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 .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 06/15/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 16-31 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2- Examiner has considered Applicants’ proposed amendments and acknowledges they overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection of the pending claims as set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 3/19/2026. The above rejections are therefore withdrawn.
3- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC §102 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments have changed the scope of the invention and overcome the rejection as written in the previous office action mailed.
4- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings from the same references used in the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
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)).
5- 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).
6- 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 amended 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 used to measure an overlay target (Abstract, Figs. 1-14, ¶ 5-9, 51, 69), 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 vary an 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 the second beam component (Figs. 7-8), such that an optical path length different between the first beam component and second beam component is based on a distance along a depth direction between a first periodic structure and a second periodic structure of the overlay target (¶ 5-9, 51, 61, 69-70, 92 for ex.; the difference between the optical path along a depth of focus is controllably selected when setting up the module to measure OV errors between patterned layers, i.e. first/second periodic structures of the overlay target).
(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 the 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 illumination 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 modified radiation beams (Fig. 7).
(claim 23) wherein the distance between the first periodic structure and the second periodic structure of the overlay target is greater than a coherence length of the source illumination (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, where the distance is necessarily larger than the coherence length of the illumination source during a measurement to avoid unnecessary optical interferences that would reduce the SNR of the measurement signals).
(claim 24) comprising at least one reference beam splitter (741) to obtain at least one reference beam (708x-y).
(claim 25) wherein the at least one reference beam includes a plurality of reference beams and each modified radiation beam is configured to include the illumination beam or one of the plurality of reference beams (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 comprising the illumination arrangement of claim 16 and configured to use the modified radiation beam as measurement illumination or reference illumination to measure the overlay target (See rejection of claims 16, 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
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).
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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED 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
Prosecution Insights