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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/20/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/13/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 08/20/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 17, 18 and 19 under Kowarz, claims 3 and 4 under Kowarz in view of Derksen, claims 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14 under Kowarz in view of Tamada, and claims 16 and 20 under Kowarz in view of Schoormans have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rice (https://itea.org/images/pdf/conferences/2011-Technology-Review-presentations/Rice%20HIP%20ITEA%20July%202011.pdf).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowarz (US20070146700A1) in view of Rice (https://itea.org/images/pdf/conferences/2011-Technology-Review-presentations/Rice%20HIP%20ITEA%20July%202011.pdf).
Regarding claim 1, Kowarz teaches a source system (spectral imaging system - 50, Fig. 1) for spectrally shaping a broadband illumination beam ('lamps of various type', paragraph [0108]) to obtain a spectrally shaped illumination beam, the system comprising:
a beam dispersing element configured to disperse the broadband illumination beam (44a, Fig. 6; paragraph [0062]);
a grating light valve module configured to spatially modulate the broadband illumination beam subsequent to being dispersed ('light modulator' - 48, Fig. 6; paragraph [0111] discloses this can be a grating light valve); and
a beam combining element to recombine the spatially modulated broadband illumination beam to obtain an output source beam (45b, Fig. 6;).
Kowarz fails to teach the output source beam is to be incident on an object that is to be imaged, measured or inspected.
However, in the same field of endeavor of spectrally shaping a light beam to image an object, Rice teaches a beam dispersing element ('Prism' - slide 5; 'Dispersing Prisms' - slide 12), grating light valve module ('SLM' - slide 5; 'DMD' - slide 12), and a beam combining element that outputs a source beam that is then incident on an object to be imaged ('Recombine the light" - slide 5; 'Recombining system' - slide 12; slide 12 discloses the light is then output to the spatial engine, which then transfers the light to the object to be tested as shown on slides 4 and 10).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Kowarz with the placement of the system before the object to be imaged taught in Rice as placing the optical system before the object to be imaged allows for independent control of the spectrum used (Rice: slide 33) and provides high spatial and spectral resolution (Rice: slide 2).
Regarding claim 2, Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and Kowarz further teaches control (156, Fig. 2) of the grating light valve module controls transmission per spectral component of the spectrally shaped illumination beam (paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 6, Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and Kowarz further teaches at least one imaging optic configured to image the dispersed broadband illumination beam onto the grating light valve module (45a, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and Kowarz further teaches a processing unit configured to control at least the grating light valve module (paragraph [0060] discloses controller is a microprocessor that controls the grating light valve (light modulator)).
Regarding claim 10 Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 9, and Kowarz further teaches a beam diagnostic module ('detector array' - 56, Fig. 6) configured to measure one or more parameters of an output spectrum of the output source beam ('output' - 54, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17 Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and Kowarz further teaches a beam directing arrangement (mirror, 65, to modulator, 48, Fig. 9) configured to pass the dispersed broadband illumination beam two or more times on the grating light valve module, wherein the dispersed broadband illumination beam is modulated on each pass (double-pass configuration, paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 18, Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and Kowarz further teaches an illumination source configured to provide the input illumination (12, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19 Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 18, and Kowarz further teaches the illumination source comprises a low etendue illumination source ('laser', paragraph [0108]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowarz (US20070146700A1) in view of Rice (https://itea.org/images/pdf/conferences/2011-Technology-Review-presentations/Rice%20HIP%20ITEA%20July%202011.pdf) and in further view of Derksen (US20060103827A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach specularly reflected radiation from the grating light valve module is comprised within the output source beam, and any radiation diffracted by the grating light valve module is not comprised within the output source beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of lithographic apparatuses, Derksen teaches only the reflected (undiffracted) light is used as the output beam (paragraphs [0020], [0039]).
The use of undiffracted light beams is known in the art, and using undiffracted light instead of diffracted light beams would be a simple substitution of one known element for another depending on the application of the system, and would still lead to the predictable result of imaging an object.
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device taught in Kowarz with the reflected radiation only output beam taught in Derksen depending on the needs of the application.
Regarding claim 4, Kowarz in view of Rice and Derksen teaches the invention as explained above in claim 3, and Kowarz further teaches a stop (47, Fig. 6).
Kowarz fails to teach the stop being operable to block all the radiation diffracted by the grating light valve module and to transmit the specularly reflected radiation.
However, Derksen teaches a stop ('filter', paragraph [0020]) that blocks diffracted light (paragraph [0020]).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the stop taught in Kowarz with the method of blocking diffracted radiation taught in Derksen as the use of stops to block different orders of radiation (zero order being reflection, first or higher order being diffraction) are well-known in the art and selecting to block diffracted as opposed to diffracted radiation would be an obvious choice depending on the desired imaging.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowarz (US20070146700A1) in view of Rice (https://itea.org/images/pdf/conferences/2011-Technology-Review-presentations/Rice%20HIP%20ITEA%20July%202011.pdf) and in further view of Tamada (JP2006227364A).
Regarding claim 7, Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the grating light valve module is configurable such that intensity of each spectral component of the dispersed broadband illumination beam is individually controllable.
However, in the same field of endeavor of light modulation, Tamada teaches a system with multiple grating light valve modules ('grating-light modulation element' - paragraph [0002] discloses it may be a grating light valve) for individual control of the intensity of the incoming light beams (paragraphs [0053] and [0057]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device taught in Kowarz with the light modulation control taught in Tamada as a way to ensure the modulated light is uniform (Tamada: paragraph [0012]) which leads to a better output (Tamada: paragraph [0011]), especially when working with different light colors (Tamada: paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 8, Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 7, but fails to teach the individual control of the intensity of each spectral component comprises a continuous analogue control between a minimum and maximum intensity.
However, Tamada teaches that the control of the intensity of each spectral component is based on a maximum intensity (paragraph [0058] discloses setting the intensity to a ratio of a maximum intensity). The current application does not specify what a “continuous analogue control” is, therefore the examiner is interpreting it to be any sort of device that allows continuous control of the intensity. The driving voltage circuit that changes the intensity taught in Tamada (paragraph [0058]) is considered the “continuous analogue control”.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the light modulation control taught in Kowarz with the control of the intensity having a maximum intensity taught in Tamada in order to set a proper correction value for the intensity (Tamada: paragraph [0059]) to ensure a uniform output (Tamada: paragraph [0021]).
Tamada does not teach basing the control on a minimum intensity, but it is the position of the examiner this is an obvious variation.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that not having enough intensity of the illumination beam could lead to little or no light in the system, which would not allow proper measurement/imaging. Therefore, it would be obvious to apply a minimum intensity alongside a maximum intensity to ensure there is not a situation where there is no illumination beam.
Regarding claim 11, Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10, and Kowarz further teaches the processing unit is configured to adjust one or more spectral components of the dispersed broadband illumination beam via control of the grating light valve module to compensate for intensity changes in any one or more spectral components over the time period (paragraph [0109] discloses the system (spectral filter - 150, Fig. 2) adjusts the components depending on the desired characteristic. It is the position of the examiner that an intensity change would be understandable by a person of ordinary skill to fall under characteristics of a light beam).
Kowarz and Rice fail to teach the beam diagnostic module is configured to measure the output spectrum over a time period.
However, Tamada teaches a system that includes a step where a beam diagnostic module ('screen' which receives the modulated light - paragraph [0022]) receives initial output over a time period (paragraph [0022] discloses light intensity is measured as a first step. The examiner is interpreting this to teach 'over a time period').
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device taught in Kowarz with the measurement over a time period taught in Tamada in order to incorporate a measurement period and a correction period (Tamada: paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10, but fails to teach the beam diagnostic module is configured to measure the said output spectrum over a first portion of a measurement period; and
based on the measured output spectrum, the processing unit is configured to adjust one or more spectral components of the dispersed broadband illumination beam via control of the grating light valve module to minimize intensity fluctuation caused by source noise in a second portion of the measurement period.
However, Tamada teaches the beam diagnostic module ('screen', paragraph [0022]) which takes an output measurement for a first portion (step (A), paragraph [0022]) and uses the measurement value to control the grating light valve module ('light modulation device', paragraph [0022]) during a second period (step (C), paragraph [0022]).
It would be obvious a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device taught in Kowarz with the measurement portions taught in Tamada as a way to correct for intensity inconsistencies (Tamada: paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Kowarz in view of Rice and Tamada teaches the invention as explained above in claim 12, but fails to teach the processing unit is configured to average a measured parameter of one or more spectral components over the first portion of the measurement period.
However, Tamada teaches that the measured parameter (intensity, paragraph [0023]) maybe be the average value taken during the first portion (step (A), paragraph [0023]; Fig. 4A).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Kowarz with the averaging of a measured parameter taught in Tamada as averaging a measurement parameter is well-known in the art to smooth out any random fluctuations.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowarz (US20070146700A1) in view of Rice (https://itea.org/images/pdf/conferences/2011-Technology-Review-presentations/Rice%20HIP%20ITEA%20July%202011.pdf) and in further view of Schoormans (US20180348647A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10, but fails to teach the beam diagnostic module comprises a spectrometer or a color filtered photodiode.
However, in the same field of endeavor as lithographic apparatuses, Schoormans teaches a beam diagnostic module being a photodiode, which would encompass a color filtered photodiode.
A photodiode is a well-known type of detector in the art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to do a simple substitution of the photodiode and still obtain the predictable result of measuring an output beam.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Kowarz with the photodiode taught in Schoormans as photodiodes are well-known and widely used detectors.
Regarding claim 20, Kowarz in view of Rice teaches the invention as explained above in claim 18, but fails to teach the illumination source comprises a hollow core fiber configured to confine a broadening medium and an excitation radiation source configured to provide excitation radiation for exciting the broadening medium.
However, Schoormans teaches an optical fiber that may be used an illumination source.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Kowarz with the light source being an optical fiber taught in Schoormans as optical fibers do not generate heat, occupy a small volume, and are easily integrated (Schoormans: paragraph [0172]).
Schoormans does not disclose whether the fiber is a hollow core fiber, how a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a hollow core fiber as a type of optical fiber.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use a hollow core fiber as a simple substitution of one known element for another and still obtain the predictable result of proving illumination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zuzak (US20130296709A1) – particularly the embodiment depicted in Fig. 18 and described in paragraph [0229].
Roldan (WO2010060460A1) – which discloses a modulator and recombiner to shape a light beam to be used in further imaging.
Wang (US20050185179A1) - Which discloses a diffraction grating which disperses the input beam (3, Fig. 1), a MEMs mirror which may modulate the light (5, Fig. 1; paragraph [0006]), and a beam combining element (7, Fig. 1) which outputs light to a sample.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877