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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The German language in equations 10, 11, and 13 should be translated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description:
FIG. 24 illustrates additional stop apertures 40.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 recites “a pupil stop” in line 5 “at least one pupil stop” in line 11. Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 12, and 14-19 refer to both “the pupil stop” or “the at least on pupil stop.” It is unclear whether the at least one pupil stop of the method steps in intended to introduce a different pupil stop than the pupil stop recited as part of optical measurement system, also in method of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of measurement illumination settings” and “various measurement illumination settings”. Both mean more than one measurement illumination settings, but switching between the adjective and the noun can lead to confusion as to whether new set of illumination settings is being introduced. The Examiner recommends choosing one description.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reconstruction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term appears to be recalling the step of reconstructing, but there is no further limiting action added to the step of reconstructing. Instead, the reconstruction appears to be recalling the reconstructed complex mask transfer function.
The clause “the reconstruction includes the fact that profiles of stop edges of the at least one pupil stop which effectively act to specify the respective measurement illumination setting are changed in a manner going beyond a pure displacement of the stop edge when the respective measurement illumination setting is specified on the basis of the displacement position of the pupil stop” as whole is indefinite because it is unclear the meets and bounds of “a fact” that is included in a mathematical reconstruction that is beyond a pure displacement. Based on the disclosure, this limitation is understood to mean: the step of reconstructing the complex mask transfer function includes information relating to an effective stop edge profile of the at least one pupil stop other than a pure displacement of a stop edge of the at least one pupil stop specifying the respective measurement illumination setting of the plurality of measurement illumination settings.
Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1.
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.
Claims 9-16 are 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. Claims 9-16 are directed to measurement system, but are dependent from the method of claim 1. The measurement system does not limit the method of claim 1 by adding more method steps and can also be used for carrying out materially different methods for simulating an intensity profile. The structural limitations are also recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims 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.
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Capelli et al. [WO 2021/073993, cited and provided by the Applicant].
For claim 9, Capelli teaches a metrology system (see Fig. 1) for carrying out a method of claim 1 (functionally capable of capturing a aerial image at detector 16 for analysis by a method, see page 13 lines 5-10), wherein the optical measurement system comprises an illumination optical unit (4) serving to illuminate the object and having a pupil stop (6) in the region of an illumination pupil in a pupil plane (4b), and an imaging optical unit (8) for imaging the object in the image plane.
For claim 10, Capelli teaches the optical measurement system comprises a displacement drive (7b) for displacing the pupil stop in at least one displacement direction in the pupil plane, wherein the optical measurement system comprises an object holder (12a) which is displaceable perpendicular to an object plane by actuator (12b).
For claims 12 and 14, Capelli teaches a selection apparatus for selecting at least one pupil stop from a plurality of pupil stops (the setting stop 6 can be exchanged for an exchange setting stop for changing the respective measurement illumination setting, see page 10 lines 18-25, it is also possible by using further setting stops with differently shaped and/or distributed through openings to specify other illumination settings within the metrology system 2 ).
For claim 15, Capelli teaches shadowing effects on account of a finite thickness of a main body of the pupil stop are included in a determination of a change in the profiles of the stop edges of the at least one pupil stop when the measurement illumination settings are specified (functionally capable of capturing a aerial image at detector 16 for analysis by a method, see page 13 lines 5-10).
For claim 16, Capelli teaches shadowing effects on account of a chief ray angle of an illumination of the object in the optical production system of greater than 4° are included in a determination of a change in the profiles of the stop edges of the at least one pupil stop when the measurement illumination settings are specified (functionally capable of capturing a aerial image at detector 16 for analysis by a method, see page 13 lines 5-10).
Claims 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feldmann et al. [US 2013/0038850].
For claim 9, Feldmann teaches a metrology system (see Fig. 6) for carrying out a method of claim 1 (functionally capable of capturing a aerial image at detector 640 for analysis by a method, see [0054]), wherein the optical measurement system comprises an illumination optical unit (610) serving to illuminate the object and having a pupil stop (650) in the region of an illumination pupil in a pupil plane (see [0056]), and an imaging optical unit (620) for imaging the object in the image plane.
For claims 11 and 13, Feldmann teaches the optical measurement system comprises a displacement drive (inherent for performing movement during inspection, see [0056]) for displacing, in at least one displacement direction in a pupil plane of the imaging optical unit, an imaging pupil stop (660) arranged in the region of a pupil of the imaging optical unit (see [0056]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Diederich et al. [US 2020/0264419] teaches a method for simulating illumination and imaging properties of an optical production system when an object is illuminated and imaged (see Fig. 7), wherein the simulation is implemented by use of an optical measurement system of a metrology system (system 100 with detector 114, see Fig. 1), wherein the optical measurement system comprises an illumination optical unit for illuminating the object, having a pupil stop of the illumination optical unit (111, see Fig. 1) in the region of an illumination pupil in a pupil plane (illumination geometry, see [0052]-[0054]) , and an imaging optical unit (112, see Fig. 1)) for imaging the object in an image plane, including the following steps: providing at least one pupil stop for specifying a plurality of measurement illumination settings created by displacing the pupil stop in the pupil plane (actuating the illumination module and varying the illumination geometry, see [0066], [0096], and [0104]), recording measurement aerial images in the image plane for various displacement positions of the object perpendicular to the object plane with the various measurement illumination settings (measuring using the detector, see [0066], [0070], and [0101])), wherein the various measurement illumination settings are specified by displacing the pupil stop (variations of the illumination geometry, see [0104]), reconstructing a complex mask transfer function from the recorded measurement aerial images (reconstructed transfer function t(x), see [0103]) , and determining a 3-D aerial image of the optical production system from the reconstructed mask transfer function and a given illumination setting of the optical production system as the result of the simulation method (the aerial image I(x), see [0103] and [0104]). The previously cited prior art fails to teach, based on the interpretation in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, the reconstruction includes the fact that profiles of stop edges of the at least one pupil stop which effectively act to specify the respective measurement illumination setting are changed in a manner going beyond a pure displacement of the stop edge when the respective measurement illumination setting is specified on the basis of the displacement position of the pupil stop, as recited in claim 1. Claims 2-8 and 17-20 depend therefrom.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759