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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 33-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 33: On Line 8, the Examiner assumes that “movement: and” should actually be --movement; and--.
Claim 34: On Line 1, the Examiner assumes that “further comprising moving an objective” should actually be --wherein moving an objective--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-25 and 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 24, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the claim as not requiring the beam to be aligned to an optical center of the objective of the optical system.
Regarding claim 34, the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the claim as not requiring the beam to be aligned to an optical center of the objective of the inspection apparatus.
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.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sobolev et al. (US 10,809,125), hereinafter Sobolev.
Claim 31: Sobolev discloses an optical element (70, Fig. 3) comprising:
at least two reflective surfaces (70a/70b) (Col. 5, Lines 24-26), configured with respect to each other to:
receive a beam (60a) of radiation along an optical axis (Col. 6, Lines 11-16);
perform reflections of the beam (60b) so as to displace the optical axis of the beam (evident from figure);
move linearly (via translation stage 68) in at least a first dimension to shift the displaced optical axis (Col. 5, Lines 21-24); and
preserve an optical property of the beam (60b) such that the optical property is invariant to the linear movement (inherent since the beam is being specularly reflected and no information is changed).
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 21, 26, 29-30, and 33-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobolev, in view of Bogaart et al. (US 2016/0097983), hereinafter Bogaart.
Claim 21: Sobolev discloses an inspection apparatus (50, Fig. 3) comprising:
a radiation source (52) configured to generate a beam (54) of radiation (Col. 5, Lines 6-9);
an optical system (70) configured to receive and direct the beam (54 turns into 60 after passing through beamsplitter 56, Col. 5, Lines 6-9) along an optical axis (parallel to 76) and toward a target (62) (Col. 5, Lines 21-35), the optical system (70) comprising:
a beam displacer (70) comprising two or more reflective surfaces (70a/70b) (Col. 5, Lines 24-26), wherein the beam displacer (70) is configured to:
receive the beam (60a) along the optical axis (Col. 6, Lines 11-16);
perform reflections of the beam (60b) so as to displace the optical axis of the beam (evident from figure);
move linearly (via translation stage 68) in at least a first dimension to shift the displaced optical axis (Col. 5, Lines 21-24); and
preserve an optical property of the beam (60b) such that the optical property is invariant to the linear movement (inherent since the beam is being specularly reflected and no information is changed).
Sobolev is silent with respect to a detector configured to receive the scattered radiation.
Bogaart, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection, discloses an inspection apparatus (Fig. 3) comprising:
a radiation source (104) configured to generate a beam (102) of radiation [0064],
wherein the beam is directed toward a target (100) so as to produce scattered radiation from the target (100) [0064]; and
a detector (108) configured to receive scattered the radiation (106/110) [0064] and to generate a measurement signal (Fig. 4) based on the scattered radiation (106/110) [0070].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sobolev’s apparatus with a detector configured to receive scattered radiation for the purpose of characterizing a grating structure (Bogaart [0069]).
Claim 26: Sobolev, in view of Bogaart, further discloses wherein the optical system (Fig. 9e) comprises an objective (860) having an optical center (inherent), and the optical system is configured to collect and direct the scattered radiation (832) toward the detector (108) (Bogaart [0094]); and
two units of motion of the objective moves the beam displacer one unit of motion to allow the scattered radiation to be aligned to the optical center (evident from Fig. 3 of Sobolev since the beam path at the beam displacer 70 corresponds to double that outside of the beam displacer 70, such as at an objective lens placed just before the target 62).
Claim 29: Sobolev further discloses wherein the optical system (70) further comprises a beam splitter (56) configured to split the beam to generate a second beam (58) of radiation (Col. 5, Lines 6-9).
Claim 30: Sobolev is silent with respect to a second detector, wherein:
the optical system is configured to direct the second beam toward a second target so as to produce second scattered radiation from the second target; and
the second detector is configured to receive the second scattered radiation and to generate a second measurement signal based on the second scattered radiation.
However, given that the initial beam of radiation has been split (by beam splitter 56) to generate a second beam (Col. 5, Lines 6-9), directing this second beam toward a second target and then receiving the generated scattered radiation at a second detector to generate a second measurement signal constitutes a mere duplication of parts. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sobolev’s apparatus with a second target and a second detector for the purpose of simultaneously characterizing two different objects.
With this modified apparatus, Sobolev further discloses wherein the beam displacer (70) is configured to adjust a separation between the beam (60a) and the second beam (58) so as to correspond to a separation between the target (62) and the second target (the adjustment of the beam displacer 70 corresponds to a change in location of the beam 60b on the detector 80; Col. 6, Lines 11-20).
Claim 33: Sobolev discloses a method (using the apparatus of Fig. 3) comprising:
receiving a beam (60a) of radiation along an optical axis at a beam displacer (70) (Col. 6, Lines 11-16);
performing reflections of the beam (60b) so as to displace the optical axis of the beam (evident from figure) using two or more reflective surfaces (70a/70b) of the beam displacer (70) (Col. 5, Lines 24-26);
moving the beam displacer (70) linearly (via translation stage 68) in at least a dimension to shift the displaced optical axis (Col. 5, Lines 21-24);
preserving an optical property of the beam (60b) such that the optical property of the beam along the deflected optical axis is invariant to the linear movement (inherent since the beam is being specularly reflected and no information is changed); and
directing the beam (60b) along the deflected optical axis toward a target (62) (Col. 5, Lines 11-15).
Sobolev does not explicitly disclose producing scattered radiation from the target.
Bogaart, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection, discloses a method (using the apparatus of Fig. 3) comprising:
directing a beam of radiation toward a target (100) so as to produce scattered radiation from the target (100) [0064].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sobolev’s method with the scattering radiation from a target for the purpose of characterizing a grating structure (Bogaart [0069]).
Claim 34: Sobolev further discloses wherein moving an objective of an inspection apparatus two units of motion moves the beam displacer (70) one unit of motion (evident from Fig. 3 since the beam path at the beam displacer 70 corresponds to double that outside of the beam displacer 70, such as at an objective lens placed just before the target 62).
Claim 35: Sobolev further discloses:
receiving the beam (60b) from the beam displacer (70) (Col. 5, Lines 57-59);
reflecting the beam from the beam displacer (70) toward a fold mirror (72) (Col. 5, Lines 32-35); and
moving the fold mirror (72) two units of motion thus causing the beam displacer (70) to move only one unit of motion (evident from Fig. 3 since the beam path at the beam displacer 70 corresponds to double that outside of the beam displacer 70, such as at fold mirror 72).
Claim 36: Sobolev, in view of Bogaart, further discloses:
receiving the scattered radiation (106/110) at a detector (108) of an inspection apparatus [0064]; and
generating a measurement signal (Fig. 4) based on the scattered radiation (106/110) using the detector (108) [0070].
Claim 37: Sobolev further discloses splitting the beam to generate a second beam (58) of radiation using a beam splitter (56) (Col. 5, Lines 6-9).
Claim 38: Sobolev is silent with respect to:
directing the second beam toward a second target so as to produce second scattered radiation from the second target;
receiving the second scattered radiation at a second detector of the inspection apparatus; and
generating a second measurement signal based on the second scattered radiation using the second detector.
However, given that the initial beam of radiation has been split (by beam splitter 56) to generate a second beam (Col. 5, Lines 6-9), directing this second beam toward a second target and then receiving the generated scattered radiation at a second detector to generate a second measurement signal constitutes a mere duplication of parts. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sobolev’s apparatus with a second target and a second detector for the purpose of simultaneously characterizing two different objects.
Claim 39: Sobolev further discloses adjusting a separation between the beam (60a) and the second beam (58) so as to correspond to a separation between the target (62) and the second target using the beam displacer (70) (the adjustment of the beam displacer 70 corresponds to a change in location of the beam 60b on the detector 80; Col. 6, Lines 11-20).
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobolev, in view of Bogaart as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Meeks (US 2007/0153273), hereinafter Meeks.
Claim 22: Sobolev is silent with respect to the beam displacer comprising a first prism and the second prism.
Meeks, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection, discloses an inspection apparatus (Fig. 19) comprising:
a beam displacer (1905) comprising two or more reflective surfaces (inherent to a retroreflector [0101]), wherein the beam displacer (1905) is configured to:
receive the beam along the optical axis (inherent to a retroreflector [0101]); and
perform reflections of the beam so as to displace the optical axis of the beam (inherent to a retroreflector [0101]),
wherein the beam displacer (1905) comprises a first prism and a second prism (inherent to a Porro prism (“The retro-reflector 1905 may be a conventional retro-reflecting prism (a Porro prism)” [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sobolev’s beam displacer to be comprised of a Porro prism for the purpose of creating a more compact light path so that the inspection apparatus can have a smaller construction.
With the modified apparatus, Sobolev inherently discloses (since a Porro prism has a certain, defined configuration, see figure below) wherein:
each of the first prism and the second prism have at least a respective first surface, second surface, and third surface;
the second surface and the third surface of the first prism and the second surface and the third surface of the second prism total four reflective surfaces;
the first surface of the first prism is configured to receive the beam at a substantially perpendicular direction to the first surface of the first prism;
the second and third surfaces of the first prism are configured to reflect the beam toward the first surface of the second prism; and
the first surface of second prism is configured to direct the beam toward an objective of the optical system at a substantially perpendicular direction to the first surface of the second prism.
PNG
media_image1.png
227
250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a Porro prism
Claim 23: Sobolev further discloses wherein the optical system (70) further comprises a reflective element (66c) configured to direct the beam (60a) toward the first surface of the first prism (Col. 5, Lines 11-15).
Claim 24: Sobolev is silent with respect to the beam displacer comprising a prism.
Meeks, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection, discloses an inspection apparatus (Fig. 19) comprising:
a beam displacer (1905) comprising two or more reflective surfaces (inherent to a retroreflector [0101]), wherein the beam displacer (1905) is configured to:
receive the beam along the optical axis (inherent to a retroreflector [0101]); and
perform reflections of the beam so as to displace the optical axis of the beam (inherent to a retroreflector [0101]),
wherein the beam displacer (1905) comprises a prism (“The retro-reflector 1905 may be a conventional retro-reflecting prism (a Porro prism)” [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sobolev’s beam displacer to be comprised of a Porro prism for the purpose of creating a more compact light path so that the inspection apparatus can have a smaller construction.
Sobolev further discloses wherein the optical system (70) further comprises a fold mirror (74) configured to reflect the beam (60b) toward an objective of the optical system (70) (Col. 5, Lines 32-35); and
two units of motion of the objective moves the beam displacer (70) one unit of motion (evident from Fig. 3 since the beam path at the beam displacer 70 corresponds to double that outside of the beam displacer 70, such as at an objective lens placed just before the target 62).
Claim 25: Sobolev further discloses wherein the optical system (70) further comprises:
a reflective element (66c) configured to direct the beam (60a) along the optical axis and toward the first surface of the first prism (Col. 5, Lines 11-15).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobolev as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Meeks.
Claim 32: Sobolev is silent with respect to the at least two reflective surfaces comprising four reflective surfaces and the optical element comprising a first prism and the second prism.
Meeks, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection, discloses an inspection apparatus (Fig. 19) comprising:
an optical element (1905) comprising two or more reflective surfaces (inherent to a retroreflector [0101]), wherein the optical element (1905) is configured to:
receive the beam along the optical axis (inherent to a retroreflector [0101]); and
perform reflections of the beam so as to displace the optical axis of the beam (inherent to a retroreflector [0101]),
wherein the optical element (1905) comprises a first prism and a second prism (inherent to a Porro prism (“The retro-reflector 1905 may be a conventional retro-reflecting prism (a Porro prism)” [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sobolev’s optical element to be comprised of a Porro prism for the purpose of creating a more compact light path so that the inspection apparatus can have a smaller construction.
With the modified apparatus, Sobolev inherently discloses (since a Porro prism has a certain, defined configuration, see figure above) wherein:
each of the first prism and the second prism have at least a respective first surface, second surface, and third surface;
the second surface and the third surface of the first prism and the second surface and the third surface of the second prism total four reflective surfaces;
the first surface of the first prism is configured to receive the beam at a substantially perpendicular direction to the first surface of the first prism;
the second and third surfaces of the first prism are configured to reflect the beam toward the first surface of the second prism; and
the first surface of second prism is configured to direct the beam toward an objective of the optical system at a substantially perpendicular direction to the first surface of the second prism.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-28 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:
Claims 27-28: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches of discloses the inspection apparatus of claim 26, further comprising:
a mounting device comprising three or more flexure elements and configure to mount the beam displacer and the objective, and wherein each of the three or more flexure elements is flexible in at least two degrees of freedom.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877