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
Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/09/2026 has been entered into this application. Claims 16-20 have been added.
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.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al. (2021/0116819 A1, previously cited reference) in view of Manassen et al. (2020/0333612 A1, previously cited reference).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 13, Hsieh teaches of an apparatus is included in an overlay metrology tool (100) and methods of performing overlay metrology measurement/inspection (figs. 1-7) (see title and abstract) [pars. 0001-13] and comprising:
an illumination system is included in overlay tool 100 comprises a light source 101, the light source 101 [par. 0019] configured to illuminate a pattern of a patterning device; a projection system is also included in overlay tool 100 projecting a photomask/patterned mask is configured to project an image of the pattern onto a substrate 113; and an inspection system is included in an overlay metrology tool that/which determines/measures (i.e. overlay targets misalignment or any deviations in alignment) [pars. 0001 and 0014-15] comprising:
an optical element is/are imaging components such as beam splitters, polarizers, refractive mirrors, reflective mirrors, imaging lenses, imaging lens systems that direct and focus the incident light beam 109 onto the target on the wafer 113 [par. 0032] is configured to direct the radiation toward a target on the substrate; and
a detector a light sensing system 103 comprising: a photosensitive device an image sensor 119 configured to receive at least a portion of radiation scattered/diffracted light beam 115 by the target and to generate a measurement signal based on the received portion of the radiation [pars. 0019, 0039]; and an optical fiber the light sensing system 103 use fibers is coupled to the photosensitive device image sensor 119 and configured to guide the portion of the radiation to the photosensitive device image sensor 119 and the guided portion of the radiation such that an intensity of the received portion of the radiation 115 at the photosensitive device image sensor 119 [pars. 0042-45].
Hsieh [par. 0042] also teaches of the light processing system 117, according to some embodiments, comprises one or more filters to modify intensities and/or generate the range of wavelengths the intensities of individual wavelengths of the component are modified such that the corresponding wavelengths of the transmitted components 120 have uniform intensities' and teaches of the light sensing system 103 use fibers to coupled to the photosensitive device image sensor 119 [par. 0045]
Hsieh fail to explicitly specify the structure of the exact shape of optical fiber(s) as being a square-core optical fiber coupled to the photosensitive device and configured to guide the portion of the radiation to the photosensitive device and to homogenize the guided portion of the radiation such that an intensity cross-section of the received portion of the radiation at the photosensitive device is approximately uniform.
Manassen from the same field of endeavor (Manassen, [pars. 0053-0062] (figs. 3, 4A, 4B)) teaches of using a square-core fiber to homogenize radiation of several modes or wavelengths in an inspection system, or using a noncircular-core fiber having a square core, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present disclosure [pars. 0013, 00059, claim 4], in order to provide for high-power laser beam delivery, homogenization, and shaping beams into a flat-top (uniform) square output or uniform light distribution. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsieh fiber(s) as desired appropriate such as with a square-core optical fiber(s) in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims, in view of the teaching of Manassen in order to provide for high-power laser beam delivery, homogenization, and shaping beams into a flat-top (uniform) square output or uniform light distribution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsieh fiber(s) as desired appropriate such as with a square-core optical fiber(s) in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims, in view of the teaching of Manassen in order to provide for high-power laser beam delivery, homogenization, and shaping beams into a flat-top (uniform) square output or uniform light distribution, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
For the purposes of clarity, the structure recited in claims 8 and 13 is/are symmetrical to the structure recited in claim 1, as such, the inspection system/detector claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected above as being unpatentable over Hsieh and Manassen.
As to claims 2, 9 and 14, Hsieh when modified by Manassen, Hsieh teaches and suggest that in some embodiments, the intensities of individual wavelengths of the component are modified such that the corresponding wavelengths of the transmitted components 120 have uniform intensities [par. 0042] or certain wavelengths having uniform intensities [pars. 0036].
Hsieh fail to explicitly specify wherein the square-core optical fiber is further configured to allow approximately lossless transmission of a plurality of wavelengths of the received portion of the radiation. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsieh fiber(s) as desired appropriate such as with a square-core optical fiber(s) in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims, in view of the teaching of Hsieh suggestion and Manassen in order to improve uniformity with minimal total power loss.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsieh fiber(s) as desired appropriate such as with a square-core optical fiber(s) in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims, in view of the teaching of Manassen in order to improve intensities uniformity and provide for high-power laser beam delivery, homogenization, and shaping beams into a flat-top (uniform) square output or uniform light distribution, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claims 3-4, 10-11 and 15, Hsieh when modified by Manassen, Hsieh teaches and suggest that the light transfer in the light sensing system can use fibers [par. 0045].
Hsieh when modified by Manassen fail to explicitly specify the constructional change(s) in the apparatus/system/detector of claims 1, 8 and 13, as that claimed by Applicants claims 3-4, 10-11 and 15, such as; wherein: the inspection system comprises a digital board; and the detector is disposed on the digital board (claims 3 and 10); and wherein: the digital board comprises an optical fiber connector; the square-core optical fiber comprises an optical fiber connector; and the optical fiber connectors of the digital board and the square-core optical fiber are configured to mate to achieve the coupling of the square-core optical fiber and the photosensitive device (claims 4, 11 and 15).
However, these constructional change(s) in the claims 1, 8 and 13 is/are considered obvious requirement in order to enable connection and enhance reliable light transfer in the light sensing system connectivity, and it also obvious requirement a digital board of that would interact with a photosensitive device through optical fiber to have optical fiber connector(s) in order to enable communication or coupling the fiber and the photosensitive device to enable transmission of data.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsieh fiber(s) as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims in order to enable connection and enhance reliable light transfer in the light sensing system connectivity, and it also obvious requirement for a digital board of optical fiber(s) that would interact with a photosensitive device through optical fiber(s) to have optical fiber(s) connector(s) in order to enable communication between the digital board of optical fiber(s) and the photosensitive device or in order to couple the fiber(s) and the photosensitive device to enable transmission of data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsieh fiber(s) as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims in order to enable connection and enhance reliable light transfer in the light sensing system connectivity, and it would be obvious requirement for a digital board of optical fiber(s) that would interact with a photosensitive device through optical fiber(s) to have optical fiber(s) connector(s) in order to enable communication between the digital board of optical fiber(s) and the photosensitive device or in order to allow coupling the fiber(s) and the photosensitive device to enable transmission of data, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
Furthermore, in the alternative, reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977), in this case, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized that obviously the detector the light sensing system 103 [par. 0039] comprises inherently a digital board, a board or circuit board that function and acts as physical platform and wiring for electronic/electrical components (i.e. a light processing system 117 and an image sensor 119) connecting and integrating the components as a unit/system, as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs. 1A, 6); and the photosensitive device the image sensor 119 is disposed on the digital board that is inherently part of the light sensing system 103 circuit board function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsieh fiber(s) as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims in order to enable connection and enhance reliable light transfer in the light sensing system connectivity, and it would be obvious requirement for a digital board of optical fiber(s) that would interact with a photosensitive device through optical fiber(s) to have optical fiber(s) connector(s) in order to enable communication between the digital board of optical fiber(s) and the photosensitive device or in order to allow coupling the fiber(s) and the photosensitive device to enable transmission of data, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claims 5, 7, 12, 16, 18 and 20, Hsieh when modified by Manassen, Hsieh teaches and suggest that the light transfer in the light sensing system can use fibers and image sensors, or sensor arrays [par. 0045]. The image sensors (plurality) include a second photosensitive device configured to receive a second portion of the radiation scattered by the target and to generate a measurement signal based on the received second portion of the radiation. Hsieh further teaches that the apparatus and inspection system is Scatterometry/Scatterometer [par. 0013] a non-destructive optical measurement device that determines the properties of a surface or material by analyzing how it scatters light or that measure the return of a beam of light or radar waves scattered by object/sample/target.
Hsieh fail to explicitly specify the structure of the exact shape and length of the any of the optical fiber(s) or the second optical fiber(s) as being a square-core optical fiber coupled to the second photosensitive device and configured to guide the second portion of the radiation to the second photosensitive device and to homogenize the guided second portion of the radiation such that an intensity cross-section of the received second portion of the radiation at the second photosensitive device is approximately uniform (claim 5, 12 and 16); and wherein the square-core optical fiber has a length of approximately 1-100 m, 1-50 m, 1-20 m, 1-10m, 1-5 m, 1m,5m, or 10m (claims 7, 18 and 20).
Manassen from the same field of endeavor (Manassen, [pars. 0053-0062] (figs. 3, 4A, 4B)) teaches of using of a square-core fiber with some sort of a length and the square-core fiber use to homogenize radiation of several modes or wavelengths in an inspection system, or using a noncircular-core fiber having a square core, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present disclosure [pars. 0013, 00059, claim 4], in order to provide for high-power laser beam delivery, homogenization, and shaping beams into a flat-top (uniform) square output or uniform light distribution. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsieh fiber(s) as desired appropriate such as with a square-core optical fiber(s), with some sort of a length such as in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims, in view of the teaching of Manassen in order to provide for high-power laser beam delivery, homogenization, and shaping beams into a flat-top (uniform) square output or uniform light distribution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsieh fiber(s) as desired appropriate such as with a square-core optical fiber(s) and length in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims, in view of the teaching of Manassen in order to provide for high-power laser beam delivery, homogenization, and shaping beams into a flat-top (uniform) square output or uniform light distribution, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
As to claims 6, 17 and 19, Hsieh when modified by Manassen, Hsieh teaches of a detector a light sensing system 103 comprising: a photosensitive device an image sensor 119 configured to receive at least a portion of radiation scattered/diffracted light beam 115 by the target and to generate a measurement signal based on the received portion of the radiation [pars. 0019, 0039], as applied to claim 1.
Hsieh fail to explicitly specify wherein a power-to-phase conversion factor of the detector is less than approximately 1 rad/W.
However, even though, Hsieh fail explicitly specify constructional change(s) in the claim 1, as claimed by claims 6, 17 and 19, the change(s) is/are considered obvious since detector or photodetector is/are typically associated with power-to-phase conversion factor that is commonly, 1 rad/W or lower when referring to high-linearity detector/photodetector, knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsieh fiber(s) as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims, in view of the teaching of knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure in order to directly translates to high phase linearity and low AM-to-PM noise conversion, since a low conversion factor reduces the transformation of intensity noise (AM) into phase noise (PM), resulting in higher spectral purity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks, (see pages 7-9), filed on 06/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
a) Applicant argues in particular starting in page 7, (i.e. paragraph 4), Rejection under 103, attacking Hsieh that “Applicant submits that the cited portions of Hsieh and Manassen fail to disclose or teach an apparatus comprising, inter alia, an inspection system comprising: an optical element configured to direct radiation toward a target on the substrate; and
a detector comprising: a photosensitive device configured to receive at least a portion of radiation scattered by the target and to generate a measurement signal based on the received portion of the radiation; and a square-core optical fiber coupled to the photosensitive device and configured to guide the portion of the radiation to the photosensitive device and to homogenize the guided portion of the radiation such that an intensity cross-section of the received portion of the radiation at the photosensitive device is approximately uniform, as recited in claim 1.”,
Further, Applicant argues and attacking Hsieh, citing several Hsieh paragraphs that ………. However, the cited portions of Hsieh do not appear to disclose, for example, a square-core optical fiber coupled to the photosensitive device and configured to guide the portion of the radiation to the photosensitive device……… …………………………………..., as recited in claim 1.
Applicant argues There is no disclosure or teaching in the cited portions of Hsieh of homogenizing radiation, let alone homogenizing radiation scattered by a target being measured. ……………………….. …………………………………………………….. …………...There is no disclosure or teaching in the cited portions of Hsieh to homogenize radiation from a target being measured nor is there any technical reasoning presented as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would want to change the nature of radiation from a measurement target.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (a), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because applicant has not provided any proof and/or any factual evidence that suggest or obviate the examiner's position would not have been obvious and/or that the claim(s) as rejected is/are not obvious and Applicant mere lawyer’s arguments or conclusory statements, which are unsupported by concrete factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Applicant have not provided any proof and/or any factual evidence that the claims as recited are not obvious. Rather, the arguments merely appear to be a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus (i.e. a square-core optical fiber coupled to the photosensitive device ...) is intended to be employed which does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus. It is respectfully pointed out to applicant that these arguments are not persuasive because, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (1987). Further, the rejection was made as 103 not 102, as such, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that it is well settled that, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the examiner did recognize that the limitation " a square-core optical fiber coupled to the photosensitive device …… that function to perform …..such limitation(s) as “homogenizing radiation.." was not taught by Hsieh but used Manassen to find this limitation.
Applicant is reminded that the teachings or suggestions of the prior art that have been used as evidence within a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth by the Court, are to be evaluated and determined not just from one or more specifically identified quotes to individual sections of the text of the prior art document but are in fact to be evaluated and determined from all that the prior art document teaches or suggests, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 17 (CCPA, 1977), in this case, applicant has not provided any factual evidence that suggest or obviate the examiner's position would not have been obvious. It is respectfully pointed out to applicant that Applicant must show and discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them. Additionally, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As such, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this/these argument(s) is/are not persuasive.
b) Applicant argues page 8, paragraph 2, that Even assuming arguendo that the cited portions of Hsieh and Manassen are properly combinable (which Applicant does not concede), the cited portions of Manassen fail to overcome the deficiencies of the cited portions of Hsieh. ………………….., the cited portions of Manassen fail to disclose or teach homogenizing radiation scattered by a target being measured. The cited portions of Manassen describe techniques for homogenizing illumination radiation, i.e., radiation being provided to a target being measured, not radiation scattered from a target being measured. So, if a person of ordinary skill in the art were to have regard to the cited portions of Manassen, that person at best would apply Manassen's fiber to the claimed optical element to direct radiation toward a target on the substrate (or to somewhere else in the path of radiation toward the target on the substrate), rather than to a detector that receives scattered radiation from a target being measured. There is no teaching in, or reasoned technical basis presented from, the cited portions of Manassen to apply Manassen's fiber to radiation from a target to be measured.
Examiner's response:
With respect to argument (b), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to argument(s) (a), applicant arguments is/are not persuasive based on attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In addition, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that these arguments is/are not persuasive because Hsieh teaches of implementing image sensors (plurality) [par. 0045], the plurality include a second photosensitive device configured to receive a second portion of the radiation scattered by the target and to generate a measurement signal based on the received second portion of the radiation. Hsieh further teaches that the apparatus and inspection system is Scatterometry/Scatterometer [par. 0013] a non-destructive optical measurement device that determines the properties of a surface or material by analyzing how it scatters light or that measure the return of a beam of light or radar waves scattered by object/sample/target. In this case, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive, as the examiner did recognize that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, (i.e. the plurality of sensor that include a second photosensitive device are configured to receive a second portion of the radiation scattered by the target and to generate a measurement signal based on the received second portion of the radiation) or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hsieh fiber(s) as desired appropriate such as in the manner set forth in applicant’s claims in order to enable connection and enhance reliable light transfer in the light sensing system connectivity, and it would be obvious requirement for a digital board of optical fiber(s) that would interact with a photosensitive device through optical fiber(s) (a square-core optical fiber) in order to enable communication between the digital board of optical fiber(s) and the photosensitive device or in order to allow coupling the fiber(s) and the photosensitive device to enable transmission of data and allow the Manassen technique(s) to be implemented, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
In conclusion, one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and/or at the time the invention was made would have fairly and reasonably recognized that the prior art does properly support a rejection of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103. As such, the rejections are proper, and the argument/remarks for request for reconsideration does not appear to place the application in condition for allowance. As to the new claims, the new claims are rejected as detailed above, considering the (BRI).
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 Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights