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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of Remarks, filed 06/01/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 104 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of ESOL (US20230121748A1) and Johnson (US20170090172A1).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: transmissive optical focusing component and imaging optical unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20120008123) in view of Harada (JP2013019793A) and ESOL (US20230121748A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an optical system for a metrology system for measuring an object (abstract),
- comprising an object holder for holding the object in an object plane (35, Fig. 2),
- comprising a transmissive optical focusing component (30, Fig. 1), which is arranged in the beam path of illumination light between a light source (10, Fig. 1) of the metrology system and an object field in the object plane (Lee does not explicitly disclose an object field or object plane, however it is inherent to the system), for generating an illumination focus (45, Fig. 2 discloses the focus point) in the beam path of the illumination light downstream of the transmissive optical focusing component,
- comprising a detection device for detecting the illumination light in the beam path downstream of the object field (50, Fig. 2).
Lee fails to teach
- wherein the transmissive optical focusing component has a focal length which is smaller than 5 mm,
- comprising an imaging optical unit for imaging the illumination focus generated by the transmissive optical focusing component into a further illumination focus in the region of the object field.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical metrology systems, Harada teaches a transmissive optical focusing component (zone plate - 10d, Fig. 10) which has a focal length of less than 5 mm (paragraph [0027] discloses the focal length is 1mm; paragraph [0024] discloses the focal length can also change based on wavelength of the light used).
Lee discloses the use of a light source with a wavelength of 13.5 nm (paragraph [0016]). Harada discloses a focal length of 1mm is used for a wavelength of 13.5 nm (paragraph [0027]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the focal length taught in Harada in order to ensure the focal length matched the wavelength used.
Lee as modified by Harada fails to teach an imaging optical unit for imaging the illumination focus generated by the transmissive optical focusing component into a further illumination focus in the region of the object field.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical systems for metrology devices, ESOL teaches a system comprising a light source (110, Fig. 9) which sends light to a zone plate (200, Fig. 9) and an imaging optical unit (900, Fig. 9) for imaging the illumination focus generated by the zone plate (see path of light from 200 to 900, Fig. 9) into a further illumination focus in the region of the object field (see focus point at 700, Fig. 9).
Lee discloses the use of EUV light (abstract). ESOL discloses the imaging optical unit aids in solving problems related to the use of EUV light (paragraph [0015]) such as providing a cheaper and less complicated alternative to measuring shorter wavelengths necessary for the EUV imaging applications of Lee (paragraphs [0002]-[0008]) describes the problems in related EUV inspection systems). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Lee as modified by Harada with the placement of the imaging optical unit taught in ESOL in order to provide a suitable alternative of measuring the shorter wavelengths necessary for EUV imaging.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the transmissive optical focusing component is designed as a zone plate (Lee: paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further the imaging optical unit is designed as a mirror optical unit (ESOL: paragraph [0079]).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the optical system of Lee as modified by Harada and ESOL with the mirror optical unit taught in ESOL to provide a suitable alternative of measuring the shorter wavelengths necessary for EUV imaging.
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the imaging optical unit has at least one mirror (ESOL: the imaging optical unit consists of two mirrors, see Fig. 9; paragraph [0079] further describes the unit as including a plurality of mirrors).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the optical system of Lee as modified by Harada and ESOL with the at least one mirror taught in ESOL to provide a suitable alternative of measuring the shorter wavelengths necessary for EUV imaging.
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 5, and further teaches the imaging optical unit has at least one folding mirror (Harada: 10c, Fig. 10; paragraph [0025]).
Harada discloses the imaging optical unit allows the setup to be used regardless of the wavelength of the light source (paragraph [0040]), therefore simplifying the setup. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the system taught in Lee as modified by Harada and ESOL with the alternative embodiment with an imaging optical unit with at least one folding mirror taught in Harada as this allows a fixed setup regardless of the wavelength of the light source, simplifying the device.
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 5, and further teaches the imaging optical unit has at least one aspherical mirror (ESOL: paragraph [0079] describes the mirrors as being selected from a elliptic mirror or a toroidal mirror).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the optical system of Lee as modified by Harada and ESOL with the at least one mirror taught in ESOL to provide a suitable alternative of measuring the shorter wavelengths necessary for EUV imaging.
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches a chief ray angle of the illumination light incident in the object field is smaller than 6o (Lee: paragraph [0018] discloses the chief ray angle may be less than 8o).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the optical system as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches a light source for generating illumination light (Lee: 10, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10, and further teaches the light source is an EUV light source (Lee: 10, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the transmissive optical focusing component is designed as a zone plate (Lee: paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the imaging optical unit is designed a mirror optical unit (ESOL: paragraph [0079]).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the optical system of Lee as modified by Harada and ESOL with the mirror optical unit taught in ESOL to provide a suitable alternative of measuring the shorter wavelengths necessary for EUV imaging.
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the imaging optical unit has at least one mirror (ESOL: the imaging optical unit consists of two mirrors, see Fig. 9; paragraph [0079] further describes the unit as including a plurality of mirrors).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the optical system of Lee as modified by Harada and ESOL with the at least one mirror taught in ESOL to provide a suitable alternative of measuring the shorter wavelengths necessary for EUV imaging.
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches the imaging optical unit has at least one folding mirror (Harada: 10c, Fig. 10; paragraph [0025]).
As discussed above, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the system taught in Lee as modified by Harada and ESOL with the small focal length taught in Harada in order to achieve the needed aperture size for the wavelength of the light used.
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Harada teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches the imaging optical unit has at least one aspherical mirror (ESOL: paragraph [0079] describes the mirrors as being selected from a elliptic mirror or a toroidal mirror).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the optical system of Lee as modified by Harada and ESOL with the at least one mirror taught in ESOL to provide a suitable alternative of measuring the shorter wavelengths necessary for EUV imaging.
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches a chief ray angle of the illumination light incident in the object field is smaller than 6o (Lee: paragraph [0018] discloses the chief ray angle may be less than 8o).
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches an actuator for displacing the object holder perpendicular to the object plane (Harada: paragraph [0036] discloses the object holder can move up and down. The examiner is interpreting this to be perpendicular to the object plane).
Harada discloses the movement of the object holder allows for the amount of light collected on the object to be changed (paragraph [0036]), which can optimize the SNR or increase detection sensitivity. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the system taught in Lee as modified by Harada and ESOL with the moving object holder taught in Harada to control the amount of light to be collected on the object.
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 2, and further teaches the imaging optical unit is designed as a mirror optical unit (ESOL: paragraph [0079]).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the optical system of Lee as modified by Harada and ESOL with the mirror optical unit taught in ESOL to provide a suitable alternative of measuring the shorter wavelengths necessary for EUV imaging.
Claim 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20120008123) in view of Harada (JP2013019793A) and ESOL (US20230121748A1) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Vila-Comamala (Vila-Comamala, J., Pan, Y., Lombardo, J. J., Harris, W. M., Chiu, W. K., David, C., & Wang, Y. (2012). Zone-doubled Fresnel zone plates for high-resolution hard X-ray full-field transmission microscopy. Journal of synchrotron radiation, 19(Pt 5), 705–709. https://doi.org/10.1107/S0909049512029640).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 2, but fails to teach a working distance between the zone plate and the object field which is larger than 10 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of object measurement using optical systems, Vila-Comamala teaches a working distance between a zone plate and object field is larger than 10 mm (page 706, column 1, paragraph 3 discloses the working distance is between 13.5 and 16 mm).
Vila-Comamala teaches this working distance achieves better transmission efficiency than shorter working distances (page 706, column 1, paragraph 3). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system taught in Lee as modified by Harada and ESOL with the working distance taught in Vila-Comamala as this distance achieves better transmission efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Harada and ESOL teaches the invention as explained above in claim 12, but fails to teach a working distance between the zone plate and the object field which is larger than 10 mm.
However, Vila-Comamala teaches a working distance between a zone plate and object field is larger than 10 mm (page 706, column 1, paragraph 3).
As discussed above, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system taught in Lee as modified by Harada and ESOL with the working distance taught in Vila-Comamala as this distance achieves better transmission efficiency.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, 14-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20120008123) in view of Harada (JP2013019793A) and Johnson (US20170090172A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an optical system for a metrology system for measuring an object (abstract),
- comprising an object holder for holding the object in an object plane (35, Fig. 2),
- comprising a transmissive optical focusing component (30, Fig. 1), which is arranged in the beam path of illumination light between a light source (10, Fig. 1) of the metrology system and an object field in the object plane (Lee does not explicitly disclose an object field or object plane, however it is inherent to the system), for generating an illumination focus (45, Fig. 2 discloses the focus point) in the beam path of the illumination light downstream of the transmissive optical focusing component,
- comprising a detection device for detecting the illumination light in the beam path downstream of the object field (50, Fig. 2).
Lee fails to teach
- wherein the transmissive optical focusing component has a focal length which is smaller than 5 mm,
- comprising an imaging optical unit for imaging the illumination focus generated by the transmissive optical focusing component into a further illumination focus in the region of the object field.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical metrology systems, Harada teaches a transmissive optical focusing component (zone plate - 10d, Fig. 10) which has a focal length of less than 5 mm (paragraph [0027] discloses the focal length is 1mm; paragraph [0024] discloses the focal length can also change based on wavelength of the light used).
Lee discloses the use of a light source with a wavelength of 13.5 nm (paragraph [0016]). Harada discloses a focal length of 1mm is used for a wavelength of 13.5 nm (paragraph [0027]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the focal length taught in Harada in order to ensure the focal length matched the wavelength used.
Lee as modified by Harada fails to teach an imaging optical unit for imaging the illumination focus generated by the transmissive optical focusing component into a further illumination focus in the region of the object field.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical systems for metrology devices, Johnson teaches a system comprising a light source (701, Fig. 7) which sends light to a transmissive optical focusing component (microlens array - 602, Fig. 7) and an imaging optical unit (M1, M2, and M3) for imaging the illumination focus generated by the transmissive optical focusing component into a further illumination focus in the region of the object field (focus point on 101, Fig. 7; paragraph [0040]).
Johnson teaches the combination of transmissive optical component and imaging optical unit capability significantly simplifies the system (paragraph [0039]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Lee as modified by Harada with the imaging optical unit taught in Johnson in order to significantly simplify the system.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the transmissive optical focusing component is designed as a zone plate (Lee: paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further the imaging optical unit is designed as a mirror optical unit (Johnson: paragraph [0040]).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the optical system of Lee as modified by Harada and Johnson with the mirror optical unit taught in Johnson to simplify the system.
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the imaging optical unit has at least one mirror (Johnson: the imaging optical unit has mirrors M1, M2, and M3 as shown in Fig. 7).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the optical system of Lee as modified by Harada and Johnson with the at least one mirror taught in Johnson to simplify the system.
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 5, and further teaches the imaging optical unit has at least one folding mirror (Harada: 10c, Fig. 10; paragraph [0025]).
Harada discloses the imaging optical unit allows the setup to be used regardless of the wavelength of the light source (paragraph [0040]), therefore simplifying the setup. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the system taught in Lee as modified by Harada and Johnson with the alternative embodiment with an imaging optical unit with at least one folding mirror taught in Harada as this allows a fixed setup regardless of the wavelength of the light source, simplifying the device.
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches a chief ray angle of the illumination light incident in the object field is smaller than 6o (Lee: paragraph [0018] discloses the chief ray angle may be less than 8o).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the optical system as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches a light source for generating illumination light (Lee: 10, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10, and further teaches the light source is an EUV light source (Lee: 10, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the transmissive optical focusing component is designed as a zone plate (Lee: paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the imaging optical unit is designed as a mirror optical unit (Johnson: paragraph [0040]).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the optical system of Lee as modified by Harada and Johnson with the mirror optical unit taught in Johnson to simplify the system.
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches the imaging optical unit has at least one mirror (Johnson: the imaging optical unit has mirrors M1, M2, and M3 as shown in Fig. 7).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the optical system of Lee as modified by Harada and Johnson with the at least one mirror taught in Johnson to simplify the system.
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches the imaging optical unit has at least one folding mirror (Harada: 10c, Fig. 10; paragraph [0025]).
As discussed above, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the system taught in Lee as modified by Harada and Johnson with the small focal length taught in Harada in order to achieve the needed aperture size for the wavelength of the light used.
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches a chief ray angle of the illumination light incident in the object field is smaller than 6o (Lee: paragraph [0018] discloses the chief ray angle may be less than 8o).
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 11, and further teaches an actuator for displacing the object holder perpendicular to the object plane (Harada: paragraph [0036] discloses the object holder can move up and down. The examiner is interpreting this to be perpendicular to the object plane).
Harada discloses the movement of the object holder allows for the amount of light collected on the object to be changed (paragraph [0036]), which can optimize the SNR or increase detection sensitivity. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the system taught in Lee as modified by Harada and Johnson with the moving object holder taught in Harada to control the amount of light to be collected on the object.
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 2, and further teaches the imaging optical unit is designed as a mirror optical unit (Johnson: paragraph [0040]).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the optical system of Lee as modified by Harada and Johnson with the mirror optical unit taught in Johnson to simplify the system.
Claim 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20120008123) in view of Harada (JP2013019793A) and Johnson (US20170090172A1) as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Vila-Comamala (Vila-Comamala, J., Pan, Y., Lombardo, J. J., Harris, W. M., Chiu, W. K., David, C., & Wang, Y. (2012). Zone-doubled Fresnel zone plates for high-resolution hard X-ray full-field transmission microscopy. Journal of synchrotron radiation, 19(Pt 5), 705–709. https://doi.org/10.1107/S0909049512029640).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 2, but fails to teach a working distance between the zone plate and the object field which is larger than 10 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of object measurement using optical systems, Vila-Comamala teaches a working distance between a zone plate and object field is larger than 10 mm (page 706, column 1, paragraph 3 discloses the working distance is between 13.5 and 16 mm).
Vila-Comamala teaches this working distance achieves better transmission efficiency than shorter working distances (page 706, column 1, paragraph 3). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system taught in Lee as modified by Harada and Johnson with the working distance taught in Vila-Comamala as this distance achieves better transmission efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 12, but fails to teach a working distance between the zone plate and the object field which is larger than 10 mm.
However, Vila-Comamala teaches a working distance between a zone plate and object field is larger than 10 mm (page 706, column 1, paragraph 3).
As discussed above, , it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system taught in Lee as modified by Harada and Johnson with the working distance taught in Vila-Comamala as this distance achieves better transmission efficiency.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20120008123) in view of Harada (JP2013019793A) and Johnson (US20170090172A1) as evidenced by Edmund Optics (see first bullet point and first paragraph: https://www.edmundoptics.com/f/extreme-ultraviolet-euv-flat-mirrors/39087/).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 5, and further teaches the imaging optical unit has at least one aspherical mirror (Johnson: paragraph [0040] describes the mirrors as EUV mirrors, which are aspherical).
EUV mirrors are well-known in the art for their high reflectance, which allows for precise imaging (see supplemental material titled “Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) flat Mirrors” from Edmund Optics). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Lee as modified by Harada and Johnson with the aspherical mirror taught in Johnson as it enables precise imaging.
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Harada and Johnson teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches the imaging optical unit at least one aspherical mirror (Johnson: paragraph [0040] describes the mirrors as EUV mirrors, which are aspherical).
EUV mirrors are well-known in the art for their high reflectance, which allows for precise imaging (Edmund Optics: 1st bullet point and 1st paragraph disclose EUV mirrors achieve maximum reflectance for a given wavelength and angle of incidence). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Lee as modified by Harada and Johnson with the aspherical mirror taught in Johnson as it enables precise imaging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 11:00-8:00 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights