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 Amendment
The 112(a) rejection of claim 5 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “the stack includes one or more of the birefringent material layers” indicating the choice of one birefringent material layer is valid, but claim 1 recites “a plurality of birefringent layers” indicating there must be at least two. However, the choice of a single birefringent material layer does not correspond to the applicant’s Figures or other descriptions, and for purposes of examination, examiner reads claim 9 as reciting “two or more of the birefringent material layers”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 6/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the existing rejection does not address all the limitations of the amended claim. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakagawa (US 20100026918) and the existing Kataoka reference.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 that Nakagawa 7079209 teaches using the same material and changing the material would change the operating principles of Nakagawa.
Examiner’s position is that a new Nakagawa reference is used (20100026918 instead of the prior 7079209). The teachings of Kataoka used to modify this reference are directed to the way in which the layers are joined, not adding adhesive layers, and as such would not change the operating principles of the Nakagawa 20100026918.
Applicant argues on page 6 that Nakagawa 7079209 teaches against adding layers, which is disadvantageous in productivity.
Examiner’s position is that the new rejection of Nakagawa 20100026918 modified by the teachings of Kataoka to use contact bonding does not add layers.
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 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 1-5, 7-9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (United States Patent Application Publication 20100026918) in view of Kataoka (JP 2016142963), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “NK”.
As to claim 1, Nakagawa teaches a waveplate compensator (Abstract “A retardation compensation element”) comprising:
a plurality of birefringent material layers (Figure 4, paragraph 0076 “high refractive index layer 91 is made of TiO.sub.2” where rutile is an obvious form of titanium dioxide and known to be highly birefringent),
wherein each of the birefringent material layers has a non-zero thickness less than or equal to 35 μm (paragraph 0077 “It is therefore preferred to control the optical thickness, i.e., the mathematical product of physical thickness and the refractive index, of each refractive index layers 91, 92 to be enough smaller than the visible light wavelength .lamda.. Specifically, a preferred optical thickness of each layer is not less than .lamda./100 and not greater than .lamda./5, and a more preferred optical thickness is not less than .lamda./50 and not greater than .lamda./10, and a still more preferred optical thickness is not less than .lamda./30 and not greater than .lamda./10.”).
a plurality of spacer layers (Figure 4, elements 92) made of a different material than the birefringent material layers (paragraph 0076 “the low refractive index layer 92 is made of SiO.sub.2” where quartz & fused silica are obvious forms of silicon dioxide),
wherein each adjacent pair of the birefringent material layers in a stack is separated by one of the spacer layers (Figure 4, alternating layers 91 & 92), and
wherein the birefringent material layers and the spacer layers are disposed in contact with each other (Figure 4 the layers are adjacent).
Nakagawa does not teach the layers are joined using optical contact bonding. However, it is known in the art as taught by Kataoka. Kataoka teaches a stack of birefringent plates (Abstract “a plurality of birefringent plates each of which is formed of one of the four or more types of birefringent materials are stacked”) in which the layers are joined using optical contact bonding (paragraph 153 “The birefringent plates 3A1 and 3A2 are directly bonded to each other by an optical contact, or bonded to each other through something such as adhesion by an adhesive, or arranged to face each other through an air gap. ing. In addition, the wave plate 1 and the correction plate 3 are directly bonded to each other by optical contact”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the layers be joined using optical contact bonding, in order to take advantage of the improving optical transmission and clarity allowed by intermolecular forces and avoid the need for adhesives and associated complications (e.g. outgassing, residue).
As to claim 2, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nakagawa teaches each of the spacer layers is amorphous (paragraph 0076 “the low refractive index layer 92 is made of SiO.sub.2” and an obvious form of silicon dioxide is fused silica, an amorphous glass).
As to claim 3, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nakagawa teaches each of the spacer layers is noncrystalline (paragraph 0076 “the low refractive index layer 92 is made of SiO.sub.2” and an obvious form of silicon dioxide is fused silica, an amorphous, non-crystalline glass).
As to claim 4, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nakagawa teaches each of the spacer layers is at least partially amorphous (paragraph 0076 “the low refractive index layer 92 is made of SiO.sub.2” and an obvious form of silicon dioxide is fused silica, an amorphous glass).
As to claim 5, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nakagawa teaches each of the spacer layers is fused silica, crown glass, or adhesive (paragraph 0076 “the low refractive index layer 92 is made of SiO.sub.2” and an obvious form of silicon dioxide is fused silica).
As to claim 7, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nakagawa teaches at least one of the birefringent material layers is quartz (paragraph 0076 “the low refractive index layer 92 is made of SiO.sub.2” and an obvious form of silicon dioxide is quartz, which is birefringent).
As to claim 8, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use one of the claimed materials instead of the silicon dioxide of Nakagawa, since the selection of any of these known equivalents to silicon dioxide would be an obvious matter of engineering choice within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06(II). In this case, Kataoka teaches the use of silicon dioxide alongside two of the claimed materials (paragraph 90 “The four types of materials ad constituting the birefringent plates 1a to 1d are … MgF.sub.2, quartz (SiO.sub.2), and sapphire”), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use any of the claimed materials in the place of the SiO.sub.2 of Nakagawa, in order to take advantage of their material properties for a desired purpose.
As to claim 9, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nakagawa teaches the stack includes two [one] or more of the birefringent material layers and/or one or more of the spacer layers (Figure 4 shows multiple layers 91 and 92).
As to claim 12, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Kataoka teaches a frame disposed on the stack, wherein the frame separates two of the birefringent material layers thereby defining an air spacer layer between the two of the birefringent material layers (paragraph 85 “The plurality of birefringent plates … are arranged to face each other via an air gap.”, and as optical components obviously do not float free in space, there must exist a frame to hold them steady). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a frame disposed on the stack, wherein the frame separates two of the birefringent material layers thereby defining an air spacer layer between the two of the birefringent material layers, in order to hold the optical elements securely in desired positions and avoid shear stress from thermal expansion.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NK, and further in view of Saiki et al (JP H10142423).
As to claim 14, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim1, with the exception of a thickness of the spacer layers is greater than 150 μm. However, it is known in the art as taught by Sakai. Sakai teaches a thickness of the spacer layers is greater than 150 μm (paragraph 82 “The thickness of the birefringent layers A and B can be appropriately determined depending on the intended retardation characteristics and the like because it is related to the in-plane retardation as described above. It is 0 to 350 μm, especially 20 to 200 μm.”, and it is an obvious matter of engineering experience to choose the thickness of any given layer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a thickness of the spacer layers be greater than 150 μm, in order to achieve a desired retardation characteristic.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (United States Patent 9404872) in view of NK.
As to claim 18, Wang teaches a metrology tool (column 2:60-61 “An apparatus suitable for multiple mode spectroscopic ellipsometry is disclosed.”) comprising:
an illumination source that generates an illumination beam directed at a stage configured to hold a sample (Figure 1A, column 6:19-22 “The system 100 may include an illumination source 102 configured to illuminate a surface of a sample 112 disposed on a sample stage 114”);
a detector configured to receive a collection beam from the sample on the stage (Figure 1A, column 6:22-23 “a detector 104 configured to detect light reflected from the surface of the sample 112”); and
a waveplate compensator, wherein the waveplate compensator is disposed in a path of the illumination beam or the collection beam (Figure 1A, column 6:64-66 “the collection arm 110 of the optical system 106 may include a rotatable-translatable compensator element 118” see also column 13:36-37 where element 118 is referred to as a “compensator waveplate” which reads on the claimed “waveplate compensator”).
Wang does not teach using the waveplate compensator of claim 1. However, Wang discusses the difficulty of calibrating in RCSE mode because the retardation is wavelength-dependent (column 13:35-37 “Difficulty in calibration in the RCSE mode arises from the fact that the retardation of the compensator waveplate 118 is function of illumination wavelength.”). The waveplate of Nakagawa teaches taking wavelength dependence into account when determining layer thickness (paragraph 0077 “It is therefore preferred to control the optical thickness, i.e., the mathematical product of physical thickness and the refractive index, of each refractive index layers 91, 92 to be enough smaller than the visible light wavelength .lamda..”, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the teachings of Kataoka to improve the invention of Nakagawa, as argued above) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use the waveplate compensator of Nakagawa as modified by Kataoka, in order to make calibration easier and improve the reliability of the measurements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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:
As to claim 6, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a waveplate compensator comprising a plurality of secondary birefringent material layers, wherein each of the secondary birefringent material layers has a thickness greater than 35 μm, wherein a pair of the secondary birefringent material layers are in physical contact with each other in the stack, but not in physical contact with birefringent material layers that have a thickness less than 35 μm, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakagawa (US 20040095535) teaches a plurality of alternating plates of different materials (Figure 7), Koike (US 20160054500) teaches a plurality of alternating plates (Figure 11) and Rogers (US 3610729) teaches alternating layers of positive and negative birefringent materials (Figure 1, elements 10 & 12), but none of these references teach adjacent layers made of the same material, and it would not be obvious to modify or combine these references to obtain the applicant’s invention.
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 JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights