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 .
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 1-6, 9, 14-16, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 9 and 14-16, 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,019,242 B2 in view of Yamauchi et al (PGPUB 2017/0356735 A1).
Current Application – Claim 1
U.S. Patent 12,019,242 B2 – Claim 1
A metrology tool, comprising:
A metrology tool, comprising:
a light engine operable to project a light beam;
a light engine operable to project a light beam;
a first beam splitter disposed in a path of the light beam, the first beam splitter
operable to split the light beam into a first light path and a second light path, the first light path operable to be incident on an optical device;
a first beam splitter disposed in a path of the light beam, the first beam splitter operable to split the light beam into a first light path and a second light path, the first light path operable to be incident on an optical device;
a phase modulator disposed in the second light path,
a phase modulator disposed in the second light path;
the phase modulator
operable to change a phase of the second light path;
a second beam splitter disposed in the first light path and the second light path,
the second beam splitter operable to combine the first light path and the second light path to form a combined light path; and
a second beam splitter disposed in the first light path and the second light path, the second beam splitter operable to combine the first light path and the second light path to form a combined light path;
a detector disposed in the combined light path, the detector operable to record an
intensity of the combined light path.
a detector disposed in the combined light path, the detector operable to record an intensity measurement of the combined light path; and
a controller comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a plurality of operations to be conducted, the plurality of operations, comprising:
determining a full-field optical field of the optical device at a reference point located adjacent to a surface of the optical device where the first light path exits the optical device, wherein the full-field optical field is determined by performing a Fourier transform on the intensity measurement to reconstruct an amplitude and phase of the first light path at the reference point.
The patent application teaches all of the limitations except for “the phase modulator operable to change a phase of the second light path”.
Yamauchi (Fig. 1) teaches, the phase modulator (mirror 42 and piezo element 43, ¶ 35: i.e. adjust phase based on optical path length caused by piezo element 43) operable to change a phase of the second light path (i.e. down path from beamsplitter 21, ¶ 37).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of a phase modulator of Yamauchi into claim 1 of Sun et al (U.S. Patent 12,019,242 B2), so as to provide the apparatus made small in size with high spatial image resolution (¶ 11).
Current Application - Claim 14
U.S. Patent 12,019,242 B2 – Claim 14
A method, comprising: projecting a light beam to a first beam splitter, the first beam splitter splitting the light beam into a first light path and a second light path;
projecting the first light path to an optical device, the first light path travelling
through the optical device;
A method, comprising: projecting a light beam to a first beam splitter, the first beam splitter splitting the light beam into a first light path and a second light path; projecting the first light path to an optical device, the first light path travelling through the optical device,
wherein the optical device is a metasurface or a waveguide combiner;
projecting the first light path to a phase modulator, the phase modulator generating one or more phase delay images of the first light path;
projecting the second light path to a phase modulator, the phase modulator operable to generate one or more phase delay images of the second light path;
combining the first light path and the second light path with a second beam splitter to form a combined light path;
directing the combined light path to a detector, the detector operable to record an intensity measurement of the first light path and the second light path; and
determining a full-field optical field of the optical device at a reference point located adjacent to a surface of the optical device where the first light path exits the optical device, wherein the full-field optical field is determined by performing a Fourier transform on the intensity measurement to reconstruct an amplitude and phase of the first light path at the reference point.
combining the first light path and the second light path with a second beam splitter to form a combined light path;
directing the combined light path to a detector, the detector operable to record an intensity measurement of the first light path and the second light path; and determining a full-field optical field of the optical device at a reference point located adjacent to a surface of the optical device where the first light path exits the optical device, wherein the full-field optical field is determined by performing a Fourier transform on the intensity measurement to reconstruct an amplitude and phase of the first light path at the reference point.
The patent application teaches all of the limitations except for “projecting the first light path to a phase modulator, the phase modulator generating one or more phase delay images of the first light path”. (Please, note that Yamauchi prior art teaches two optical paths that may read on the first light path/second light path or vice versa in view of the scope of claims 1 and 14)
Yamauchi (Fig. 1) teaches, projecting the first light path (i.e. down path from beamsplitter 21, ¶ 37) to a phase modulator (mirror 42 and piezo element 43, ¶ 35: i.e. adjust phase based on optical path length caused by piezo element 43),
the phase modulator generating one or more phase delay images of the first light path (i.e. adjust phase difference based on the movement of the mirror 42)(¶ 31, 35, 38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of a phase modulator of Yamauchi into claim 1 of Sun et al (U.S. Patent 12,019,242 B2), so as to provide the apparatus made small in size with high spatial image resolution (¶ 11).
Dependent claims 2-6, 9, 15-16 and 18-20 correspond to dependent claims 2-6, 9, 15-16 and 18-20 of U.S. Patent 12,019,242 B2.
Claims 10-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-13 of U.S. Patent No.12,019,242. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The current application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Current Application - Claim 10
U.S. Patent 12,019,242 B2 – Claim 10
A metrology tool, comprising:
a light engine operable to project a light beam; a first beam splitter disposed in a path of the light beam, the first beam splitter operable to split the light beam into a first light path and a second light path, the first light path operable to be incident on an optical device;
a modulation module disposed in the first light path, the modulation module
operable to change a phase, amplitude, or angle of incidence of the first light path;
a tilted mirror disposed in the second light path;
a second beam splitter disposed in the first light path and the second light path
the second beam splitter operable to combine the first light path and the second light path to form a combined light path; and a detector disposed in the combined light path,
A metrology tool, comprising:
a light engine operable to project a light beam; a first beam splitter disposed in a path of the light beam, the first beam splitter operable to split the light beam into a first light path and a second light path, the first light path operable to be incident on an optical device;
a modulation module disposed in the first light path, the modulation module operable to change a phase, amplitude, or angle of incidence of the first light path; a tilted mirror disposed in the second light path;
a second beam splitter disposed in the first light path and the second light path,
the second beam splitter operable to combine the first light path and the second light path to form a combined light path; a detector disposed in the combined light path,
the detector operable to record an
intensity of the combined light path
the detector operable to record an intensity measurement of the combined light path; and
a controller comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a plurality of operations to be conducted, the plurality of operations, comprising: determining a full-field optical field of the optical device at a reference point located adjacent to a surface of the optical device where the first light path exits the optical device, wherein the full-field optical field is determined by performing a Fourier transform on the intensity measurement to reconstruct an amplitude and phase of the first light path at the reference point.
Dependent claims 11 and 12 correspond to dependent claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent 12,019,242 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 6 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “the phase modulator is operable to change a phase of the second light path”. The scope of this claim limitation is identical to the claim limitation in claim 1 that recites “the phase modulator operable to change a phase of the second light path”.
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 § 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, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamauchi et al (PGPUB 2017/0356735 A1: hereinafter Yamauchi 735).
As to claim 1, Yamauchi 735 (Fig. 1) teaches, a metrology tool (interference observation apparatus 1A), comprising:
a light engine (light source 10) operable to project a light beam (¶ 37);
a first beam splitter (beam splitter 21) disposed in a path of the light beam, the first beam splitter operable to split the light beam into a first light path (i.e. left path from beam splitter 21 as shown in Fig. 1) and a second light path (i.e. down path from beam splitter 21)(¶ 25, 37), the first light path operable to be incident on an optical device (i.e. incident on beam splitter 31 and mirror 32)(¶ 37);
a phase modulator (mirror 42 and piezo element 43) disposed in the second light path (Fig. 1), the phase modulator operable to change a phase of the second light path (¶ 38: i.e. phase difference adjusted by controlling the position of mirror 42 by the piezo element 43);
a second beam splitter (beam splitter 22) disposed in the first light path and the second light path (Fig. 1), the second beam splitter operable to combine the first light path and the second light path to form a combined light path (¶ 44: beam splitter 22 combines the split lights from the left path and down path discussed above); and
a detector (imaging unit 61 and image acquisition unit 71) disposed in the combined light path, the detector operable to record an intensity (intensity distribution of the combined light) of the combined light path (¶ 33).
As to claims 2 and 11, Yamauchi 735 (Fig. 1) teaches, wherein the optical device is a waveguide combiner (combining beam splitter 22) and the waveguide combiner is positioned such that the first light path is operable to be incident on an input coupling region (lens 51) of the waveguide combiner (¶ 32).
As to claim 4, Yamauchi 735 (Fig. 1) teaches, wherein the phase modulator is one of a spatial light modulator, a piezo driven mirror (i.e. piezo element 43 and mirror 43), or a tilted mirror (note: Applicant’s claimed limitations use alternative language with “or” clause. Yamauchi 735 teaches the scope of claim 4 as it teaches the piezo driven mirror limitation).
As to claim 6, Yamauchi 735 (Fig. 1) teaches, wherein the phase modulator is operable to change a phase of the second light path (¶ 38: i.e. phase difference adjusted by controlling the position of mirror 42 by the piezo element 43).
As to claim 9, Yamauchi 735 (Fig. 1) teaches an auxiliary lens (lens 51) disposed in the first light path, the auxiliary lens operable to relay the first light path (¶ 37).
As to claim 10, Yamauchi 735 (Fig. 3) teaches,
a metrology tool (interference observation apparatus 1A), comprising:
a light engine (light source 10) operable to project a light beam (¶ 37);
a first beam splitter (beam splitter 21) disposed in a path of the light beam, the first bea m splitter operable to split the light beam into a first light path (i.e. down path from beam splitter 21 as shown in Fig. 1) and a second light path (i.e. left path from beam splitter 21)(¶ 25, 37: note – In this claim, left path and down path are interpreted differently than claim 1), the first light path operable to be incident on an optical device (mirror 42 and piezo element 43)(¶ 31);
a modulation module (mirror 42 and piezo element 43) disposed in the first light path, the modulation module operable to change a phase, amplitude, or angle of incidence of the first light path (Fig. 1, ¶ 35: i.e. Yamauchi 735 teaches phase and angle of incidence. Mirror 42 and piezo element 43 adjust optical path length of the optical system and adjust phase difference between first split light and second split light. As shown in Fig. 1, beam is reflected and reverts its direction from mirror 42);
a tilted mirror (beam splitter 31) disposed in the second light path (¶ 29, 37: i.e. beam splitter 31 reflects light from mirror 32 at an angle as shown in Fig. 1);
a second beam splitter (beam spitter 22) disposed in the first light path and the second light path (Fig. 1, ¶ 38), the second beam splitter operable to combine the first light path and the second light path to form a combined light path (¶ 44: beam splitter 22 combines the split lights from the left path and down path discussed above); and
a detector (imaging unit 61 and image acquisition unit 71) disposed in the combined light path, the detector operable record an intensity (intensity distribution of the combined light) of the combined light path (¶ 33).
As to claim 13, Yamauchi 735 (Fig. 1) teaches, a first lens (lens 51) disposed in the second light path, the first lens operable to relay the second light path (¶ 37, 38);
a second lens (tube lens 53) disposed in the combined light path, the second lens operable to relay the combined light path (Fig. 1, ¶ 69); and
an auxiliary lens (lens 52) disposed in the first light path, the auxiliary lens operable to relay the first light path (¶ 32, 58).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi 735 in view of Robbins et al (USPAT 10,175,489 B1).
As to claim 5, Yamauchi 735 teaches the metrology tool of claim 1 but does not specifically teach a laser.
Robbins (Fig. 2A) teaches, wherein the light engine projects a laser (laser or laser diode)(col. 14 lines 58-62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Robbin’s light system structure into Yamauchi 735’s optical system, so as to provide high frame rate and perform fast scan (col. 12 lines 49-63).
As to claim 8, Yamauchi 735 teaches the metrology tool of claim 1 but does not specifically teach a linear polarizer.
Robbins (Fig. 2A) teaches, comprising a linear polarizer operable to polarize the light beam, the linear polarizer positioned to linearly polarize the light beam prior to the light beam contacting the first beam splitter (col. 10 lines 35-51: i.e. first polarizing beam splitter PBS 202 reflects light that is already linearly polarized).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Robbin’s light system structure into Yamauchi 735’s optical system, so as to provide high frame rate and perform fast scan (col. 12 lines 49-63).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi 735 in view of Yamauchi et al (PGPUB 2020/0400562 A1: hereinafter Yamauchi 562).
As to claim 7, Yamuchi 735 (Fig. 1) teaches,
a first lens (first lens 51) disposed in the first light path, the first lens operable to relay the first light path and positioned downstream from the first beam splitter and upstream from the second beam splitter (Fig. 1: i.e. downstream of beam splitter 21 and upstream of beam splitter 22);
a third lens (lens 52) disposed in the second light path, the third lens operable to relay the second light path and position63).ed downstream from the mirror 42 and piezo element 43; and
a fourth lens (lens 53) disposed in the second light path, the fourth lens operable to relay the second light path and positioned downstream from the third lens (Fig. 1: i.e. lens 53 is downstream from lens 52).
Yamauchi 735 does not specifically teach a second lens and a third lens downstream from the second lens.
Yamauchi 562 (Fig. 1) teaches, a second lens (objective lens 14) disposed in the second light path (i.e. left path from beam splitter 12), the second lens operable to relay the second light path and positioned downstream from the first beam splitter (beam splitter 12) and upstream from the phase modulator (piezo element 21 and reflection mirror 15)(¶ 31, 33, 36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Yamauchi 562’s image acquisition apparatus 1 into Yamauchi 735’s acquisition apparatus, so as to achieve clear interference image (¶ 43).
Given the teaching of Yamauchi 562, the third lens (lens 52 of Yamauchi 735) would be positioned downstream from the second lens (lens 14 of Yamauchi 562).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 would be allowable if the obvious-type nonstatutory double patenting rejection discussed above is overcome.
Claims 3 and 12 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 and overcome the obvious-type nonstatutory double patenting rejection discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 3 and 12 recite the limitation, “wherein the optical device is a metasurface and the metasurface is positioned such that the first light path is operable to be incident on a centerpoint of the metasurface”. Examiner conducted the search to find the prior arts that would teach this limitation while requiring other structural limitations required by claim 1 directly or in a combinable manner with another prior art. However, none of the references from the search teach the limitation.
Claim 14 recites the limitation, “determining a full-field optical field of the optical device at a reference point located adjacent to a surface of the optical device where the first light path exits the optical device, wherein the full-field optical field is determined by performing a Fourier transform on the intensity measurement to reconstruct an amplitude and phase of the first light path at the reference point”. Examiner conducted the search to find the prior arts that would teach this limitation while requiring other structural limitations of claim 14 directly or in a combinable manner with another prior art. However, none of the references from the search teach the limitation.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGHYUK PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7359. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00AM - 6:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on ((571) 272-7772. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/SANGHYUK PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623