DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 2, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears that on line 4 ‘adjusting a duty cycle’ should read -adjust a duty cycle-. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 17 is objected to by virtue of its dependency from claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
5. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As for claim 3, it appears that ‘wherein the measurement plane is arranged at a lens focus distance’ refers back to ‘to generate a periodic distribution of light at measurement plane different than a plane of at least one of the one or more meta-lens feature sets, where the periodic distribution of light has the coarse pitch’ of claim 1.
The examiner notes that as for ‘to generate a periodic distribution of light at measurement plane different than a plane of at least one of the one or more meta-lens feature sets, where the periodic distribution of light has the coarse pitch,’ it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (2024/0230960)-previously cited.
As for claim 13, Mun in an image sensor and electronic apparatus including the image sensor discloses/suggests the following: a meta-lens feature set (FIG. 6: 131 and 132 with FIG. 5A: 131, 132, 111, 112; FIG. 2D: noting 131 and 132 repeat across 130; FIG. 2B: 110: 111 and 112; noting that FIG. 6: shows a meta-lens feature set by virtue of using NP, nanopillars, as meta-lens features with paragraphs 0085-0088) comprising: one or more first features having a coarse pitch (FIG. 6: treating largest central NP as a first feature with the distance between each one between neighboring microlenses, 131 and 132 is the coarse pitch; note repeating microlenses of FIG. 2D: top row of 130: 131, 132, 131, 132, 131, 132, and please refer to annotated FIG. 6 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
358
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and one or more second features having a fine pitch (FIG. 6: treating the second and third smaller NPs as the one or more second features and treating px as the fine pitch; gbx may equal px: paragraph 0093; and please refer to annotated FIG. 6 below):
PNG
media_image2.png
364
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the one or more second features are positioned relative to the one or more first features (please refer to the annotated FIG. 6 below):
PNG
media_image3.png
364
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the fine pitch is smaller than the coarse pitch (note that px is smaller than the coarse pitch as shown in the annotated FIG. 6 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
358
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the one or more first features and the one or more second features form a meta-lens array (FIG. 6: each microlens comprising 5 x 5 array of nanopillars: 131 and 132; FIG. 6: shows a meta-lens feature set by virtue of using NP, nanopillars as meta-lens features with paragraphs 0085-0088; FIG. 2D: top row of 130 comprising 6 meta-lens, a metal-lens array).
As for ‘configured to generate a periodic distribution of light at a measurement plane different than a plane of the meta-lens feature set, wherein the periodic distribution of light has the coarse pitch,’ Mun does not explicitly state this. Nevertheless, Mun demonstrates that each microlens, meta-lens, may have their centers aligned with the centers of the corresponding pixels (paragraph 0090) and demonstrates that the each microlens focuses light to its respective pixel (FIG. 5A: 131 with two light rays to 121 to 111 and 132 with two light rays to 122 and 112; paragraphs 0069, 0088); wherein a detection plane being treated as a measurement plane of the pixel, the plane of the light sensing cell, would be at a different plane than a plane of the meta-lens feature set (FIG. 5A: treating 131 and 132 being planar with 130 and measurement plane as detection plane of 111 and 112; 0061); wherein Mun suggests measurements may be performed by virtue of the image processing that may be performed on the detected image (paragraph 0209); and lastly, Mun suggests at least a periodic distribution of light having a coarse pitch would be detected and imaged by demonstrating that six microlenses over six pixels may be illuminated thereby producing six beam spots with a coarse pitch equal to the coarse pitch of the central NP, the first feature, by virtue of the center of each microlens/meta-lens being aligned with the center of each pixel (FIG. 2D: 6 pixels across would necessarily be illuminated by light focused by the 6 microlenses, meta-lenses, 131, 132, …132 on the top row of 130; paragraph 0090; FIG. 5A: light focused by 131 to center of 111 and light focused by 132 to center of 132; wherein if the center of 131 is aligned with the center of 111 and 132 is aligned with the center of 112 then the periodic distribution comprising at least 6 focused spots would be spaced periodically by the coarse pitch the distance between two adjacent centers of two microlenses, meta-lenses: reminded by the annotated FIG. 6 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
358
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more first features and the one or more second features form a meta-lens array ‘configured to generate a periodic distribution of light at a measurement plane different than a plane of the meta-lens feature set, wherein the periodic distribution of light has the coarse pitch’ in order to detect and image at least 6 pixels across by having the centers of 6 meta-lenses aligned with 6 centers of the corresponding pixels under the meta-lenses in order to focus the light from each meta-lens into its corresponding pixel.
Lastly, as for ‘wherein at least one of the one or more first features or the one or more second features are incorporated within an overlay metrology target (lines 9-11),’ this appears to be a statement of intended use. The examiner reminds the applicant of the following: it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
In addition, ‘wherein at least one of the one or more first features or the one or more second features are incorporated within an overlay metrology target (lines 9-11)’ appears to refer to a combination including an overlay metrology target, rather than being directed to the subcombination, a meta-lens feature set. Claim 13 is directed to a meta-lens feature set, a subcombination, and does not appear to cover a combination including an overlay metrology target. So ‘wherein at least one of the one or more first features or the one or more second features are incorporated within an overlay metrology target (lines 9-11)’ appears to be outside the scope of the claim and not a positively cited claim element.
As for claim 14, Mun discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 13). In addition, Mun discloses/suggests wherein a duty cycle of the one or more second features is varied (FIG. 6: px and py may be equal to each other (paragraph 0091); wherein, differing diameters of nanopillar but with the same periodicity, px/py, demonstrates varying duty cycle of the one or more second features: treating the NPs of smaller diameter than the central NP, the first feature, as second features: note annotated FIG. 6 designating the second features in the x direction below):
PNG
media_image2.png
364
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 15, and 18-24 are allowed.
Claim 3 would be allowable if the rejection under 35 USC 112(d) is overcome.
Claims 16 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objection above.
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious in an overlay metrology target ‘wherein at least one of the one or more first exposure structure or the one or more second exposure structures include one or more meta-lens feature sets, wherein each meta-lens feature set comprises: one or more first features having a coarse pitch; and one or more second features having a fine pitch, wherein the one or more second features are positioned relative to the one or more first features, wherein the fine pitch is smaller than the coarse pitch, wherein the one or more first features and the one or more second features of each meta-lens feature set operate as a meta-lens array,’ in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-12 are allowed at least by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
As to claim 15, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious in an overlay metrology system ‘wherein the one or more first features and the one or more second features of each meta-lens feature set operate as a meta-lens array to generate a periodic distribution of light at a measurement plane different than a plane of at least one of the one or more meta- lens feature sets, wherein the periodic distribution of light has the coarse pitch; a collection sub-system comprising: a detector configured to generate one or more images of the periodic distribution of light at the measurement plane; and one or more collection optics; and a controller communicatively coupled to the detector, the controller including one or more processors configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to: receive the one or more images of the periodic distribution of light at the measurement plane from the detector; and generate an overlay measurement of the sample based on the one or more images of the periodic distribution of light at the measurement plane,’ in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 15. Claims 16-18 are allowed at least by virtue of their dependency from claim 15.
As to claim 19, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious in an overlay metrology system ‘wherein the one or more first features and the one or more second features of each meta-lens feature set operate as a meta-lens array to generate the periodic distribution of light at the measurement plane different than a plane of at least one of the one or more meta-lens feature sets, wherein the periodic distribution of light has the coarse pitch; and generate an overlay measurement of a sample based on the one or more images of the periodic distribution of light at the measurement plane,’ in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 19. Claims 20 and 21 are allowed at least by virtue of their dependency from claim 19.
As to claim 22, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious in a method ‘wherein the one or more first features and the one or more second features of each meta-lens feature set operate as a meta-lens array to generate a periodic distribution of light at a measurement plane different than a plane of at least one of the one or more meta-lens feature sets, wherein the periodic distribution of light has the coarse pitch; generating one or more images of the periodic distribution of light at the measurement plane; receiving the one or more images of the periodic distribution of light at the measurement plane; and generating an overlay measurement of the sample based on the one or more images of the periodic distribution of light at the measurement plane,’ in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 22. Claims 23 and 24 are allowed at least by virtue of their dependency from claim 22.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of Remarks, Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112, filed April 2, 2026, with respect to the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a rejection under 35 USC 112(d) has been made for claim 3. Please see above. The examiner apologizes for any inconvenience.
Applicant's arguments filed April 2, 2026 regarding the previous rejection of claims 13-14 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See applicant’s remarks on page 11, specifically, the third paragraph regarding the inclusion of ‘wherein at least one of the one or more first features or the one or more second features are incorporated within an overlay metrology target.’ The examiner disagrees that the inclusion of this phrase renders claim 13 allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. Claim 13 appears to be directed to a subcombination, a meta-lens feature set, and claim 1 appears to be directed to a combination including an overlay metrology target. See page 9 above regarding claim 13 and ‘wherein at least one of the one or more first features or the one or more second features are incorporated within an overlay metrology target’ and page 10 above regarding the allowable subject matter of claim 1.
As mentioned above in the first paragraph of page 9, ‘as for ‘wherein at least one of the one or more first features or the one or more second features are incorporated within an overlay metrology target (lines 9-11),’ this appears to be a statement of intended use. The examiner reminds the applicant of the following: it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).’
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2023/0316500 to Duffy et al. (see FIGS. 1A-1B: 104 with paragraph [0038]: ‘The sample may further include a mask, a lens (e.g. a metalens), a reticle, or the like formed of a semiconductor or non-semiconductor material.’ And note paragraph [0089]: ‘to receive optical metrology data including, but not limited to, critical dimensions, overlay, film thickness, pattern profile, or the like…’)
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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, Kara Geisel, can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights