DETAILED ACTION
1. The amendment received April 27, 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 .
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to because in FIG. 2 it appears that ‘100”’should read -100-. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
4. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: LC of FIG. 3 and 427 of FIG. 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Specification
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 5 of paragraph [0098] ‘728’ should read -528-.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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: illumination system in claims 16 and 25 (see lines 2 and 7 of claim 25), detection system in claims 16, 17, 25, and 26, projection system in claim 25, and imaging device in claims 31 and 32.
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 § 102
9. 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.
10. Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goorden et al. (WO 2020/057900 A1)-cited by applicant.
As for claims 16 and 31 (treating claim 16 as the apparatus for the practice of claim 31), Goorden in a metrology sensor for position metrology discloses/suggests the following: a metrology system (Fig. 1: 240 and Fig. 2: 300; paragraphs 0046-0054) comprising: an illumination system (Fig. 2: 300; paragraph 0052) configured to: generate a radiation beam (Fig. 2: 320, 330; paragraph 0052) and direct the radiation beam toward a region of a surface of a substrate (Fig. 2: 354; paragraph 0052); a detection system (Fig. 2: 365; paragraph 0052) configured to: measure an observable from the region in response to an illumination of the region by the radiation beam (paragraph 0052 with Fig. 2), and generate a measurement signal indicative of the measured observable (Fig. 4: paragraphs 0064,0065); and a controller configured to determine a correction to a measurement value based on the measurement signal (Fig. 2: 380 with paragraphs 0052 and 0092-0096 noting that paragraph 0095: specifically, refers to determining and correcting an alignment measurement value for alignment mark asymmetry/deformations within the mark itself).
As for claims 17 and 32, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claims 16 and 31). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests the detection system is further configured to: measure an interference between radiation diffracted from the region in response to the illumination of the region by the radiation beam, and generate the measurement signal comprising interference fringe pattern data indicative of the measured interference; and the controller is further configured to determine the correction to the measurement value based on the interference fringe pattern data (Figs. 4-5 with paragraphs 0061-0066 and paragraphs 0092-0096 and as stated above ‘noting that paragraph 0095: specifically, refers to determining and correcting an alignment measurement value for alignment mark asymmetry/deformations within the mark itself’ ).
As for claims 18 and 33, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claims 17 and 32). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a change in a periodicity value of the interference fringe pattern data; and determine the correction to the measurement value based on the change in the periodicity value (Fig. 8 with paragraph 0080: noting that any target asymmetry results in a different aligned position per wavelength; paragraph 0081: referring to the orientation of the interference fringes being different for different wavelengths; paragraph 0082: referring to the period and angle of the interference fringes being different for different wavelengths; paragraphs 0080-0082: demonstrating correcting a measurement value using OCW-like algorithms).
As for claims 19 and 33, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claims 17 and 32). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a change in an orientation value of the interference fringe pattern data; and determine the correction to the measurement value based on the change in the orientation value (Fig. 8 with paragraph 0080: noting that any target asymmetry results in a different aligned position per wavelength; paragraph 0081: referring to the orientation of the interference fringes being different for different wavelengths; paragraph 0082: : referring to the period and angle of the interference fringes being different for different wavelengths; paragraphs 0080-0082 demonstrate correcting a measurement value using OCW-like algorithms).
As for claims 20 and 33, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claims 17 and 32). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a change in a wave vector of the interference fringe pattern data; and determine the correction to the measurement value based on the change in wave vector (interpreting an angle of the interference fringe pattern data as referring to a wave vector of the interference fringe pattern data: Fig. 8 with paragraph 0080: noting that any target asymmetry results in a different aligned position per wavelength; paragraph 0081: referring to the orientation of the interference fringes being different for different wavelengths; paragraph 0082: : referring to the period and angle of the interference fringes being different for different wavelengths; paragraphs 0080-0082 demonstrate correcting a measurement value using OCW-like algorithms).
As for claim 21, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 17). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein: the region comprises an alignment mark; and the interference fringe pattern data corresponds to a portion of the alignment mark (Fig. 5 with paragraphs 0065, 0066 with paragraphs 0089-0095).
As for claim 22, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 17). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the controller is further configured to generate a spatial map of a parameter based on the interference fringe pattern data; and determine the correction to the measurement value based on the spatial map (paragraphs 00128 and 00136).
As for claims 23, 34, and 35, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claims 16 and 32). In addition, he discloses wherein the correction comprises: a first correction to an alignment measurement of an alignment sensor; or a second correction to an overlay error of an overlay sensor (paragraphs 0065, 0066, 0095, and Fig. 5).
As for claim 24, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 23). In addition, he discloses wherein the controller is further configured to optimize a lithography step during an exposure of an alignment mark based on the observable (paragraphs 0017, 0039, 0094-0096 with 00108).
As for claim 25, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (note the limitations of claim 16). In addition, Goorden discloses a lithographic apparatus (Fig. 1: paragraphs 0035-0051, comprising: a radiation source configured to illuminate a pattern of a patterning device; a projection system configured to project an image of the pattern onto a target portion of a substrate (Fig. 1: paragraphs 0035-0051); and a metrology system comprising: an illumination system configured to: generate a radiation beam, and direct the radiation beam toward a region of a surface of a substrate; a detection system configured to measure an observable from the region in response to an illumination of the region by the radiation beam, and generate a measurement signal indicative of the measured observable; and a controller configured to determine a correction to a measurement value based on the measurement signal (refer to claim 16 above),
As for claim 26, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 25). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the detection system is further configured to: measure an interference between radiation diffracted from the region in response to the illumination of the region by the radiation beam, and generate the measurement signal comprising interference fringe pattern data indicative of the measured interference; and the controller is further configured to determine the correction to the measurement value based on the interference fringe pattern data (Figs. 4-5 with paragraphs 0061-0066 and paragraphs 0092-0096 and as stated above ‘noting that paragraph 0095: specifically, refers to determining and correcting an alignment measurement value for alignment mark asymmetry/deformations within the mark itself’ ).
As for claim 27, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 26). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a change in a periodicity value of the interference fringe pattern data; and determine the correction to the measurement value based on the change in the periodicity value (Fig. 8 with paragraph 0080: noting that any target asymmetry results in a different aligned position per wavelength; paragraph 0081: referring to the orientation of the interference fringes being different for different wavelengths; paragraph 0082: referring to the period and angle of the interference fringes being different for different wavelengths; paragraphs 0080-0082 demonstrate correcting a measurement value using OCW-like algorithms).
As for claim 28, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 26). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a change in an orientation value of the interference fringe pattern data; and determine the correction to the measurement value based on the change in the orientation value (Fig. 8 with paragraph 0080: noting that any target asymmetry results in a different aligned position per wavelength; paragraph 0081: referring to the orientation of the interference fringes being different for different wavelengths; paragraph 0082: referring to the period and angle of the interference fringes being different for different wavelengths; paragraphs 0080-0082 demonstrate correcting a measurement value using OCW-like algorithms).
As for claim 29, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 26). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the controller is further configured to: determine a change in a wave vector of the interference fringe pattern data; and determine the correction to the measurement value based on the change in wave vector (interpreting an angle of the interference fringe pattern data as referring to a wave vector of the interference fringe pattern data: Fig. 8 with paragraph 0080: noting that any target asymmetry results in a different aligned position per wavelength; paragraph 0081: referring to the orientation of the interference fringes being different for different wavelengths; paragraph 0082: : referring to the period and angle of the interference fringes being different for different wavelengths; paragraphs 0080-0082 demonstrate correcting a measurement value using OCW-like algorithms).
As for claim 30, Goorden discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 26). In addition, Goorden discloses/suggests wherein the correction comprises: a first correction to an alignment measurement of an alignment sensor; or a second correction to an overlay error of an overlay sensor (paragraphs 0065, 0066, 0095, and Fig. 5).
Double Patenting
11. 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.
12. Claims 16, 23, 25, and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,461,457 to Adams et al.. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7 of ‘457 appear to anticipate claims 16 and 23 of ‘742 and claims 8-14 of ‘457 appear to anticipate claims 25 and 30 of ‘742.
13. Claims 16 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,446 to Andersson et al.. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7 of ‘446 appear to anticipate claim 16 of ‘742 and claims 8-14 of ‘446 appear to anticipate claim 25 of ‘742.
14. Claims 16 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,740,561 to Mehta et al.. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-8 of ‘561 appear to anticipate claim 25 of ‘742 and claims 9-16 of ‘561 appear to anticipate claim 16 of ‘742.
15. Claims 16 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,493,852 to Dastouri et al.. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7 of ‘852 appear to anticipate claim 16 of ‘742 and claims 8-14 of ‘852 appear to anticipate claim 16 of ‘742.
16. Claims 16 and 25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,928,738 to Catey et al.. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-12 of ‘738 appear to anticipate claim 16 of ‘742 and claims 13-21 of ‘738 appear to anticipate claim 16 of ‘742.
Response to Arguments
17. Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As for referring to paragraphs 0052 and 0094-0096 not disclosing ‘to determine a correction to measurement value based on the measurement signal’ of claims 16 and 25/’determining, by the controller, a correction to a measurement value based on the measurement signal’ of claim 31 (see Remarks: pages 8-9 and specifically, the first two paragraphs of page 9), upon further consideration and further search the examiner has modified the previous rejections using Goorden et al. (WO 2020/057900 A1) to provide clarity. Please see above: noting that regarding claim 16, Goorden discloses/suggests ‘a controller configured to determine a correction to a measurement value based on the measurement signal (Fig. 2: 380 with paragraphs 0052 and 0092-0096 noting that paragraph 0095: specifically, refers to determining and correcting an alignment measurement value for alignment mark asymmetry/deformations within the mark itself).’
As well upon further consideration and search, new rejections have been made. Please see above.
The examiner apologizes for any inconvenience.
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892. As well the examiner notes WO 2020/126816 A1 to Dastouri et al. (see claims 1-14 which relate to claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,493,852 to Dastouri et al. cited above), WO 2020/114829 A1 to Andersson et al. (see claims 1-14 which relate to claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,513,446 to Andersson et al. cited above), and US 2019/0227443 to Catey et al. (see claims 31-51 which relate to claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,928,738 to Catey et al. cited above).
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