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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on October 21, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because it depends on a cancelled claim (claim 1). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 29 has not been further treated on the merits.
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.
Claims 16-17, 24-25, 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (U.S.Pat. 9,247,874) in view of Kitamura et al (U.S.Pat. 8,045,785).
With respect to claims 16-17, 24-25 and 27-29, Kumar discloses a metrology method comprising: obtaining a first image that is subject to one or more non-isoplanatic aberrations of an optical system used to capture the image (Kumar discloses acquiring interferometric image data containing spatially varying wavefront errors across sub-apertures (see figures 6-13) which constitute non-isoplanatic aberrations); non-iteratively correcting the first image for an effect caused by the one or more non-isoplanatic aberrations by performing one or both of a filed non-isoplanatic correction in field space for the first image, the field space corresponding to a field plane of the optical system (since Kumar (figures 9-12) teaches sub-aperture based correlation across the field to estimate local wavefront slops and correct filed-dependent distortion) and a pupil non-isoplanatic correction operation in pupil space for the first image, the pupil space corresponding to a pupil plane of the optical system (Kurma discloses correcting aberrations in the pupil domain by computing and applying a pixel-wise pupil-plane phase correction (see figure 6). Thus, Kumar discloses substantially all of the limitations of the instant claims except for the requirement that the aberrations are: “describable as a convolution combined with an object distortion and/or a pupil distortion”, as recited in the instant claim. Kitamura (figures 5-14 and 39-43) discloses pattern inspection apparatus and method that models image formation as: a convolution of the object pattern with an imaging PSF (beam-profile blur); object distortion, including line-edge deformation, corner rounding, and pattern deformation (figures 21, 66-74) and pupil distortion, as SEM and optical image formation are affected by beam-spot spread, trajectory aberrations and electron scattering which operate analogously to pupil-function distortion (figures 5-11). Thus, Kitamura explicitly teaches that the aberration in metrology can be described as a convolution combined with an object distortion and/or a pupil distortion. In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kurma and Kitamura to obtain the claimed invention as recited in the instant claims. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to apply the well-established image-domain convolution model as suggested by Kitamura, including separation of object distortion and pupil distortion components to the aberrations corrected by the pupil-space and field-space algorithms in Kumar for the purpose of accurately detecting the aberrations of the optical system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-23 and 26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 18 has been found allowable since the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, neither discloses nor makes obvious any aberration architecture that distinguishes aberrations based on domain-dependent correctability, as recited in the claim.
Claim 19 has been found allowable since the prior art of record does not disclose performing only the field non-isoplanatic correction operation for the first class of aberrations or only the pupil non-isoplanatic correction operation for the second class.
Claims 20-23 have been found allowable since the prior art of record does not disclose the concept of identifying or correcting proper subsets of aberration classes as recited in the claims.
Claim 26 has been found allowable since the prior art of record does not teach correcting a first class of isoplanatic aberration corractable by performing at least one isoplanatic correction operation in the field space or correcting a second class of isoplanatic aberration correctable by performing at least one isoplanatic correction operation in the pupil space, as recited in the claim.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bedi et al (U.S.Pat. 9,763,533); Wiemker et al (U.S.Pat. 9,196,030) discloses systems and methods for correcting images in lithographic devices and have been cited for technical background.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
12/9/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882