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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/6/2026 has been entered.
In the Instant Amendment, Claim(s) 1 and 7 has/have been amended; Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are independent claims. Claims 1-14 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks (pages 6-9), filed 4/6/2026, with respect to the claim objection of claims 1-6 and the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection and rejection of 3/24/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/20206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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.
Claim(s) 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruguier et al (US 11356594 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Bruguier teaches A method for auto-focusing by an auto-focus system, the method comprising:
illuminating a sample under inspection with illumination beams that form multiple spatially staggered spot arrays on the sample, wherein the spot arrays comprise an upstream set of spot arrays formed on a first side of an imaging area and a downstream set of spot arrays formed on a second side of the imaging area opposite from the first side of the imaging area, and wherein the upstream set of spot arrays and the downstream set of spot arrays are formed on the sample simultaneously (Fig. 20; col. 14, line 53: “each of the slit devices 117a-b may comprise pinholes (or an array of pinholes) instead of slits. Each of the pinholes may be square shaped, rectangular shaped, or circular. Using pinholes instead of slits may increase the resolution while decreasing illumination”);
simultaneously collecting beams from each of the upstream set of spot arrays and the downstream set of spot arrays that are reflected from the sample to provide collected beams, the collected beams collected along a collection path that comprises an entrance pupil (Figs. 20, 10);
focusing the collected beams along a first axis while imaging the entrance pupil along a second axis to provide optically processed beams (Figs. 20, 10);
generating detection signals that represent the optically processed beams (Fig. 10); and
determining a focus state of an evaluation beam that impinges on the imaging area (Fig. 10; col. 11, line 25 – col. 12, line 13).
Regarding claim 8, Bruguier teaches the method according to claim 7, further comprising generating an initial auto-focus estimate of a future focus state of the evaluation beam obtained when the evaluated beam reaches a defined position of the upstream set of spot arrays (Fig. 10; col. 7, line 53 – col. 8, line 22).
Regarding claim 9, Bruguier teaches the method according to claim 8, further comprising updating the initial auto-focus estimate in timing proximity to the reaching of the imaging area to the defined position (Fig. 10; col. 7, line 53 – col. 8, line 22).
Regarding claim 10, Bruguier teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the upstream set of spot arrays comprises a first upstream spot array, a second upstream spot array, and a third upstream spot array (Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 11, Bruguier teaches the method according to claim 10, wherein the downstream set of spot arrays comprises a first downstream spot array, a second downstream spot array, and a third downstream spot array (Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 12, Bruguier teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein each one of the multiple spot arrays and the upstream set of spot arrays is staggered along the first axis and the second axis (Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 13, Bruguier teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein each one of the spot arrays is a linear spot array (Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 14, Bruguier teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the optically processed beams form a pair of spots per each one of the multiple spot arrays, wherein a distance between spots of each pair is indicative of a focus state associated with a corresponding spot array (Fig. 20; col. 7, lines 26-52).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7564. 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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights