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 .
The amendment filed on November 10, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Examiner believes that claim 17 should be dependent on claim 16 instead of claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. US 11971663 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The combination of Claims 13 and 14 in the instant application teaches the limitation of “A light source configured to emit a time-varying spectrum of light in a metrology or lithography system, the light source comprising: a spectrometer configured to measure a characteristic of the time-varying spectrum of light emitted from the light source, wherein the time-varying spectrum of light is emitted from the light source over a predetermined time window and is conditioned prior to interacting with a target; and a controller configured to: determine at least one characteristic of the time-varying spectrum of light emitted from the light source over the predetermined time window, and use the determined at least one characteristic to control a spectral output of the light source during when the time-varying spectrum of light is conditioned, wherein when the time-varying spectrum of light is conditioned it is also band-filtered and adjusted, the band-filtering being based on the use of the determined at least one characteristic, and wherein the adjusting of the band-filtering is done dynamically to reduce variation in a center frequency of the time-varying spectrum of light.”, claim 7 of the above patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quintanilha et al. [US 20170184981 A1, hereafter Quintanilha].
As per Claims 1 and 13, Quintanilha teaches a method of performing measurements (spectroscopic scatterometer 800) using a light source (broadband configured to emit a time-varying spectrum of light (white light) radiation projector 802), the method comprising:
determining at least one characteristic of the spectrum of light emitted from the light source (Para 209, intensity as a function of wavelength);
illuminating a measurement target (See fig. 9, a metrology target T) with light from the light source and measuring light from the measurement target to generate measurement signals (Para 109-112, wherein the reflected radiation is passed to a spectrometer 804); and
using the at least one characteristic to process the measurement signals (Para 109, wherein the reflected radiation is passed to a spectrometer 804, which measures a spectrum 806 (intensity as a function of wavelength) of the specular reflected radiation).
As per Claim 2, Quintanilha teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the measurements are metrology measurements (Para 109).
As per Claim 3, Quintanilha teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one characteristic is an average wavelength of the light source within a predetermined wavelength range (Para 109).
As per Claim 4, Quintanilha teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the light source is a supercontinuum light source (Para 7 and 109, wherein broadband (white light) radiation).
As per Claim 5, Quintanilha teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the radiation generated by the supercontinuum light source includes radiation generated by modulation instability (Para 82).
As per Claims 6 and 7, Quintanilha teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising using the generated light source in a metrological instrument (Para 109).
As per Claim 9, Quintanilha teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a running variation in the determined at least one characteristic over the predetermined time window, wherein the using the determined at least one characteristic comprises using the determined running variation (Para 75).
As per Claim 12, Quintanilha teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determined at least one characteristic is an average wavelength of the light source within a predetermined wavelength range (Para 75).
As per Claim 15, Quintanilha teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a running variation in the determined at least one characteristic over the predetermined time window, wherein the using the determined at least one characteristic comprises using the determined running variation (Para 109).
As per Claim 18, Quintanilha teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the characteristic is an average wavelength of the light source within a predetermined wavelength range (Para 75).
As per Claims 19 and 20, Quintanilha teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the light source is a supercontinuum light source (Para 7 and 82 and 109, wherein broadband (white light) radiation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 11, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 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.
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 MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882