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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9-9-2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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: a data processor, a data processing utility, an optimizer utility, a spectral analyzer, a in claims 1, & 2.
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 § 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 1-7 are 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 Claims 1-7, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The claim has no clear preamble and it isn’t clear where the limitations start. For example, the repeated use of “comprising” makes it unclear where the preamble ends and the body of the claim begins. Further, The terms “relatively high/low” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The multiple uses of the terms “relatively high/low” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Finally, the claims appear to be written in narrative form, where the elements of the apparatus are not actively claimed, making unclear what elements are part of the claimed invention or merely elements upon which the apparatus acts upon. Clarification is required.
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(s) 1 & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (PGPub 2018/0112968)(Chen).
Regarding Claims 1 & 6, Chen discloses a control system for use in optical measurements on patterned samples (Abstract, Figs. 3 & 16), the control system comprising
a computer system (130, Fig. 3) configured for data communication with a measured data provider and comprising:
a data processor (131) configured and operable to receive and process raw measured data of first and second types concurrently collected from the patterned sample being measured (Paragraphs 45 & 104),
said first and second types of the measured data comprising, respectively, scatterometry measured data, characterized by first relatively high signal-to-noise and predetermined first relatively low spatial resolution, and interferometric measured data characterized by second relatively low signal-to-noise and predetermined second relatively high spatial resolution (Paragraph 105). Among the disclosed types of metrology techniques that may be used in this method are a Spectroscopic scatterometry and a UV Linnik interferometer which meets this limitation;
said data processor being configured to process the measured data to determine pattern parameters along said patterned sample characterized by said first signal to-noise and said second spatial resolution (Fig. 16, Steps 305-308).
The method steps of Claim 6 are also met by this disclosure.
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) 4 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Barak et al (PGPub 2017/0016835) (Barak).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose a measurement system configured to concurrently perform scatterometric measurements and spectral interferometric measurements on each measured spot on the sample, the measurement system comprising: a broadband light source generating light propagating along an illumination channel towards the measured spot, an interferometric assembly, and a detection system comprising a spectrometer and a pixelated detector generating, respectively, first type measured data and second type measured data concurrently collected from the measured spot on the sample, being scatterometry measured data characterized by first relatively high signal-to-noise and first relatively low spatial resolution, and interferometric measured data characterized by second relatively low signal-to-noise and second relatively high spatial resolution;
However, Barak teaches a measurement system configured to concurrently perform scatterometric measurements and spectral interferometric measurements on each measured spot on the sample (Fig. 1a), the measurement system comprising:
a broadband light source (14, Paragraph 52) generating light propagating along an illumination channel (Lp) towards the measured spot, an interferometric assembly (26 & 28), and a detection system comprising a spectrometer (19B) and a pixelated detector generating (Fig. 1C, 18), respectively, first type measured data and second type measured data concurrently collected from the measured spot on the sample, being scatterometry measured data characterized by first relatively high signal-to-noise and first relatively low spatial resolution, and interferometric measured data characterized by second relatively low signal-to-noise and second relatively high spatial resolution (Paragraph 57). As can be seen in a further explanation of the embodiment in Fig. 1C the spectrometer is consists of a grating and a 2D sensor (applicant’s pixelated detector) which is capable of gathering both the interferometric data (Applicant’s interferometric measured data) and the spectral reflectometer data (applicant’s scatterometry measured data);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chen with a measurement system configured to concurrently perform scatterometric measurements and spectral interferometric measurements on each measured spot on the sample, the measurement system comprising: a broadband light source generating light propagating along an illumination channel towards the measured spot, an interferometric assembly, and a detection system comprising a spectrometer and a pixelated detector generating, respectively, first type measured data and second type measured data concurrently collected from the measured spot on the sample, being scatterometry measured data characterized by first relatively high signal-to-noise and first relatively low spatial resolution, and interferometric measured data characterized by second relatively low signal-to-noise and second relatively high spatial resolution because this is functionally equivalent to the systems proposed to be used in Chen and would be chosen based upon cost and availability of parts.
Regarding Claim 5, Chen discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose to selectively activate the interferometric assembly to collect said second type measured data and disactivate the interferometric assembly to collect the scatterometric measured data;
However, Chen discloses to selectively activate the interferometric assembly to collect said second type measured data and disactivate the interferometric assembly to collect the scatterometric measured data (Paragraph 57). The proposed not using the mirror by way of moving it out of the optical path or a shutter would meet this limitation;
The reasons for combination remain the same as those in the rejection of claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, & 7 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 and to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to Claim 2 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an optimizer utility configured and operable to process the interferometric measured data to transform each pixel-related interferogram of the interferometric measured data into a pixel-related spectrum, and utilize the scatterometry measured data to extract, from said each pixel-related spectrum, a spectral part matching the scatterometry data, and generate respective first and second matching spectra; and a spectral analyzer utility configured and operable to analyze the first and second matching spectra and extract, from a spectral difference between the first and second matching spectra, distribution of pixel-related measured values of said at least one parameter in a pixel matrix of a size of the measured spot, and generate output data indicative of said distribution, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 would be allowable based upon its dependency.
As to Claim 7 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious processing the interferometric measured data to transform each pixel-related interferogram of the interferometric measured data into a pixel-related spectrum, utilizing the scatterometry measured data to extract, from said each pixel-related spectrum, a spectral part matching the scatterometry data, and generating respective first and second matching spectra; and analyzing the first and second matching spectra and extracting from a spectral difference between the first and second matching spectra, distribution of pixel-related measured values of said at least one parameter in a pixel matrix of a size of the measured spot and generating output data indicative of said distribution, 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.
PGPub 2022/0316856 would also meet the scope of the independent claims since it also uses an interferometer and a scatterometer to determine parameters of a test object.
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 March 25, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877