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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 4/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. section 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 De Wit disclosing a metrology function such as a focus measurement, in paragraphs [0067], [0076].
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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0007316 ("De Wit").
Regarding claim 1, De Wit discloses a system configured to condition light for metrology (Fig. 5), the system comprising:
an optically transparent plate (54, Fig. 5, paragraph [0062]);
one or more actuators (piezoelectric element, paragraph [0062]) configured to apply force to the plate to generate a stress pattern in the plate (strains the transparent material, paragraph [0062] to alter birefringence); and
one or more processors configured to control (processor/controller implied, paragraphs [0022], [0062]) the one or more actuators to apply the force to generate the stress pattern (paragraph [0062]) to impart a specific polarization (for example circularly polarized radiation, paragraph [0063]) to light passing through the plate (54, Fig. 5) in accordance with a desired metrology function (focus measurement, paragraphs [0067], [0076]).
Regarding claim 2, De Wit discloses the system of claim 1, and De Wit further discloses that, responsive to the force being applied to the plate (paragraph [0062]), the plate comprises a waveplate (tunable wave plate, paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 3, De Wit discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plate comprises a transparent material (paragraph [0062]), and wherein, responsive to the force being applied to the plate to generate the stress pattern (paragraph [0062]), the plate is configured to change the light passing through the plate from a first polarization state to a second polarization state (paragraphs [0062],[065]).
Regarding claim 7, De Wit discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plate comprises glass (fused silica, paragraph [0062], is a type of glass) or crystal.
Regarding claim 8, De Wit discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more actuators are piezoelectric (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 9, De Wit discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the stress pattern comprises birefringence (paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 15, De Wit discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plate (54, Fig. 5), the one or more actuators (paragraph [0062]), and the one or more processors are configured such that the light passing through the plate can have a wavelength that ranges from about 300 nanometers to about 1.5 micrometers (paragraphs [0062], [0079]).
Regarding claim 16, De Wit discloses the system of claim 1, wherein imparting of a specific polarization (for example, circularly polarized radiation, paragraph [0065]) to the light comprises conditioning of the light passing through the plate (54, Fig. 5) for metrology (paragraph [0067], focus measurement).
Regarding claim 17, De Wit discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a polarizer (55, Fig. 5, paragraph [0067]) and a sensor (56, Fig. 5, paragraph [0067]), wherein the sensor (56, Fig. 5) is configured to generate a metrology signal based on light received by the sensor (paragraph [0052]) after the light passes through the polarizer (55, Fig. 5) and the plate (54, Fig. 5, paragraph [0051]).
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 4-6, 10, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0279613 ("Fiolka").
Regarding claim 4, De Wit discloses the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the applied force induces an orientation and a retardance in the plate.
However, Fiolka discloses that the applied force (F1-Fn, Fig. 9) induces an orientation (paragraph [0074], for example change in polarization state) and a retardance in the plate (paragraph [0079], retarding effect varies locally).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a force to induce an orientation and retardance in the plate as disclosed by Fiolka in the device of De Wit in order to control the filtering effect of the transmission filter dynamically.
Regarding claim 5, De Wit in view of Fiolka discloses the system of claim 4, and Fiolka further discloses that the orientation is controlled by a location and/or distribution of force applied to the plate by the one or more actuators (Figs. 8-10, paragraphs [0074]-[0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the locations/distributions of the applied forces as disclosed by Fiolka in the device of De Wit in order to control the orientation of the transmission filter dynamically.
Regarding claim 6, De Wit in view of Fiolka discloses the system of claim 4, and Fiolka further discloses that the retardance is controlled by a magnitude of force applied to the plate by the one or more actuators (Figs. 8-10, paragraphs [0074]-[0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine the magnitude of the applied forces as disclosed by Fiolka in the device of De Wit in order to control the retardance effect of the transmission filter dynamically.
Regarding claim 10, De Wit discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose that the one or more processors are configured to individually control each of the one or more actuators such that the stress pattern inside the plate is dynamically adjustable before, during, and/or after the light passes through the plate.
However, Fiolka discloses that the one or more actuators are controlled such that the stress pattern inside the plate (920, Fig. 9) is dynamically adjustable before, during, and/or after the light passes through the plate (Figs. 8-10, paragraphs [0075], [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to dynamically adjust the plate as disclosed by Fiolka in the device of De Wit in order to produce a temporally variable, spatially dependent retarding effect of the retardation element in an electrically continuous fashion.
Regarding claim 13, De Wit discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose that the one or more actuators are arranged on one or more edges of the plate.
However, Fiolka discloses the one or more actuators (931-938, Fig. 9) are arranged on one or more edges of the plate (920, Fig. 9, paragraph [0077]-[0079]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the actuators on the edges of the plate as disclosed by Fiolka in the device of De Wit in order to obtain a desired transmission distribution.
Regarding claim 14, De Wit discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose that the one or more actuators comprise a plurality of actuators distributed symmetrically around one or more edges of the plate.
However, Fiolka discloses the one or more actuators (931-938, Fig. 9) comprise a plurality of actuators distributed symmetrically around one or more edges of the plate (Fig. 9, paragraphs [0076]-[0077]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the actuators symmetrically around the edges of the plate as disclosed by Fiolka in the device of De Wit in order to create a spatially stressed distribution having a two-fold radial symmetry, or any distribution as desired for a particular application.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit in view of Fiolka further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0069292 ("Den Boef").
Regarding claim 11, De Wit in view of Fiolka discloses the system of claim 10, and Fiolka further discloses that dynamic adjustment comprises applications of different combinations of force magnitudes at different actuators (paragraph [0077], selection of forces F1 to Fn can be different from each other) around the plate (920, Fig. 9) to change birefringence in the plate (paragraphs [0076]-[0077]).
De Wit in view of Fiolka does not disclose sub-millisecond control speeds.
However, Den Boef discloses sub-millisecond control speeds (paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to drive the actuators in a desired speed as disclosed by Den Boef in the device of De Wit in view of Fiolka as required for a desired measurement.
Regarding claim 12, De Wit in view of Fiolka discloses the system of claim 10, and Fiolka further discloses the dynamic adjustment comprises applications of different combinations of force magnitudes at different actuators (paragraph [0077], selection of forces F1 to Fn can be different from each other) around the plate (920, Fig. 9) to change an orientation in the plate (paragraphs [0076]-[0077]).
De Wit in view of Fiolka does not disclose sub-millisecond control speeds.
However, Den Boef discloses sub-millisecond control speeds (paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to drive the actuators in a desired speed as disclosed by Den Boef in the device of De Wit in view of Fiolka as required for a desired measurement.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Wit in view of Den Boef.
Regarding claim 18, De Wit discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the sensor (56, Fig. 5) is included in a [scatterometer] (paragraph [0051]).
De Wit does not disclose a camera.
However, Den Boef discloses a sensor (46, Fig. 7) is included in a camera (paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a camera as disclosed by Den Boef in the device of De Wit in order to enable both overlay measurements and critical dimension measurements.
Regarding claim 19, De Wit discloses the system of claim 17, further comprising [one or more optical components] (57, Fig. 5) positioned between the plate (54, Fig. 5) and the sensor (56, Fig. 5).
De Wit does not explicitly disclose an imaging lens.
However, Den Boef discloses an imaging lens (45, Fig. 7) positioned between the plate and the sensor (46, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an imaging lens as disclosed by Den Boef in the device of De Wit in order to form an image on the sensor.
Regarding claim 20, De Wit discloses the system of claim 17, but does not disclose that the metrology signal comprises an overlay signal associated with a semiconductor manufacturing process.
However, Den Boef discloses the metrology signal comprises an overlay signal (paragraphs [0055]-[0056], overlay measurements) associated with a semiconductor manufacturing process (paragraph [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to do overlay measurements as disclosed by Den Boef in the device of De Wit in order to ensure process control and verification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights