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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes that on the IDS dated 8/2/2024, US Patent element 8 is identical to element 2. The duplicate entry has been lined out, but the rest of the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites the effect of optical contact bonding between the birefringent material layers and the spacer layers, which mandates that both layers are solid materials as optical bonding occurs between closely conformal surfaces. However, claim 5 recites the spacer layers are air, which contraindicates the possibility of optical contact bonding as recited in claim 1.
The instant specification fails to disclose sufficient structure, materials or acts done by or upon the layers to result in the claimed effect, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to make or use the invention from the provided description.
For purposes of examination, examiner disregards the option of air as a spacer layer material.
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 7079209) 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 “retardation compensators are provided for compensating the retardation of liquid crystal devices for red, green and blue light”) comprising:
a plurality of birefringent material layers (Figure 7, paragraph 0004 “The polarization aberration compensator includes a plurality of birefringent layers”),
wherein each of the birefringent material layers has a non-zero thickness less than or equal to 35 μm (column 6:10-12 “Note that the blue, green, and red wavelength ranges are defined as 400 nm to 500 nm, 500 nm to 600 nm, and 600 nm to 700 nm, respectively.” and column 10:2-5 “The optical thickness (the product of the physical thickness and the refractive index) of each thin film is smaller than the wavelength .lamda. of incident light.”).
While Nakagawa teaches a stack of birefringent layers separated by layers of different materials (Figure 7 has layers L1 separated by layers L2, where the layers L2 could be interpreted as spacing the layers L1 apart), Nakagawa does not teach a plurality of non-birefringent spacer layers, wherein each adjacent pair of the birefringent material layers in a stack is separated by one of the spacer layers, and wherein the birefringent material layers and the spacer layers are disposed in contact with each other 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”) including a plurality of spacer layers, wherein each adjacent pair of the birefringent material layers in a stack is separated by one of the spacer layers, and wherein the birefringent material layers and the spacer layers are disposed in contact with each other using optical contact bonding (paragraph 85 “The plurality of birefringent plates, the pair of plate members constituting the double plate and the pair of plate bodies constituting the incident angle dependency correction plate are bonded to each other via an adhesive or by optical contact, or It is preferable that they are arranged to face each other via an air gap.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a plurality of spacer layers, wherein each adjacent pair of the birefringent material layers in a stack is separated by one of the spacer layers, and wherein the birefringent material layers and the spacer layers are disposed in contact with each other using optical contact bonding, in order to reduce the likelihood of cracks or defects in the films (i.e. by having multiple thinner films that are bonded instead of a single thick film, see Nakagawa 15:48-54).
As to claims 2-4, while Nakagawa as modified by Kataoka does not explicitly teach the claimed spacer layer material property, Kataoka teaches using a spacing material between birefringent layers (paragraph 85 “The plurality of birefringent plates, the pair of plate members constituting the double plate and the pair of plate bodies constituting the incident angle dependency correction plate are bonded to each other via an adhesive”) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use an adhesive material that has the claimed property, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as an obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.07. In this case, choosing an adhesive material with one of the claimed properties is a straightforward matter of engineering experience, in order to have a better physical contact & a stronger bond between the layer and the adhesive.
As to claim 5, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Kataoka teaches each of the spacer layers is fused silica, or crown glass, air, or adhesive (paragraph 85 “The plurality of birefringent plates, the pair of plate members constituting the double plate and the pair of plate bodies constituting the incident angle dependency correction plate are bonded to each other via an adhesive”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have each of the spacer layers is fused silica, or crown glass, air, or adhesive, in order to have a stronger bond between the layers and reduce the probability of them slipping.
As to claim 7, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Kataoka teaches at least one of the birefringent material layers is quartz (paragraph 90 “The four types of materials ad constituting the birefringent plates 1a to 1d are … quartz”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have at least one of the birefringent material layers be quartz, in order to take advantage of its low cost.
As to claim 8, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Kataoka teaches at least one of the birefringent material layers is MgF2, sapphire, or calcite (paragraph 90 “The four types of materials ad constituting the birefringent plates 1a to 1d are … sapphire”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have at least one of the birefringent material layers be MgF2, sapphire, or calcite, in order to take advantage of the durability of sapphire.
As to claim 9, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nakagawa teaches the stack includes one or more of the birefringent material layers and/or one or more of the spacer layers (Figure 7, paragraph 0004 “The polarization aberration compensator includes a plurality of birefringent layers”).
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 place.
Claims 6, 14 are 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 6, NK teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nakagawa teaches a plurality of secondary birefringent material layers (Figure 7, column 10:26-29 “each of the retardation compensator for red and blue 36R, 36B has a form birefringence layer in which plural dielectric thin films L1, L2 are alternately layered on the transparent glass substrate 40”).
Nakagawa as modified by Kataoka does not teach wherein each of the secondary birefringent material layers has a thickness greater than 35 μm. However, it is known in the art as taught by Saiki. Saiki teaches a polarization compensator comprising a stack of birefringent layers (Figure 3, layers 31, 32, paragraph 4 “a change in the state of linearly polarized light due to the birefringence of the liquid crystal cell is compensated”) in which birefringent layer thickness can be greater than 35 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 each of the secondary birefringent material layers has a thickness greater than 35 μm, in order to achieve a desired retardation characteristic.
Nakagawa as modified by Kataoka does not teach 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. However, Nakagawa teaches that non-perpendicular light affects performance (column 3:1-4 “The retardation compensators described above work as the form birefringence body to exhibit optical anisotropy effect depending upon the incident angle of oblique incident light.”) and as refraction is known in the art of optics, the presence of additional layers as opposed to an air gap is a results effective variable. As there are a finite number of possible layer-gap and layer-layer combinations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to enable to claimed layers and air gaps, in order to increase the system’s performance. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
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 (Abstract “Because of the difference in the wavelength dependences of the liquid crystal device and the retardation compensator, the retardation R2 of the retardation compensator becomes much larger than the retardation R1 of the liquid crystal device in short wavelength region of the visible band. In order to match the retardation, the thickness of the retardation compensator for blue light is smaller than those for red and green light.”)(also, 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 as argued above, to improve the invention of Nakagawa) 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.
Conclusion
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