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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3-30-2026 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an illumination optical system, a scanning device, a plurality of detection optical systems, a signal processing device, in claim 1, 10, & 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhlmann et al (US PAT 7,130,036) (Kuhlmann) in view of Shitbata et al (PGPub 2009/0059216) (Honda)
Regarding Claims 1, 10, & 11, Kuhlmann discloses a defect inspection apparatus (Fig. 3) that inspects a sample with a structure repeatedly formed across a surface, comprising:
a sample stand (Column 6, lines 20-21) supporting the sample (28);
an illumination optical system (31 & 33) that irradiates the sample placed on the sample stand with an illumination light ray (Column 6, lines 13-15);
a scanning device that rotationally drives the sample stand to change a relative position of the sample and the illumination optical system (Column 6, lines 20-27);
a plurality of detection optical systems (34 & 44) that collect light rays from the surface of the sample (Column 6, lines 29-48);
a plurality of sensors (40, 42, 46, 50) that convert the light rays collected by the corresponding detection optical systems into electrical signals and output detection signals (Column 6, lines 49-52);
a signal processing device (52) that processes the detection signals of the plurality of sensors to detect a defect in the sample (Column 6, lines 52-54);
a first filter (Fourier Filter) that removes or reduces the detection signals of the structure (Column 16, lines 18-21); and
a second filter (Azimuthal filtering) that removes or reduces diffracted light rays generated by the structure or detection signals of the diffracted light rays according to a θ coordinate of a circular coordinate system of the sample or at a set period (Column 16, lines 21-24 & Column 12, lines 5-12). The orientation of the circular coordinate system is not defined thus the azimuthal angle change can also be the θ coordinate as claimed;
Kuhlmann fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of detection optical systems are arranged along a hemispherical surface centered on an illumination spot of the illumination light ray on the sample, and each of the plurality of detection optical systems includes an objective lens configured to collect the light rays from the surface of the sample;
However, Shibata discloses a defect inspection apparatus (Fig. 8), comprising:
wherein the plurality of detection optical systems (10, 20, & 30) are arranged along a hemispherical surface centered on an illumination spot of the illumination light ray on the sample (See fig. 8), and each of the plurality of detection optical systems includes an objective lens (100) configured to collect the light rays from the surface of the sample (Paragraphs 65 & 66);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kuhlmann with wherein the plurality of detection optical systems are arranged along a hemispherical surface centered on an illumination spot of the illumination light ray on the sample, and each of the plurality of detection optical systems includes an objective lens configured to collect the light rays from the surface of the sample because this is a functionally equivalent optical configuration that would offer such advantages as a less complex optical arrangement that would be less prone to errors such as misalignment.
The method of Claim 10 and system of claim 11 are also met by the rejection.
Regarding Claim 2, Kuhlmann as modified by Shibata discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kuhlmann discloses wherein the sample is a patterned wafer (Column 16, lines 24-26).
Regarding Claim 3, Kuhlmann as modified by Shibata discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kuhlmann discloses wherein the second filter is program processing by the signal processing device that removes or reduces each detection signal of the plurality of sensors according to the θ coordinate or at the set period to remove or reduce the detection signals of the diffracted light rays (Column 12, lines 13-18).
Regarding Claim 6, Kuhlmann as modified by Shibata discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kuhlmann discloses wherein the second filter is a static shielding structure that partially blocks detection optical paths of at least some of the plurality of detection optical systems so that the number of detection optical systems to which the diffracted light rays generated by the structure are simultaneously incident is reduced (Column 11, lines 34-54).
Regarding Claim 7, Kuhlmann as modified by Shibata discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kuhlmann discloses wherein the first filter is program processing executed by the signal processing device that removes or reduces detection signals at coordinates where the structure is located based on pattern mask data corresponding to a position of the structure on the surface of the sample (Column 16, lines 27-32 & 36-42). The periodic patterned features are the result of the pattern mask thus the removal by the Fourier filter of those features is based on the pattern mask data.
Regarding Claim 8, Kuhlmann as modified by Shibata discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kuhlmann discloses wherein the pattern mask data is based on design data of the sample. The pattern mask is how the design of the pattern on the sample is projected thus the pattern mask data is based on the design data of the sample.
Regarding Claim 9, Kuhlmann as modified by Shibata discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kuhlmann discloses wherein the pattern mask data is based on data obtained by scanning the sample or a sample of the same type or equivalent as the sample (Columns 15 & 16, lines 54-67 & 1-5).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhlmann in view of Shibata and further in view of Almogy et al (PGPub 2004/0016896) (Almogy).
Regarding Claim 5, Kuhlmann as modified by Shibata discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second filter is a mechanical filter placed in each Fourier space of the plurality of detection optical systems, and is configured to rotate in synchronization with the sample stand and block the diffracted light rays generated by the structure;
However, Almogy teaches a filter which is a mechanical filter placed in each Fourier space of the plurality of detection optical systems, and is configured to rotate in synchronization with the sample stand and block the diffracted light rays generated by the structure (Paragraph 124);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify Kuhlmann as modified by Shibata with wherein the second filter is a mechanical filter placed in each Fourier space of the plurality of detection optical systems, and is configured to rotate in synchronization with the sample stand and block the diffracted light rays generated by the structure because this is functionally equivalent to the second filter Kuhlman and would be used based upon availability and cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 & 12 are 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 4 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the second filter is program processing executed by the signal processing device that removes or reduces the detection signals of the diffracted light rays by changing gains of the plurality of sensors according to the θ coordinate or at the set period, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
As to Claim 12 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein the second filter is program processing executed by the signal processing device that removes or reduces the detection signals of the diffracted light rays by changing gains of the plurality of sensors according to the θ coordinate or at the set period, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
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 JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 9, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights