DETAILED ACTION
1. The amendment received on 14 April 2026 has been entered into the record.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mathijssen et al. (9,606,442)-previously cited.
As for claim 16, Mathijssen in a position measuring apparatus, position measuring method, lithographic apparatus and device manufacturing method discloses/suggests the following: a system (Figs. 3 and 5) comprising: an optical system configured to: direct the radiation beam toward a target structure, wherein the target structure is configured to produce scattered radiation from the radiation beam comprising one or more scattered beams and the one or more scattered beams comprise a zero order diffraction beam, and receive the scattered radiation from the target structure (Fig. 3: 223 and 224 with 202 noting that 231 demonstrates that zero order diffraction beam is created and detected; Fig. 5: 223 and 224 with 202 noting that 231 demonstrates that zero order diffraction beam is created and detected); an optical element configured to control a position of the one or more scattered beams (Fig. 3: 228 as a passive/static position control optical element and Fig. 5: 228 and 221 are both passive/static position control optical elements); a sensor configured to determine a position of the zero order diffraction beam (Fig. 3: 231; Fig. 5: 231: noting col. 9, lines 60-63); a detection system configured to receive a portion of the position-controlled scattered radiation and to generate a detection signal (Figs. 3 and 5: 230); and a processor system configured to determine a property of the target structure based on at least the detection signal (Figs. 3 and 5: PU noting 232 from 230).
As for claim 18, Mathijssen discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 16). In addition, Mathijssen discloses/suggests the sensor is further configured to block the zero order diffraction beam (Fig. 3: 231 the arrow goes no further than 231 thereby the zero order diffraction beam is effectively blocked; Fig. 5: 231 the arrows goes no further than 231 thereby the zero order diffraction beam is effectively blocked: noting col. 9, lines 60-63).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-5, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goorden (WO 2020/224882 A1)-previously cited.
As for claim 1, Goorden in a dark field microscope discloses/suggests a system (Fig. 6 and Fig. 11: apparatus for the practice of the method) comprising: an optical system configured to: direct a radiation beam toward a target structure, wherein the target structure is configured to produce scattered radiation from the radiation beam comprising one or more scattered beams, and receive the scattered radiation from the target structure (Fig. 6: treating optical system as all optical components between M1 and W; Fig. 11: treating optical system as all optical components between M1 and W; abstract; noting that specimen (W) is to be measured by collecting scattered radiation; noting paragraph [0043] refers to a target on substrate W; claim 19: refers to a metrology target; and noting paragraph [0029] with Fig. 3b); an optical element configured to control a position of the one or more scattered beams (Fig. 6: M1; Fig. 11: M1); a detection system configured to receive a portion of the position-controlled scattered radiation and to generate a detection signal (claims 1 and 13) (Fig. 6: treating detection system as the DET and all components between DET and M1; Fig. 11: treating detection system as the DET and all components between DET and M1).
As for a processor system configured to control the optical element and configured to determine a property of the target structure based on at least the detection signal, Goorden does not explicitly state this for the embodiments of Figures 6 and 11. Goorden does demonstrate that the mirror does have a controller (FIGS. 6 and 11: M1 and CON). And Goorden does state that Figure 11 is a simplified representation of a combination of apparatuses illustrated in Figure 5/6 and Figure 7 (paragraph 0060) and states that dark field microscope or metrology device are applicable to dark field alignment sensors in the context of lithography applications (paragraph 0033). And Goorden demonstrates that a processor is used to process the images of the interference pattern captured by a detector or camera in which the measurement target on the substrate is a periodic structure, an alignment mark, in which positional information can be determined which can be used as an alignment sensor for performing alignment in a lithographic manufacturing process (paragraph 0049; Fig. 7: 380). And lastly, Goorden discloses a processor system for controlling all movements and measurements by virtue of a lithographic apparatus control unit that can be realized as a system of many sub-units, each handling the real-time data acquisition, processing, and control of a subsystem or component within the apparatus (paragraph 0016)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a processor system configured to control the optical element and configured to determine a property of the target structure based on at least the detection signal in order to automate the mirror’s movement and to determine the alignment in a lithographic manufacturing process of an alignment mark on a substrate like a wafer with an alignment sensor.
Regarding ‘to control the position to compensate for a tilt of at least a parti of a surface of the target structure (lines 12-13 of claim 1),’ this appears to be an intended use recitation. The examiner refers to 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).’
As for claim 2, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the optical element is positioned in an illumination path between a radiation source configured to generate the radiation beam and the optical system (Fig. 6: M1 is between LS with SMF and the optical components, the optical system, between M1 and W; Fig. 11: M1 is between ILS with MMF and the optical components, the optical system, between M1 and W); and the optical element is configured to adjust an angle of incidence of the radiation beam with respect to the target structure (abstract: scanning illumination over at least two different subsets of the maximum range of illumination angles; paragraphs [0009, 0035, 0037, 0045]).
As for claim 3, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 2). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the optical element comprises a reflective system configured to tilt the radiation beam in a first direction and in a second direction (Fig. 6: M1 and showing double-headed arrow; Fig. 11: M1 and showing double-headed arrow).
As for claim 4, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the optical element is positioned in a detection path between the optical system and the detection system; and the optical element is configured to shift the one or more scattered beams (Fig. 6: M1 depicted as rectangular (plate) and showing double-headed arrow; Fig. 11: M1 depicted as rectangular (plate) and showing double-headed arrow).
As for claim 5, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 4). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the optical element comprises a plate configured to be tilted in a first direction and in a second direction (Fig. 6: M1 depicted as rectangular (plate) and showing double-headed arrow; Fig. 11: M1 depicted as rectangular (plate) and showing double-headed arrow).
As for claim 11, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the property of the target structure comprises an alignment position (refer to claim 1 above: ‘And Goorden demonstrates that a processor is used to process the images of the interference pattern captured by a detector or camera in which the measurement target on the substrate is a periodic structure, an alignment mark, in which positional information can be determined which can be used as an alignment sensor for performing alignment in a lithographic manufacturing process (paragraph 0049; Fig. 7: 380).’ ‘Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a processor system configured to control the optical element and configured to determine a property of the target structure based on at least the detection signal in order to automate the mirror’s movement and to determine the alignment in a lithographic manufacturing process of an alignment mark on a substrate like a wafer with an alignment sensor.’)
As for claim 12, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests, wherein the optical element is configured to independently control a position of the one or more scattered beams (Fig. 6: M1 with CON; Fig. 11: M1 with CON).
As for claim 15, Goorden in a dark field microscope discloses/suggests a lithography apparatus (Fig. 1: 200 with LA; paragraph 0014; paragraph 0017: noting LA being a so-called dual stage type with exposure station and measurement station; paragraphs 0028 with 0033) comprising: an illumination apparatus configured to illuminate a pattern of a patterning device (paragraph 0014: treating as ‘conditioned radiation’ as referring to an illumination apparatus); a projection system configured to project an image of the pattern onto a substrate (paragraph 0014); and the system of claim 1 (refer to claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 13-14 are allowed.
Claims 6-10, 17, 19, and 20 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
8. Applicant's argument filed 04 April 2026 regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 has been fully considered but is not persuasive. As for Goorden failing to disclose or teach ‘a processor system configured to control the optical element to control the position to compensative for a tilt of at least a part of a surface of the target structure’ the examiner refers to the following from the rejection above: ‘As for a processor system configured to control the optical element and configured to determine a property of the target structure based on at least the detection signal, Goorden does not explicitly state this for the embodiments of Figures 6 and 11.’
In addition, as stated above: ‘Regarding ‘to control the position to compensate for a tilt of at least a parti of a surface of the target structure (lines 12-13 of claim 1),’ this appears to be an intended use recitation. The examiner refers to 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
9. 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.
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