DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 9/17/2024, in which claims 16-31 are currently pending. The Application is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2023/054311 , International Filing Date: 02/21/2023, claims foreign priority to 22163108.8, filed 03/18/2022, and claims foreign priority to 22205952.9, filed 11/08/2022
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 9/17/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- 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.
6- 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:
at least one radiation beam modifier module in claims 16 and 22,
at least one path length varying arrangement in claims 16-19, 23.
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
7- 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.
8- Claims 25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 25, which reads “…each the modified radiation beam…”, the underlined clauses appear to present antecedence issues.
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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
9- 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.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
10- Claims 16-31 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shmarev et al. (WO 2016096310, cited by Applicants)
As to claims 16, 18 and 30, Shmarev teaches an illumination arrangement, and its method of making/using, for providing at least one radiation beam for use as an illumination beam and/or reference beam in a metrology device (Abstract, Figs. 1-14), the illumination arrangement comprising: at least one radiation beam modifier module (Figs. 4-5, 7-8, ¶ 7-8 and 54-76; OPS 510 or 710, or equivalents) configured to receive source illumination (I) and output a modified radiation beam (O) comprising a first beam component and a second beam component (components 708a-b after 745), wherein the at least one radiation beam modifier module comprises at least one path length varying arrangement (image rotators 732x/y) configured to controllably varying the optical path length of at least one of the first beam component and the second beam component; (claim 18) wherein the at least one path length varying arrangement comprises a respective path length varying arrangement for each of the first beam component and a second beam component (Figs. 7-8), such that the first beam component and second beam component of the modified radiation beam comprise a respective different optical path length (¶ 8, 61, 70, 92 for ex.; the difference between the optical path is controllably selected when setting up the module).
(claim 17) wherein each of the at least one radiation beam modifier module comprises: a first beam splitter (741 or 841) configured to split source illumination into the first beam component and the second beam component; and a beam combiner (745 or 845) configured to recombine the first beam component and a second beam component, subsequent to the at least one path length varying arrangement, into the modified radiation beam (Figs. 7-8).
(claim 19) wherein each of the at least one path length varying arrangement comprises an adjustable optical delay stage (Fig. 7 for ex. each image rotator adjusts the image rotation in a different direction).
(claim 20) wherein the first beam splitter and the beam combiner are physically separate elements (Fig. 7).
(claim 21) wherein the first beam splitter and the beam combiner are comprised as a single element (Fig. 8).
(claim 22) comprising: an illumination beam or reference beam splitter (741) configured to split the source radiation into two illumination beams or reference beams (708a-b); and a respective radiation beam modifier module (732x-y) for each of the two illumination beams or reference beams, configured to provide two of the modified radiation beams (Fig. 7).
(claim 23) wherein the illumination arrangement is configured to vary the at least one path length varying arrangement so as to configure an optical path length difference between the first beam component and the second beam component to compensate for a distance between a first periodic structure and second periodic structure of an overlay target is greater than a coherence length of the source illumination, wherein each of the at least one modified radiation beam is used to measure the overlay target (See rejection of claim 16, in addition to Abstract, ¶ 5-6, 8, 58, 61, 66-37, 69-70; considering overlay error between measuring and target gratings).
(claim 24) comprising at least one reference beam splitter (741) to obtain at least one reference beam (708x-y).
(claim 25) wherein each modified radiation beam is configured to be an illumination beam for illuminating a structure (503 for ex.) to be measured by the metrology device, or wherein each the modified radiation beam is configured to comprise one of the at least one reference beams (given the 112 issues, the claim is construed to be taught similarly to the rejected claim with the reference beam(s) produced by 510).
(claim 26) wherein at least the first beam splitter is configurable to be switched in and out of the path of the source illumination (Fig. 7; the free space set up allows the components to be displaced off/removed from the optical path of the illumination).
(claim 27) comprising an illumination source (502) configured to provide the source illumination (Fig. 5, ¶ 60).
(claim 28) A metrology apparatus for determining a characteristic of interest of a structure on a substrate comprising the illumination arrangement of claim 16, and configured to use the at least one modified radiation beam as measurement illumination or reference illumination to measure a structure (See rejection of claims 23, 25).
(claim 29) comprising a digital holographic microscope or a scatterometry based metrology device (¶ 53-54, 58 for ex.)
(claim 31) A lithography system comprising the metrology apparatus of claim 28 (¶ 2-4, 40-42, 50-52, 87).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure:
Optical path length (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_path_length)
Bottom of Form
In optics, optical path length (OPL, denoted Λ in equations), also known as optical length or optical distance, is the vacuum length that light travels over the same time taken to travel through a given medium length. For a homogeneous medium through which the light ray propagates, it is calculated as taking the product of the geometric length of the optical path followed by light and the refractive index of the medium. For inhomogeneous optical media, the product above is generalized as a path integral as part of the ray tracing procedure. A difference in OPL between two paths is often called the optical path difference (OPD). OPL and OPD are important because they determine the phase of the light and govern interference and diffraction of light as it propagates.
In a medium of constant refractive index, n, the OPL for a path of geometrical length s is just
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
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.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877