without being directly incident on the second portion ([0084] discrete mirror segments may be formed on its internal interface, in a pattern corresponding to the desired illumination profile 448; thus if the pattern of the first portion matches the pattern of illumination, then the light will only be incident on the first portion; compare to Applicant's Fig. 10 source illumination pattern SO matches pattern of first portion) and wherein the redirected light received to the topical element from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion (the redirected light is interpreted under 112b to exclude zeroth order diffraction, see 112b for further explanation; [0085] the zero order signals can be removed from the information-carrying beam 426, where beam 426 is the portion transmitted by the second portion; the light incident on the first portion is not transmitted and portion of light incident on the second portion is transmitted and thus not directly incident on both the first and second portions, see response to arguments above for further explanation).;
a sensor configured to receive a diffraction pattern of the radiation caused by the radiation being incident of the patterned substrate (detector 630 is an arrangement similar to the known alignment sensor of FIG. 3; [0083]; [0060]); and
a processor configured to receive a signal relating to the diffraction pattern from the sensor ([0060] processing unit PU; [0104]), and determine overlay associated with the patterned substrate by analyzing the signal ([0083] alignment sensor; [0005] alignment sensors are used to determine overlay error).
Even arguendo, "all the light that is redirected at the substrate" which forms "redirected light" is interpreted to include zeroth order diffractions such that Mathijssen does not explicitly teach wherein the redirected light received to the optical element from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion, Mathijssen does address this limitation in an alternate embodiment.
Mathijssen teaches alternatively, the diffracted radiation, possibly including a zero order signal when a partially transparent surface is used in beam splitter 454 can be directed towards a second detection arrangement 431 ([0086]). Thus, if one segmented mirror was considered to be part of the first portion, and the diametrically opposite segmented mirror was considered to be part of the second portion and the diametrically opposite segmented mirror was partially transparent, then Mathijssen would include wherein the redirected light received to the optical element from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion. Additionally, since the claim does not include wherein all of the light received to the optical element from the illumination source is incident on the first portion without being directly incident on the second portion, it can be considered that the light directed at the diametrically opposite segmented mirror from the illumination source is not included.
Further, the claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and Sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit zeroth order diffractions for detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the first embodiment of Mathijssen to include wherein the redirected light received to the optical element from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion when the redirected light includes zeroth order diffractions in order to perform a more robust measurement to detect defocus and/or tilt of the substrate ([0086]).
Regarding claim 19, Mathijssen teaches the system of claim 18, and further teaches wherein the optical element is positioned at a distance within a specified range from an entrance pupil or a conjugate pupil of an objective lens, wherein the specified range is between the entrance pupil and a conjugate plane, and the distance is measured between a point on the first portion, and the entrance pupil or the conjugate pupil ([0083] An input beam 422 is delivered via beam splitter 454 to an objective lens 424 having a pupil plane P.; only light reflected by the first portion reaches the lens; range is further shown in Fig. 10; compare to applicant’s figure 8).
Regarding claim 20, Mathijssen teaches the system of claim 18, and further teaches wherein the second portion corresponds to a region of the optical element that receives the diffraction pattern from the patterned substrate and the diffraction pattern comprises first order diffractions comprising information related to the overlay ([0085] the zero order signals can be removed from the information-carrying beam 426; [0086] both zero order or high order signals can be passed though the transmissive part of the beam splitter or second portion; thus at least first order signals are transmitted; these signals are used the alignment sensor therefore they contain information related to the overlay; [0078] segmented illumination is used to obtain clear first order signals).
Regarding claim 22, Mathijssen teaches the system of claim 19, and further teaches wherein the specified range is a range at which the optical element captures a diffraction pattern caused by the light directed from the first portion onto the substrate ([0083] reflection surface for a zero order signal of the diffracted radiation) and diffracted from the substrate [0085] zero order signal is reflected by the target).
Further, even if Mathijssen does not explicitly teach the range is selected such that light is diffracted without causing vignetting, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a range such that there is no vignetting in order to avoid measurement error.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathijssen in view of US20190107727A1 by Gorelik (previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first portion comprises mirrors formed on a substrate where the light from the illumination source is incident on the optical element ([0084] discrete mirror segments may be formed on its internal interface in a pattern corresponding to the desired illumination profile).
Mathijssen does not explicitly wherein the first portion comprises a reflective coating formed on a glass substrate.
However, Gorelik does address this limitation. Gorelik and Mathijssen are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical metrology.
Gorelik teaches wherein the first portion comprises a reflective coating ([0041] reflective structures 124 may be formed from one or more films of metals, or deposition of a metal, a photoresist, a photomask, or the like) formed on a glass substrate ([0030] substrate 102 may be glass) where the light from the illumination source is incident on the optical element (Fig. 2).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a mirror comprises a reflective coating formed substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mathijssen to include wherein the first portion comprises a reflective coating formed on a glass substrate as suggested by Gorelik in order to create cost-effective mirror segments.
Conclusion
US 20130054186 A1 by Den Boef et al. teaches an apparatus for determining overlay error using a quadrant illumination profile similar to the claimed invention. The illumination profile may be such that at least one characteristic of the target can be reconstructed using the separately detected zeroth diffracted order and a higher diffracted order and comprise two diagonally opposite quadrants of illumination. In this case, the first order diffraction pattern will be seen in the two quadrants corresponding to the dark quadrants in the illumination profile and the zeroth order (reflected) diffraction pattern will be seen in the other two quadrants. The diffraction orders are therefore separated, without the disadvantage of a conventional annular profile which leads to part of the first diffraction order being mixed up in the pupil pane with the zeroth order ([0085]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights