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 and Status of Application
This notice is in response to the amendments filed 28 May 2026. Claims 1-24 are pending in the instant application where claims 1, 5, and 14 have been amended and claims 21-24 are newly added. Examiner notes applicant’s request that the double patenting rejections be held in abeyance until no rejections excluding double patenting remain. Given applicant’s amendments to claim 1 (specifically, disclosing explicit structure for the EUV camera), examiner is withdrawing both provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claim 1 set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04 February 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1, 5, and 14, and dependent claims 7-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. This is in regards to arguments directed towards the newly amended limitations drawn to the wavelength range between 5 to 30 nm, and arguments directed towards the disclosure of the reference Wang, where the spectral purity filter SPF of Wang cannot be considered as a pellicle. These newly amended limitations are addressed in the rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for the following antecedent basis informalities: The claim recites “an image sensor of an EUV camera” on line 5, however, both the image sensor and EUV camera have been given proper antecedence within the amended limitations on lines 1 and 2. Examiner suggests correcting to “the image sensor of the EUV camera” on line 5.
Claim 14 is objected to for the following antecedent basis informality: “the EUV radiation source” on lines 2-3 lacks proper antecedence. This should be corrected to “an EUV radiation source”.
Claims 22-24 are objected to as the preambles for these claims recite “The apparatus of claim __”. However, the preamble of the dependent claims (i.e. for claim 22, “The apparatus of claim 13”) recites “The EUV camera of claim __”. The preambles for claims 22-24 should be corrected to “The EUV camera of claim __” to ensure consistent preamble language through the claim tree.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0235049 A1 by Daimian Wang (herein after “Wang”) in view of US 2018/0070040 A1 by Yung-Ho Alex Chuang et al. (herein after “Chuang”), and further in view of KR 20220122104 A by Sang Sul Lee et al. (herein after “Lee”). Examiner notes the reference Wang was cited in the IDS filed 19 March 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method for inspecting photomasks (Wang abstract – inspection of EUV active reticles [photomask]) using an image sensor (Wang [0023] and fig. 2 disclose imaging sensor 16 [image sensor]) wherein a photomask is illuminated by EUV radiation emitted by an EUV radiation source and wherein EUV radiation reflected at the photomask is guided to an image sensor such that the photomask is imaged on the image sensor (Wang [0023] and fig. 1 discloses an EUV light source 11 [EUV radiation source] which emits EUV radiation which is directed via a series of illumination optics 12 including condensing mirrors 17a,b to the reticle 14, where that light is reflected by the reticle and guided to EUV imaging sensor 16).
Wang is silent to an EUV camera, the EUV camera comprising a housing with an entrance opening and an image sensor held in the housing, wherein EUV radiation reflected at the photomask is guided via a projection lens and the entrance opening to an image sensor of an EUV camera, and wherein the EUV radiation passes through the projection lens.
However, Chuang does address this limitation. Wang and Chuang are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of photomask inspection via EUV optical systems.
Chuang discloses “an EUV camera, the EUV camera comprising a housing with an entrance opening and an image sensor held in the housing, wherein EUV radiation reflected at the photomask is guided via a projection lens and the entrance opening to an image sensor of an EUV camera, and wherein the EUV radiation passes through the projection lens” (Chuang is generally directed to inspecting photomasks, reticles, etc., as is the current invention and Wang; fig. 2A and [0031] discloses an inspection system comprising a UV light source directing light to a photomask 211, where that light is reflected and collected by lenses 212/213 [projection lens] where the radiation is then directed to the sensor 215; while the sensor 215 is not explicitly disclosed as a camera, [0044] discloses a detector/camera 86 which detects reflected beams off of the photomask 211 – given the understanding of “camera” of one of ordinary skill in the art, the sensor 215 is considered as an EUV camera comprising a housing with an entrance and image sensor 215 held within the housing, as housings and entrance openings are readily recognizable as common parts of cameras; thus, EUV radiation from the photomask 211 passes through projection lenses 212/213, and through entrance opening of housing to image sensor within the EUV camera).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate an EUV camera, the EUV camera comprising a housing with an entrance opening and an image sensor held in the housing, wherein EUV radiation reflected at the photomask is guided via a projection lens and the entrance opening to the image sensor of the EUV camera, and wherein the EUV radiation passes through the projection lens as suggested by Chuang for the advantage of collecting light scattered from the sample and directing said light to the sensor, reducing light lost after interaction with the photomask (Chuang [0031]).
Wang when modified by Chuang is silent to wherein the EUV camera comprises a pellicle arranged between the projection lens and the image sensor, so that the EUV radiation passes through the pellicle, wherein the pellicle is positioned at a distance from the image sensor, and wherein the pellicle is configured to allow EUV radiation having a wavelength in a range from 5 nm to 30 nm to pass through and suppress a passage of particles.
However, Lee does address this limitation. Wang, Chuang, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of component inspection within EUV optical systems.
Lee discloses “wherein the EUV camera comprises a pellicle arranged between the projection lens and the image sensor, so that the EUV radiation passes through the pellicle” (Lee fig. 1 and [0041] discloses an optical system for pellicle characterization 300 comprising [0058] pellicle P and first light measurement sensor 42 [measurement sensor 42 equivalent to the image sensor 16 of Wang and sensor 215 of Chuang]; [0062] the first light measurement sensor 42 is configured as an EUV camera; incorporating the pellicle P between projection lens of Chuang and sensor 215 results in the claimed arrangement, where the EUV radiation of Wang and Chuang would pass through the pellicle on its way to the image sensor), “wherein the pellicle is positioned at a distance from the image sensor” (Lee fig. 1 shows a distance between first light measurement sensor 42 pellicle P [pellicle positioned at a distance from the image sensor]) “and wherein the pellicle is configured to allow EUV radiation having a wavelength in a range from 5 nm to 30 nm to pass through and suppress a passage of particles” (Lee [0003]-[0004] discloses the pellicle has a transmittance at EUV wavelength of 13.5 nm which anticipates the claimed range, and that pellicles are designed to prevent contaminants from passing through it and absorbing into whatever components are behind it).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Chuang to incorporate wherein the EUV camera comprises a pellicle arranged between the projection lens and the image sensor, so that the EUV radiation passes through the pellicle, wherein the pellicle is positioned at a distance from the image sensor, and wherein the pellicle is configured to allow EUV radiation having a wavelength in a range from 5 nm to 30 nm to pass through and suppress a passage of particles as suggested by Lee for the advantage of preventing contaminants from entering the camera housing (Lee [0003]) which would reduce the accuracy of measurements taken by the image sensor, and potentially damage the image sensor.
Regarding claim 2, Wang when modified by Chuang and Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Wang when modified by Chuang is silent to the method of claim 1, wherein the EUV radiation passes through the pellicle exactly once between the EUV radiation source and the image sensor.
However, Lee does address this limitation.
Lee discloses the method of claim 1, “wherein the EUV radiation passes through the pellicle exactly once between the EUV radiation source and the image sensor” (Lee fig. 1 shows the path of EUV light where it passes through the pellicle P before being incident to the first light measurement sensor 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Chuang to incorporate wherein the EUV radiation passes through the pellicle exactly once between the EUV radiation source and the image sensor as suggested by Lee for the advantage of preventing contaminants from entering the camera housing (Lee [0003]) which would reduce the accuracy of measurements taken by the image sensor, and potentially damage the image sensor.
Regarding claim 3, Wang when modified by Chuang and Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Wang when modified by Chuang is silent to the method of claim 1 wherein the pellicle is a constituent part of the EUV camera.
However, Lee does address this limitation.
Lee discloses the method of claim 1 “wherein the pellicle is a constituent part of the EUV camera” (As Lee is directed toward detecting EUV light by at least via first light measurement camera 42, the EUV light having passed through the pellicle P, the pellicle P would be considered by one of ordinary skill to be a constituent part of the camera, given it’s the pellicle’s presence being necessary for the operation of the pellicle characteristic evaluation apparatus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Chuang to incorporate wherein the pellicle is a constituent part of the EUV camera as suggested by Lee for the advantage of preventing contaminants from entering the camera housing (Lee [0003]) which would reduce the accuracy of measurements taken by the image sensor, and potentially damage the image sensor.
Regarding claim 4, Wang when modified by Chuang and Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Wang is silent to the method wherein a first EUV image recording is recorded by the EUV camera, the photomask being displaced relative to the incident EUV radiation and a second EUV image recording being recorded subsequently.
However, Chuang does address this limitation.
Chuang discloses the method of claim 1, “wherein a first EUV image recording is recorded by the EUV camera, the photomask being displaced relative to the incident EUV radiation and a second EUV image recording being recorded subsequently” (Chuang [0036] and fig. 3A show an instrument 320 which provides relative motion between the beams and the sample, so that spots are scanned across the surface of sample 308; Chuang claim 3 is directed to generating first and second confocal images from the sample into the detector – i.e. images are captured sequentially as the photomask is displaced relative to the incident radiation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate wherein a first EUV image recording is recorded by the EUV camera, the photomask being displaced relative to the incident EUV radiation and a second EUV image recording being recorded subsequently as suggested by Chuang for the advantage of investigating more than just a UV beam spot size of the sample 309 by scanning the spot across the surface of the sample (Chuang [0036]), enabling a better characterization of the sample.
Claims 5, 9-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US 11,525,906 B2 by Achuta Kadambi et al. (herein after “Kadambi”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses an EUV camera having an image sensor, the image sensor being sensitive to EUV radiation, and the EUV camera comprising a pellicle such that EUV radiation entering the EUV camera passes through the pellicle (Lee fig. 1 and [0041] discloses an optical system for pellicle characterization 300, comprising [0058] a pellicle P and first light measurement sensor 42 [image sensor], where [0062] first light measurement sensor 42 is configured as an EUV camera; the claimed EUV camera is considered as the combination of the pellicle P and the sensor 42 – since the sensor 42 and pellicle are together considered the EUV camera, light passes through the pellicle to enter the claimed EUV camera), wherein the pellicle is positioned at a distance from the image sensor, and wherein the EUV radiation has a wavelength in a range from 5 to 30 nm (Lee fig. 1 shows the pellicle P a distance from the first light measurement sensor 42 [pellicle positioned at a first distance from the image sensor]; [0003] discloses the pellicle has a transmittance at EUV wavelength of 13.5 nm, which anticipates the claimed range).
Lee is silent to an EUV camera having a camera housing and having an image sensor, the image sensor being held in the camera housing, and the camera housing spanning an entrance opening designed for the entry of EUV radiation.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation. Lee and Kadambi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to optical systems which capture reflected light from an object and/or setting and capture an image via an image sensor.
Kadambi discloses “an EUV camera having a camera housing, the image sensor being held in the camera housing, and the camera housing spanning an entrance opening designed for the entry of EUV radiation” (Kadambi fig. 3 and col 6 ll. 39-59 discloses a polarization camera 10 [camera] with an image sensor 14 positioned to capture data, where a housing is shown and the image sensor held within the camera housing; as is shown in fig. 3 and is known in the art, the camera housing spans an entrance opening; col 8 ll. 6-12 discloses camera detection in UV region; while Kadambi does not explicitly recite the entry of EUV radiation, the entry way of a camera is reasonably considered as being designed for the entry of radiation, especially given the proximity of Kadambi’s radiation detection (i.e. UV) to Lee’s radiation detection (i.e. EUV)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate an EUV camera having a camera housing, the image sensor being held in the camera housing, and the camera housing spanning an entrance opening designed for the entry of EUV radiation as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of limiting the image sensor within the camera to a specified field of view, thereby preventing stray light from impinging on the image sensor and preventing false or errant readings from the image sensor.
Regarding claim 9, Lee when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5. Lee is silent to the EUV camera of claim 5, wherein the image sensor is configured as a sensor array, in which the sensor area of the image sensor is spanned by a plurality of sensor components.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation.
Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, “wherein the image sensor is configured as a sensor array, in which the sensor area of the image sensor is spanned by a plurality of sensor components” (Kadambi fig. 3 and col. 6 ll. 39-59 has disclosed the camera comprising image sensor 14; col. 6 ll. 54-57 discloses that the image sensor 14 takes the form of a CMOS image sensor of CCD image sensor and that the image sensor 14 col. 7 ll. 2-5 comprises a pixel grid [pixel grid indicative of a sensor array, where the individual pixels are “sensor components” [where the sensor area is spanned by a plurality of sensor components]; additionally, both sensor types comprise sensor arrays at least in one direction [i.e. a linear CCD etc.], such that the image sensor CCD or CMOS would be a sensor array spanned by a plurality of sensor components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate wherein the image sensor is configured as a sensor array, in which the sensor area of the image sensor is spanned by a plurality of sensor components as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of limiting the image sensor within the camera to a specified field of view, thereby preventing stray light from impinging on the image sensor and preventing false or errant readings from the image sensor, and achieving higher resolution images via a plurality of sensor components.
Regarding claim 10, Lee when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, and Lee further teaches the camera wherein the EUV camera comprises a pellicle which is smaller than the sensor area of the image sensor (while the pellicle P of Lee is shown in the diagram of fig. 1 as being a different size than the representation of first light measurement sensor 42, a prime facie case of obviousness exists under MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Changes in Size/Proportion, such that to one of ordinary skill in the art, the size of the pellicle may be smaller relative to the sensor area of the image sensor – there is no criticality within the specification to suggest any significance to the pellicle being smaller than the sensor area of the image sensor as claimed; additionally, there is no size requirement within Lee to require the pellicle being larger than a sensor area of the image sensor; given these facts, a change in size/proportion for the SPF would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, given lack of evidence that the change in relative dimension between the pellicle and sensor area would cause any change to performance of the EUV camera of Lee).
Regarding claim 11, Lee when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5. Lee is silent to the EUV camera of claim 5, wherein the EUV camera comprises a plurality of pellicles.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation.
Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, “wherein the EUV camera comprises a plurality of pellicles” (Kadambi fig. 3 and col 7 ll. 1-19 disclose the camera 10; a polarization mask 16 appears in front of the image sensor 14, aligned with the pixel grid of the image sensor, where the mask is comprised of a plurality of polarization filters, as seen in fig. 3 with the shown polarization grid example; in this case, the polarization filter itself is pellicle of Lee, where the pellicle [whole mask] is comprised of a plurality of pellicles [each polarization filter within the mask]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate wherein the EUV camera comprises a plurality of pellicles as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of matching the geometry of a two-dimensional image sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of pixels with a corresponding two-dimensional mosaic filter, enabling each pixel location to obtain a desired portion of the EM spectrum as necessary (Kadambi col 7 ll. 1-17).
Regarding claim 12, Lee when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 11. Lee is silent to the EUV camera of claim 11, wherein the plurality of pellicles are arranged in a plane.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation.
Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 11, “wherein the plurality of pellicles are arranged in a plane” (Kadambi fig. 3 and col 1-19 discloses the mosaic polarization filter 16, and the shape of the plurality of pellicles are arranged within a plane, matching the array of pixels within the image sensor 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate wherein the plurality of pellicles are arranged in a plane as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of matching the geometry of a two-dimensional image sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of pixels with a corresponding two-dimensional mosaic filter, enabling each pixel location to obtain a desired portion of the EM spectrum as necessary (Kadambi col 7 ll. 1-17).
Regarding claim 17, Lee when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 9. Lee is silent to the EUV camera of claim 9 wherein each sensor component comprises a plurality of pixels.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation.
Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 9, “wherein each sensor component comprises a plurality of pixels” (Kadambi col 7 ll. 1-10 discloses that the image sensor has a pixel grid [i.e. a plurality of pixels], and the polarization mask 16 (polarization mosaic) aligns with the pixel grid of the image sensor – since the mask 16 is a polarization mosaic with a plurality of different regions, the corresponding pixels associated with each region of the mosaic is a sensor component, and each comprises a plurality of pixels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate wherein each sensor component comprises a plurality of pixels as suggested by as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of matching the geometry of a two-dimensional image sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of pixels with a corresponding two-dimensional mosaic filter, enabling each pixel location to obtain a desired portion of the EM spectrum (Kadambi col ll. 1-17).
Claims 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kadambi, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses a measuring device for inspecting photomasks (Wang abstract – inspection of EUV active reticles [photomask]), comprising an illumination system (Wang [0023] and fig. 1 discloses illumination optics 12 [illumination system]), EUV radiation emitted by the radiation source being guided via the illumination system to a photomask (Wang [0023] and fig. 1 discloses EUV source 11 directing EUV radiation guided via illumination optics 12 including redirection mirrors 17a,b to reticle 14 [EUV radiation guided via illumination system to photomask]) EUV radiation reflected at the photomask being guided to an image sensor such that the photomask is imaged on the image sensor (Wang [0023] and fig. 1 discloses an EUV light source 11 [EUV radiation source] which emits EUV radiation which is directed via a series of illumination optics 12 including condensing mirrors 17a,b to the reticle 14, where that light is reflected by the reticle and guided to EUV imaging sensor 16, and the imaging sensor captures an image of the reticle for inspection).
Wang is silent to a projection lens, EUV radiation reflected at the photomask being guided via the projection lens to an image sensor.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation. Wang and Kadambi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to optical systems which capture reflected light from an object and/or setting and capture an image via an image sensor.
Kadambi discloses “a projection lens, EUV radiation reflected at the photomask being guided via the projection lens to an image sensor” (Kadambi fig. 3 and col 6 ll. 39-59 discloses a polarization camera 10 and col 8 ll. 6-12 discloses the camera can detect light in the UV region; the camera comprises a lens 12 [projection lens] and directs light being reflected by an object [i.e. a photomask like that in Wang] to the image sensor 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate a projection lens, EUV radiation reflected at the photomask being guided via the projection lens to an image sensor as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of efficiently focusing light from the field of view/object being imaged directly onto the light sensitive medium of the image sensor (Kadambi col 6 ll. 49-58).
Wang when modified by Kadambi is silent to an EUV camera, EUV radiation being guided to an image sensor of the EUV camera, and the measuring device comprising a pellicle arranged between the projection lens and the image sensor, wherein the pellicle is positioned at a distance from the image sensor, and wherein the EUV radiation has a wavelength in a range from 5 to 30 nm.
However, Lee does address this limitation. Wang, Kadambi, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are optical systems which capture light from an object and/or setting and capture an image via an image sensor.
Lee discloses “an EUV camera, EUV radiation being guided to an image sensor of the EUV camera” (Lee fig. 1 and [0041] discloses an optical system for pellicle characterization 300, comprising [0058] a pellicle P and first light measurement sensor 42 [image sensor], where [0062] first light measurement sensor 42 is configured as an EUV camera; the claimed EUV camera is considered as the combination of the pellicle P and the sensor 42 so that EUV radiation is guided to an image sensor of the EUV camera by being guided to the first light measurement sensor 42), “and the measuring device comprising a pellicle arranged between the projection lens and the image sensor” (Lee fig. 1 and above has disclose pellicle P and first light measurement sensor 42, the imaging means of the measurement sensor 42 being equivalent to the image sensor 16 of wang; incorporating the pellicle P between the projection lens of Kadambi results in the claimed arrangement, analogous to the placement of polarization mask 16 of Kadambi), “wherein the pellicle is positioned at a distance from the image sensor” (Lee fig. 1 shows a distance between first light measurement sensor 42 pellicle P [pellicle positioned at a distance from the image sensor]), “and wherein the EUV radiation has a wavelength in a range from 5 to 30 nm” (Lee [0003]-[0004] discloses the pellicle has a transmittance at EUV wavelength of 13.5 nm which anticipates the claimed range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Kadambi to incorporate an EUV camera, EUV radiation being guided to an image sensor of the EUV camera, and the measuring device comprising a pellicle arranged between the projection lens and the image sensor, wherein the pellicle is positioned at a distance from the image sensor, and wherein the EUV radiation has a wavelength in a range from 5 to 30 nm as suggested by Lee for the advantage of advantage of preventing contaminants from interfering with the image sensor(Lee [0003]) which would reduce the accuracy of measurements taken by the image sensor, and potentially damage it.
Regarding claim 18, Wang when modified by Kadambi and Lee discloses the measuring device of claim 14. Wang when modified by Kadambi is silent to the measuring device of claim 14, wherein the pellicle is a constituent part of the EUV camera.
However, Lee does address this limitation.
Lee discloses the measuring device of claim 14, “wherein the pellicle is a constituent part of the EUV camera” (As Lee is directed toward detecting EUV light by at least via first light measurement camera 42, the EUV light having passed through the pellicle P, the pellicle P would be considered by one of ordinary skill to be a constituent part of the camera, given it’s the pellicle’s presence being necessary for the operation of the pellicle characteristic evaluation apparatus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Kadambi to incorporate wherein the pellicle is a constituent part of the EUV camera as suggested by Lee for the advantage of preventing contaminants from entering the camera housing (Lee [0003]) which would reduce the accuracy of measurements taken by the image sensor, and potentially damage the image sensor.
Regarding claim 19, Wang when modified by Kadambi and Lee discloses the measuring device of claim 18. Wang is silent to the measuring device of claim 18 wherein the EUV camera comprises a plurality of pellicles.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation.
Kadambi discloses the measuring device of claim 18, “wherein the EUV camera comprises a plurality of pellicles” (Kadambi fig. 3 and col 7 ll. 1-19 disclose the camera 10; a polarization mask 16 appears in front of the image sensor 14, aligned with the pixel grid of the image sensor, where the mask is comprised of a plurality of polarization filters, as seen in fig. 3 with the shown polarization grid example; in this case, the polarization filter itself is pellicle of Lee, where the pellicle [whole mask] is comprised of a plurality of pellicles [each polarization filter within the mask]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate wherein the EUV camera comprises a plurality of pellicles as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of matching the geometry of a two-dimensional image sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of pixels with a corresponding two-dimensional mosaic filter, enabling each pixel location to obtain a desired portion of the EM spectrum as necessary (Kadambi col 7 ll. 1-17).
Regarding claim 20, Wang when modified by Kadambi and Lee discloses the measuring device of claim 19. Wang is silent to the measuring device of claim 19 wherein the plurality of pellicles are arranged in a plane.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation.
Kadambi discloses the measuring device of claim 19, “wherein the plurality of pellicles are arranged in a plane” (Kadambi fig. 3 and col 1-19 discloses the mosaic polarization filter 16, and the shape of the plurality of pellicles are arranged within a plane, matching the array of pixels within the image sensor 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate wherein the plurality of pellicles are arranged in a plane as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of matching the geometry of a two-dimensional image sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of pixels with a corresponding two-dimensional mosaic filter, enabling each pixel location to obtain a desired portion of the EM spectrum as necessary (Kadambi col 7 ll. 1-17).
Claims 6, 13, 15-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kadambi, and further in view of US 2021/0132490 A1 Yun-Yue Lin (herein after “Lin”).
Regarding claim 6, Lee when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5. Lee when modified by Kadambi is silent to the EUV camera of claim 5, wherein the pellicle consists of a silicon material.
However, Lin does address this limitation. Lee, Kadambi, and Lin are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to optical systems operating within an ultraviolet range comprising optical filters/masks/pellicles to manipulate UV light.
Lin discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, “wherein the pellicle consists of a silicon material” (Lin [0015] discloses a pellicle membrane which is a silicon-based material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Kadambi to incorporate wherein the pellicle consists of a silicon material as suggested by Lin for the advantage of achieving a mechanically robust pellicle membrane while allowing for improved transmission of radiation (Lin [0015]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 11. Lee when modified by Kadambi is silent to the EUV camera of claim 11, wherein the plurality of pellicles are held on a frame and wherein parts of the frame are arranged in front of pixel-free regions of the sensor area of the image sensor.
However, Lin does address this limitation.
Lin discloses the EUV camera of claim 11, “wherein the plurality of pellicles are held on a frame and wherein parts of the frame are arranged in front of pixel-free regions of the sensor area of the image sensor” (Lin [0034] and fig. 2A disclose a pellicle structure 200; [0038] and fig. 2A discloses the pellicle 114 [analogous to the plurality of pellicles taught by the combination of Lee and Kadambi]; [0038] pellicle frame structure 206 exists to support the plurality of pellicles [frame]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the obviousness of arranging parts of a pellicle supporting frame in front of pixel-free regions of an image sensor, so as to maximize the effectiveness of the image sensor – this is analogous to the image sensor of a camera being located directly in line with the optical path of a lens instead of the sensor being located behind the housing of the camera which is outside the optical path of the lens; the camera cannot function properly if light from the camera’s field of view is not incident on the image sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Kadambi to incorporate wherein the plurality of pellicles are held on a frame and wherein parts of the frame are arranged in front of pixel-free regions of the sensor area of the image sensor as suggested by Lin for the advantage of maximizing the pixelated regions of the image sensor able to receive light signals from the object under investigation, improving the signal strength of the image sensor.
Regarding claim 15, Lee when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5. Lee when modified by Kadambi is silent to the EUV camera of claim 5, wherein the pellicle comprises a silicon-containing material.
However, Lin does address this limitation.
Lin discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, “wherein the pellicle comprises a silicon-containing material” (Lin [0015] discloses a pellicle membrane which is a silicon-based material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Kadambi to incorporate wherein the pellicle comprises a silicon-containing material as suggested by Lin for the advantage of achieving a mechanically robust pellicle membrane while allowing for improved transmission of radiation (Lin [0015]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5. Lee when modified by Kadambi is silent to the EUV camera of claim 5, wherein the pellicle comprises carbon nanotubes.
However, Lin does address this limitation.
Lin discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, “wherein the pellicle comprises carbon nanotubes” (Lin [0049] discloses that the pellicle membrane 222 includes a border 224, where the border contains carbon nanotubes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Kadambi to incorporate wherein the pellicle comprises carbon nanotubes as suggested by Lin for the advantage of ensuring environmental stability of the pellicle, resulting in a mechanically robust pellicle (Lin [0015]).
Regarding claim 21, Lee when modified by Kadambi and Lin discloses the EUV camera of claim 16. Lee when modified by Kadambi is silent to the EUV camera of claim 16, wherein a transmissive portion of the pellicle comprises carbon nanotubes, and the EUV radiation entering the EUV camera through the entrance opening passes through the transmissive portion of the pellicle comprising the carbon nanotubes.
However, Lin does address this limitation.
Lin discloses the EUV camera of claim 16, “wherein a transmissive portion of the pellicle comprises carbon nanotubes, and the EUV radiation entering the EUV camera through the entrance opening passes through the transmissive portion of the pellicle comprising the carbon nanotubes” (Lin [0052] discloses a membrane portion of the pellicle comprising carbon nanotubes through which radiation to be transmitted by the pellicle must pass [transmissive portion of pellicle comprises carbon nanotubes, and EUV radiation passes through transmissive portion of the pellicle comprising the carbon nanotubes]; for a pellicle arranged within the EUV camera as disclosed by Lee when modified by Kadambi, EUV radiation entering the EUV camera would pass through said transmissive portion of the pellicle containing the nanotubes of Lin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Kadambi to incorporate wherein a transmissive portion of the pellicle comprises carbon nanotubes, and the EUV radiation entering the EUV camera through the entrance opening passes through the transmissive portion of the pellicle comprising the carbon nanotubes as suggested by Lin for the advantage of achieving a mechanically robust pellicle membrane while allowing for improved transmission of radiation (Lin [0015]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kadambi, and further in view of US 2017/0336591 A1 by Hideo Kobayashi (herein after “Kobayashi”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5. Lee when modified by Kodambi is silent to the EUV camera of claim 5, wherein the pellicle is sealingly flush with a housing edge surrounding the entrance opening.
However, Kobayashi does address this limitation. Lee, Kadambi, and Kobayashi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to optical systems which capture reflected light from an object and/or setting and capture an image via an image sensor (i.e. cameras).
Kobayashi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, “wherein the pellicle is sealingly flush with a housing edge surrounding the entrance opening” (as mentioned in claim 5 above, Kadambi discloses that its polarization mask 16 may be placed in front of the lens 12; Kobayashi is drawn to a polarization filter and support frame to be attached to a traditional camera; fig. 2A and [0033]- [0034] shows the polarization filter 2 between a front ring 4 and rear ring 5, and comprises external threads 12 for attachment to the imaging lens of a camera [i.e. the lens 12 of Kadambi]; for the filter 2 of Kobayashi being threaded onto the housing of the polarization camera 10 within Kadambi, the threads create a “sealingly flush” connection between the pellicle and the housing edge surrounding the entrance opening [the filter 2 is screwed into the housing in front of the lens, around the entrance opening into the EUV camera]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Kadambi to incorporate wherein the pellicle is sealingly flush with a housing edge surrounding the entrance opening as suggested by Kobayashi for the advantage of enabling easy mounting of the pellicle to the housing of the camera (Kobayashi [0034]) while the threaded feature minimizes any stray light from entering through the mounting position
Regarding claim 8, Lee when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5. Lee when modified by Kadambi is silent to the EUV camera of claim 5, wherein the pellicle is mounted on a frame, wherein the pellicle is connected to the camera housing via the frame and wherein the frame is detachably connected to the camera housing.
However, Kobayashi does address this limitation.
Kobayashi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, “wherein the pellicle is mounted on a frame, wherein the pellicle is connected to the camera housing via the frame and wherein the frame is detachably connected to the camera housing” (as mentioned in claim 5 above, Kadambi discloses that its polarization mask 16 may be placed in front of the lens 12; Kobayashi [0033]-[0034] is drawn to a polarization filter 2 [analogous to pellicle] and camera filter frame 10 [frame] to be attached to a traditional camera [frame is detachably connected to the camera housing]; fig. 2A shows the polarization filter 2 between a front ring 4 and rear ring 5, and comprises external threads 12 for attachment to the imaging lens of a camera [i.e. the lens 12 of Kadambi]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Kadambi to incorporate wherein the pellicle is mounted on a frame, wherein the pellicle is connected to the camera housing via the frame and wherein the frame is detachably connected to the camera housing as suggested by Kobayashi for the advantage of enabling easy mounting of the pellicle to the housing of the camera (Kobayashi [0034]) while the threaded feature minimizes any stray light from entering through the mounting position
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kadambi, in view of Lin, and further in view of US 2004/0119036 A1 by Jun Ye et al. (herein after “Ye”).
Regarding claim 22, Lee when modified by Kadambi and Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 13. Lee modified by Kadambi and Lin is silent to the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the image sensor comprises a plurality of sensor components, each sensor component comprises a plurality of pixels, pixel-free regions are present at transitions between two adjacent sensor components, and parts of the frame of the pellicles are arranged in front of the pixel-free regions of the image sensor.
However, Ye does address this limitation. Lee, Kadambi, Lin, and Ye are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are optical systems operating within an ultraviolet range comprising optical filters/masks/pellicles to manipulate UV light.
Ye discloses the apparatus of claim 13, “wherein the image sensor comprises a plurality of sensor components, each sensor component comprises a plurality of pixels” (Ye fig. 2 and [0062]-[0063] discloses an imaging system for lithographic equipment for photomask characterization, comprising an image sensor 102, where fig. 3A shows image sensor 102 comprising sensor array 106 [image sensor]; [0074] discloses sensor array 106 discloses a plurality of sensor cells [plurality of sensor components]; fig. 4 shows the array of sensor cells where each cell may be a charge-coupled device [each sensor components comprises a plurality of pixels]), pixel-free regions are present at transitions between two adjacent sensor components (Ye [0075]-[0077] discloses active areas 202n within each sensor cell that is sensitive to energy/radiation incident thereon, and fig. 5 shows an opaque film 204 covering all except for apertures 206 that overlie active areas 202 [all opaque film 204 are “pixel free regions” at transitions between two adjacent sensor components]), “and parts of the frame of the pellicles are arranged in front of the pixel-free regions of the image sensor” (as recited in claim 13, Lin in combination with Lee and Kadambi has the obviousness of arranging parts of a pellicle supporting frame in front of pixel-free regions of an image sensor, so as to maximize the effectiveness of the image sensor – this is analogous to the image sensor of a camera being located directly in line with the optical path of a lens instead of the sensor being located behind the housing of the camera which is outside the optical path of the lens; the camera cannot function properly if light from the camera’s field of view is not incident on the image sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Kadambi and Lin to incorporate wherein the image sensor comprises a plurality of sensor components, each sensor component comprises a plurality of pixels, pixel-free regions are present at transitions between two adjacent sensor components, and parts of the frame of the pellicles are arranged in front of the pixel-free regions of the image sensor as suggested by Ye for the advantage of enhancing, improving, and/or increasing the spatial resolution of radiation/energy measured by the sensor cells (Ye [0077]).
Regarding claim 23, Lee when modified by Kadambi, Lin, and Ye disclose the apparatus of claim 22. Lee when modified by Kadambi and Lin is silent to the apparatus of claim 22, wherein each sensor component comprises a sensor chip, and different sensor components comprise different sensor chips.
However, Ye does address this limitation.
Ye discloses the apparatus of claim 22, “wherein each sensor component comprises a sensor chip, and different sensor components comprise different sensor chips” (As recited in claim 22, each sensor cell [sensor component] is comprised of a different charge coupled device [sensor chip], and thus different sensor cells comprise different sensor chips as they are all exclusive to one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Kadambi and Lin to incorporate wherein each sensor component comprises a sensor chip, and different sensor components comprise different sensor chips as suggested by Ye for the advantage of enhancing, improving, and/or increasing the spatial resolution of radiation/energy measured by the sensor cells (Ye [0077]).
Regarding claim 24, Lee when modified by Kadambi, Lin, and Ye disclose the apparatus of claim 22. Lee when modified by Kadambi is silent to the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the frame of the pellicles comprises struts that are each arranged in the pixel-free regions between the sensor components.
However, Lin does address this limitation.
Lin discloses the apparatus of claim 22, “wherein the frame of the pellicles comprises struts that are each arranged in the pixel-free regions between the sensor components” (Lin [0034] and fig. 2A-2B, as within claim 13 above, disclose frame structure 206 which supports the pellicle 114 [analogous to the plurality of pellicles taught by the combination of Lee and Kadambi] – fig. 2B and [0050] disclose the frame 206 is formed from at least one side portion 208 [each side portion 208 here corresponds to a strut]; as has been established in claim 13 and 22, one of ordinary skill recognizes the obviousness of arranging parts of the pellicle supporting frame, and its corresponding struts, in front of pixel free regions of the image sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Kadambi to incorporate wherein the frame of the pellicles comprises struts that are each arranged in the pixel-free regions between the sensor components as suggested by Lin for the advantage of maximizing the pixelated regions of the image sensor able to receive light signals from the object under investigation, improving the signal strength of the image sensor.
Lee when modified by Kadambi and Lin is silent to the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the pixel-free regions of the image sensor form a grid-shaped pattern, the frame of the pellicles extends in a grid-shaped fashion over the image sensor.
However, Ye does address this limitation.
Ye discloses the apparatus of claim 22, “wherein the pixel-free regions of the image sensor form a grid-shaped pattern, the frame of the pellicles extends in a grid-shaped fashion over the image sensor” (Ye fig. 5 shows the opaque film 204 covering all except apertures 206 that overlie active areas 202; it is seen the opaque film forms a grid-shaped pattern given the grid-shaped pattern of the sensor cells seen in fig. 4 with active areas 202 [pixel-free regions of image sensor form grid-shaped pattern]; as has been established with respect to Lin and the frame of the pellicles, one of ordinary skill recognizes the obviousness of arranging parts of the pellicle supporting frame, in front of pixel free regions of the image sensor, which given the opaque film 204 of Ye results in an extension in a grid-shaped fashion over the image sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Kadambi and Lin to incorporate wherein the pixel-free regions of the image sensor form a grid-shaped pattern, the frame of the pellicles extends in a grid-shaped fashion over the image sensor as suggested by Ye for the advantage of enhancing, improving, and/or increasing the spatial resolution of radiation/energy measured by the sensor cells (Ye [0077]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/639,028 in view of in view of KR 20220122104 A by Lee.
Regarding claim 14, most of the limitations of claim 14 is taught by claim 1 of the copending Application ‘028, excluding “wherein the pellicle is positioned at a distance from the image sensor and wherein the EUV radiation has a wavelength in a range from 5 to 30 nm”.
However, Lee does address this limitation. Lee fig. 1 and [0041] disclose an optical system comprising a pellicle P and light measurement sensor 42 [image sensor], where a distance is shown between the pellicle P and light measurement sensor 42 [wherein the pellicle is positioned at a distance from the image sensor], and [0003]-[0004] disclose the pellicle having a transmittance at EUV wavelength of 13.5nm, within the claimed range [EUV radiation has wavelength in range from 5 to 30 nm]. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the pellicle is positioned at a distance from the image sensor and wherein the EUV radiation has a wavelength in a range from 5 to 30 nm as suggested by Lee for the advantage of preventing contaminants from entering the camera housing (Lee [0003]) which would reduce the accuracy of measurements taken by the image sensor, and potentially damage the image sensor.
Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/638,890 in view of in view of KR 20220122104 A by Lee.
Regarding claim 14, most of the limitations of claim 14 is taught by claim 1 of Copending Application ‘890, excluding “wherein the pellicle is positioned at a distance from the image sensor and wherein the EUV radiation has a wavelength in a range from 5 to 30 nm”.
However, Lee does address this limitation. Lee fig. 1 and [0041] disclose an optical system comprising a pellicle P and light measurement sensor 42 [image sensor], where a distance is shown between the pellicle P and light measurement sensor 42 [wherein the pellicle is positioned at a distance from the image sensor], and [0003]-[0004] disclose the pellicle having a transmittance at EUV wavelength of 13.5nm, within the claimed range [EUV radiation has wavelength in range from 5 to 30 nm]. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the pellicle is positioned at a distance from the image sensor and wherein the EUV radiation has a wavelength in a range from 5 to 30 nm as suggested by Lee for the advantage of preventing contaminants from entering the camera housing (Lee [0003]) which would reduce the accuracy of measurements taken by the image sensor, and potentially damage the image sensor.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights