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 .
Response to Arguments
The objection to the title and rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues the self-referencing interferometer 436 is not a polarizing beam splitter because the "horizontal component and vertical component" referred to by Polo is referring to the direction, not the polarization. The Examiner agrees that it is not clear whether Polo is referring to direction or polarization, but a review of other portions of Polo reveals that the self-referencing interferometer 436 has a polarizing beam splitter. Polo states that the elements of Figure 4 correspond to the elements of Figure 3 ("For ease of comparison with Figure 3, parts of the alignment sensor are labelled with reference signs similar to those used in Figure 3, but with prefix '4' instead of '3'" para. [0055]) and the self-referencing interferometer of Figure 3 has a polarizing beam splitter ("Interferometer 336 splits the information carrying beam into two parts with orthogonal polarization" para. [0048]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the self-referencing interferometer in Figure 4 has a polarizing beam splitter.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues Polo does not establish "there should be multiple channel constituents comprising diffraction orders." In response, it is not clear to the Examiner what Applicant is arguing. Polo is stating there is light that is diffracted by the alignment mark, and as such, the channels would have light that is diffracted. In addition, claim 4 is reciting a product from operating the metrology device and does not establish any particular structure.
Regarding claim 5, please see the discussion regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues the claim 6 recites two channel separation elements each of which comprises a segmented wedge, but that the Office action only states that a beam splitter is comprised of two optical wedges. In response, the Office action identified the first and second channel separation elements as each being a beam splitter in the discussion of claim 1, from which claim 6 depends from. As such each beamsplitter of Polo has an optical wedge.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, see discussion of claim 6 regarding optical wedges.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 12, and 13, Applicant argues that the Office action does not show that it was known to use the claimed element "in an arrangement such as that of claims 1 and 9." Applicant's argument is not found persuasive as that is not a test of obviousness.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues the cited passes in the Office action do not pertain to beam splitter 485. In response, it is the Examiners interpretation of the claim that the claim does not require the beam separation element to cause the different optical property, but that the second channel has a different optical property. Applicant's argument does not identify how the beam splitter 485 of Polo is not structurally equivalent to the beam separation element.
Regarding claims 15-17, Applicant argues the self-referencing interferometer of Polo is not a polarizing interferometer. In response, please see the discussion of the self-reference interferometer for claim 1 above.
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:
beam separation element in claims 16 and 17;
channel separation element in claims 1-5 and 11-17;
channel optical element in claims 1-17;
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polo et al. (WO 2017/045874).
With respect to claim 1, Polo et al. show:
A metrology device (Figs. 4 and 5, alignment sensor 400) comprising:
a polarizing beam splitter (interferometer 436 has a polarizing beam splitter because Polo states interferometer 436 corresponds to interferometer 336 and interferometer 336 has a polarizing beam splitter: "For ease of comparison with Figure 3, parts of the alignment sensor are labelled with reference signs similar to those used in Figure 3, but with prefix '4' instead of '3'" para. [0055]; "Interferometer 336 splits the information carrying beam into two parts with orthogonal polarization" para. [0048]) arranged to receive measurement radiation that has interacted with a mark (alignment mark 440) and to cause a first fraction of the measurement radiation to propagate in a first channel (e.g. path to interferometer 436/position detection arrangement 490) and to cause a second fraction of the measurement radiation to propagate in a second channel (path to asymmetry arrangement 490), the second fraction having a different optical property than the first fraction (Para. [0064]: "a first outgoing beam 442a that contains the sum of the rotated fields; and a second outgoing beam 442b that contains the difference between the rotated fields." "In another example, two interferometers are used, wherein each interferometer has a unique polarization state of radiation reflected / diffracted by the alignment mark."; Para. [0068]: "each optical channel having a different central wavelength.");
a first channel separation element (one of beamsplitters 444 in path to position detection unit 490) arranged in the first channel to spatially separate a plurality of first channel constituents of the first fraction (Para. [0056]: "Each optical channel is functionally analogous to the "colors" of the radiation");
a first channel optical element arranged to focus the first channel constituents (see lens at exit of beamsplitter 444; Para. [0065]: "each component is a single focusing lens");
a first multicore fiber (Para. [0066]: "the delivery element 450" Para. [0068]: "an exemplary delivery element in the form of an optical multicore fiber 500") having a plurality of cores (Para. [0068]: "The fiber comprises a plurality of individual fiber cores 502.") respectively corresponding to ones of the plurality of first channel constituents, the first multicore fiber plurality of fibers having receiving ends arranged at a focal plane of the first channel optical element (implicit)
a second channel separation element (one of beamsplitters 444 in path to asymmetry measuring arrangement 480) arranged in the second channel to spatially separate a plurality of second channel constituents of the second fraction;
a second channel optical element arranged to focus the second channel constituents (see lens at exit of beamsplitter 444; Para. [0065]: "each component is a single focusing lens"); and
the first multicore fiber having a plurality of cores plurality of fibers respectively corresponding to ones of the plurality of second channel constituents, the first multicore fiber having receiving ends arranged at a focal plane of the second channel optical element.
As indicated by the strikeout above, Polo shows a single multicore fiber being used for the same purpose as the claimed two multicore fibers. Polo also teaches the number of cores in the fiber can be higher or lower than the exemplary 10. This suggests that with fewer than 10 cores, additional multicore fiber(s) can be used. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use two multicore fibers with lower number of cores for the predictable function of delivering each radiation beam to the demultiplexer 460.
2. The metrology device of claim 1 wherein the optical property is polarization (Para. [0005]: "a sensor may measure position using several wavelengths (e.g., colors) and/or polarizations of radiation (e.g., light) on the same target grating or gratings.").
3. The metrology device of claim 1 wherein the optical property is color (Para. [0005]: "a sensor may measure position using several wavelengths (e.g., colors) and/or polarizations of radiation (e.g., light) on the same target grating or gratings.").
4. The metrology device of claim 1 wherein the first channel constituents and the second channel constituents comprise diffraction orders (Para. [0064]: "wherein each interferometer has a unique polarization state of radiation reflected / diffracted by the alignment mark.").
5. The metrology device of claim 1 wherein the polarizing beam splitter (beam splitter 436) is arranged to receive the measurement radiation and to cause the first fraction of the received radiation having a first polarization to propagate in the first channel and to cause the second fraction of the received radiation having a second polarization to propagate in the second channel (interferometer 436 has a polarizing beam splitter because Polo states interferometer 436 corresponds to interferometer 336 and interferometer 336 has a polarizing beam splitter: "For ease of comparison with Figure 3, parts of the alignment sensor are labelled with reference signs similar to those used in Figure 3, but with prefix '4' instead of '3'"; "Interferometer 336 splits the information carrying beam into two parts with orthogonal polarization").
6. The metrology device of claim 1 wherein the first channel separation element comprises a first segmented optical wedge and the second channel separation element comprises a second segmented optical wedge (each beam splitter is comprised of two wedges).
7. The metrology device of claim 6 wherein the first segmented optical wedge and the second segmented optical wedge are transmissive (both wedges of the beam splitters are transmissive. See dotted line representing light shown as transmitting through the wedges of the beam splitters in Fig. 4).
8. The metrology device of claim 6 wherein the first segmented optical wedge and the second segmented optical wedge are reflective (the boundary surface between the two wedges are reflective).
9. and 10. With respect to claims 9 and 10, Polo does not show the use of a segmented lens or a diffraction grating as beam splitters. Official notice is taken that segmented lenses and diffraction grating were well known for use to split beams. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use segmented lenses or diffraction grating for the predictable result of split beams.
11. The metrology device of claim 1 wherein the first multicore fiber comprises one of multimode fiber cores, single mode fiber cores, and a combination of multimode fiber cores and single mode fiber cores and the second multicore fiber comprises one of multimode fiber cores, single mode fiber cores, and a combination of multimode fiber cores and single mode fiber cores (although Polo does not explicitly state such, the cores are multimode in light of Polo's teaching that "Each of the radiation beams 504 comprises a plurality of optical channels, each optical channel having a different central wavelength." para. [0068].
12. The metrology device of claim 1 wherein at least one of the first channel separation element and the second channel separation element is optically adjustable. (Polo does not show the position of the channel separation elements to be adjustable. Official notice is taken that it was well known to make optical elements adjustable to different positions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious make the channel separation elements of Polo adjustable in order to calibrate the optical alignment and correct changes in alignment over time, i.e. optically adjustable.)
13. The metrology device of claim 1 wherein at least one of a position and an orientation of receiving ends of at least one of the first multicore fiber and the second multicore fiber is configurable (Polo does not show the position of the multicore fibers to be adjustable. Official notice is taken that it was well known to make optical elements adjustable to different positions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious make the alignment of the multicore fibers adjustable in order to calibrate the optical alignment and correct changes in alignment over time.).
14. A metrology device comprising:
a spatial separation element (484) arranged to receive measurement radiation that has interacted with a mark (alignment mark 440) and to spatially separate constituents of the measurement radiation;
a beam separation element (beam splitter 485) arranged to receive the spatially separated measurement radiation and to cause a first fraction of the spatially separated measurement radiation to propagate in a first channel and to cause a second fraction of the spatially separated measurement radiation to propagate in a second channel, the second fraction having a different optical property than the first fraction (Para. [0064]: "a first outgoing beam 442a that contains the sum of the rotated fields; and a second outgoing beam 442b that contains the difference between the rotated fields." "In another example, two interferometers are used, wherein each interferometer has a unique polarization state of radiation reflected / diffracted by the alignment mark."; Para. [0068]: "each optical channel having a different central wavelength.");
a first channel optical element arranged to focus the first fraction (see lens at exit of beamsplitter 444; Para. [0065]: "each component is a single focusing lens");
a first multicore fiber (Para. [0066]: "the delivery element 450" Para. [0068]: "an exemplary delivery element in the form of an optical multicore fiber 500") having a plurality of cores (Para. [0068]: "The fiber comprises a plurality of individual fiber cores 502.") respectively corresponding to constituents in the first channel arranged at a focal plane of the first channel optical element;
a second channel optical element arranged to focus the second fraction (see lens at exit of beamsplitter 444; Para. [0065]: "each component is a single focusing lens"); and
the first multicore fiber having a plurality of cores respectively corresponding to constituents in the second channel arranged at a focal plane of the second channel optical element.
As indicated by the strikeout above, Polo shows a single multicore fiber being used for the same purpose as the claimed two multicore fibers. Polo also teaches the number of cores in the fiber can be higher or lower than the exemplary 10. This suggests that with fewer than 10 cores, additional multicore fiber(s) can be used. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use two multicore fibers with lower number of cores for the predictable function of delivering each radiation beam to the demultiplexer 460.
15. The metrology device of claim 14 wherein the beam separation element comprises a polarizing beam splitter (beam splitter 485, 436) arranged to receive the spatially separated measurement radiation and to cause the first fraction of the measurement radiation having a first polarization to propagate in the first channel and to cause the second fraction of the measurement radiation having a second polarization to propagate in the second channel (Para. [0065]: "The arrangement of optical components 446 is arranged so that each of the input beams is split into a horizontal component and a vertical component." One of ordinary skill would understand this refers to vertically polarized and horizontally polarized and thus there is a polarized beam splitter, e.g. 436 is polarized).
16. A metrology device comprising:
a first beam separation element (beam splitter, not labeled, upstream from interferometer 436, or 485/484) arranged to receive measurement radiation that has interacted with a mark and adapted and configured to separate the measurement radiation into a first part and a second part and to cause a first part of the measurement radiation to propagate to a self-referencing interferometer;
a second beam separation element (interferometer 436 has a polarizing beam splitter because Polo states interferometer 436 corresponds to interferometer 336 and interferometer 336 has a polarizing beam splitter: "For ease of comparison with Figure 3, parts of the alignment sensor are labelled with reference signs similar to those used in Figure 3, but with prefix '4' instead of '3'"; "Interferometer 336 splits the information carrying beam into two parts with orthogonal polarization") arranged to receive the second part of the measurement radiation and to cause a first fraction of the measurement radiation to propagate in a first channel (e.g. path to interferometer 436/position detection arrangement 490) and to cause a second fraction of the measurement radiation to propagate in a second channel (path to asymmetry arrangement 490), the second fraction having a different optical property than the first fraction (Para. [0064]: "a first outgoing beam 442a that contains the sum of the rotated fields; and a second outgoing beam 442b that contains the difference between the rotated fields." "In another example, two interferometers are used, wherein each interferometer has a unique polarization state of radiation reflected / diffracted by the alignment mark."; Para. [0068]: "each optical channel having a different central wavelength;" each channel has a different optical path);
a first channel separation element (one of beamsplitters 444 in path to position detection unit 490) arranged in the first channel to spatially separate a plurality of first channel constituents of the first fraction (Para. [0056]: "Each optical channel is functionally analogous to the "colors" of the radiation");
a first channel optical element arranged to focus the first channel constituents (see lens at exit of beamsplitter 444; Para. [0065]: "each component is a single focusing lens");
a first multicore fiber (Para. [0066]: "the delivery element 450" Para. [0068]: "an exemplary delivery element in the form of an optical multicore fiber 500") having a plurality of cores (Para. [0068]: "The fiber comprises a plurality of individual fiber cores 502.") respectively corresponding to ones of the plurality of first channel constituents, the first multicore fiber plurality of fibers having receiving ends arranged at a focal plane of the first channel optical element (implicit)
a second channel separation element (one of beamsplitters 444 in path to asymmetry measuring arrangement 480) arranged in the second channel to spatially separate a plurality of second channel constituents of the second fraction;
a second channel optical element arranged to focus the second channel constituents (see lens at exit of beamsplitter 444; Para. [0065]: "each component is a single focusing lens"); and
the first multicore fiber having a plurality of cores plurality of fibers respectively corresponding to ones of the plurality of second channel constituents, the first multicore fiber having receiving ends arranged at a focal plane of the second channel optical element.
See claim 1 regarding the second multicore fiber.
17. The metrology device of claim 16 wherein the second beam separation element comprises a polarizing beam splitter arranged to receive the measurement radiation and to cause the first fraction of the received radiation having a first polarization to propagate in the first channel and to cause the second fraction of the received radiation having a second polarization to propagate in the second channel. (See claim 1 regarding the polarizing beam splitter of the self-referencing interferometer.)
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 Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights