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
Applicant's arguments filed 7-6-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’ argues that Baselmans fails to teach, “wherein each object plane patterning device comprises a first portion having a first structure configured to modify incident radiation and a second portion having a second structure configured to modify incident radiation, the first structure of the first portion being different to the second structure of the second portion, and wherein the types of first and second structures of the first and second portions of at least one of the object plane patterning devices are transposed between those first and second portions relative to the types of first and second structures of the first and second portions of the other object plane patterning devices,” however, the examiner disagrees with this argument.
By way of this argument the applicant points to their figure 3A versus Baselmans figure 3A. The applicant points out that in their figure 3A the grating lines of the middle pair of patterning devices (15b) are flipped so they are perpendicular to the other two patterning devices. The applicant points to Baselmans’ figure 3A which does not show this. While the examiner agrees these appear to be different the examiner disagrees that the language they point to details this difference adequately. Once again the applicant has attempted to leave the wording so vague as to be almost meaningless if not confusing without plainly saying what they mean.
Firstly, “wherein each object plane patterning device comprises a first portion having a first structure configured to modify incident radiation and a second portion having a second structure configured to modify incident radiation” is met since they’re both patterning devices with two portions and grating structures to modify the light.
Secondly, “the first structure of the first portion being different to the second structure of the second portion,” is met since as can be seen in Baselmans the first structure of the first potion is in a different spot than the second structure which means they are separate structures. The scope of this part is meant to capture that the grating lines are perpendicular to each other in the first and second portions but it’s so vague it just means they’re different structures.
Thirdly, “wherein the types of first and second structures of the first and second portions of at least one of the object plane patterning devices are transposed between those first and second portions relative to the types of first and second structures of the first and second portions of the other object plane patterning devices” is met and is at best confusing language. To start, “the types” is not defined which leaves the scope confused. This is also true of the term relative because it is not defined how they’re relatively transposed. The term transposed just means to change the place or order of something and is not a specific term that has any meaning beyond that. Thus, the limitation, “the types of the first and second portions of at least one of the object plane patterning devices are transposed between those first and second portions relative to the types of the first and second structures of the first and second portions of the other object plane patterning device,” is very confusing and has no where near the meaning the applicant ascribes to it. Further, this could simply be interpreted as describing how the first portion of the first patterning device mirrors the second relatively like in the second patterning device. It can also mean that they are separate or across from each other. This language will need revision to get more in line with the figures the applicant points too.
For instance, if the applicant truly wanted clear language they could have just put “the direction of grating lines of the first and second portions of the first patterning device are mirrored in the second patterning device such that the direction of the first potion of the second device are perpendicular to that of the first portion of the first patterning device and likewise the direction of the second portion of the second patterning are perpendicular to the of the second portion of the second patterning device,”.
However, even if applicant cleaned this language up it seems a trivial change that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Merely changing the grating direction does not seem to significantly change how the device functions nor provide any particular advantage.
Thus, in whole the examiner doesn’t find the arguments persuasive.
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 32-51 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.
In regard to claim 32, the examiner finds the language “the types of the first and second portions of at least one of the object plane patterning devices are transposed between those first and second portions relative to the types of the first and second structures of the first and second portions of the other object plane patterning device” to be confusing. As the examiner points out in the response to arguments the words “type” and “relative” are not defined enough to give any particular meaning to them and the language itself has multiple interpretations because the applicant has kept it very vague. The examiner provided an example of language that would be more clear above in the response as well and while he is not mandating that the applicant use that language he does suggest that the applicant model any modification of the claims on language like that to be more precise.
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) 32-40, 42, 43, 46, 47, & 49-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baselmans et al (PGPub 2018/0088467) (Baselmans).
Regarding Claims 32 & 47, Baselmans discloses a method of determining a physical quantity, the method using a sensor system configured to sample a plurality of positions, wherein sampling at each position uses an object plane patterning device (Fig. 2, MA’) of a plurality of object plane patterning devices and an image plane sensor (21), wherein each object plane patterning device comprises a first portion (Fig. 3A, 15a’) having a first structure configured to modify incident radiation (Paragraphs 58 & 120) and a second portion (15a”) having a second structure configured to modify incident radiation (Paragraphs 58 & 120), the first structure of the first portion being different to the second structure of the second portion, and wherein the types of the first and second structures of the first and second portions of at least one of the object plane patterning devices are transposed between those first and second portions relative to the types of first and second structures of the first and second portions of the other object plane patterning devices (See fig. 3A), the method comprising:
performing a first measurement for a relative displacement between the first portion of each object plane patterning device and the image plane sensor in a first direction so as to generate a first data set (Paragraphs 116, 125, & 128);
performing a second measurement for a relative displacement between the second portion of each object plane patterning device and the image plane sensor in the first direction so as to generate a second data set (Paragraphs 116, 125, & 128);
performing a third measurement for a relative displacement between the first portion of each object plane patterning device and the image plane sensor in a second direction so as to generate a third data set, the second direction being different to the first direction (Paragraphs 116, 125, & 128);
performing a fourth measurement for a relative displacement between the second portion of each object plane patterning device and the image plane sensor in the second direction so as to generate a fourth data set (Paragraphs 116, 125, & 128);
In the above citations Baselmans discloses that taking measurements through both the portions (15a’ & 15a”) while scanning is performed in both a perpendicular and parallel (U & V) direction to the grating is known. Further, it is described as multiple measurements are performed in order to determine aberrations in both directions (using measurements when the particular grating direction is perpendicular to the scanning direction) and allows for accounting for variations in the grating (using measurements when scanning in a direction parallel to the grating); and
combining the first, second, third and fourth data sets so as to determine the physical quantity (Paragraph 133 & 134). What is disclosed is using the multiple measurements described to achieve the aberration detection. Further, given the disclosure the scope of measurements taken would include the four as claimed.
Regarding Claim 33, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses wherein radiation having a common noise source is incident on each object plane patterning device and the image plane sensor to generate the first, second, third and/or fourth data sets (Paragraph 133). Aberrations in the projection system is a common source of noise.
Regarding Claim 34, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses the object plane patterning device comprises a grating (Paragraph 114).
Regarding Claim 35, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses wherein the orientation of one or more features of the first structure is orthogonal to orientation of one or more features of the second structure (Fig. 3A, Paragraph 120).
Regarding Claim 36, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses wherein an orientation of structural features of the at least one object plane patterning device is orthogonal to an orientation of structural features of the other object plane patterning devices (Fig. 3A, Paragraph 120). This is met since 15a’ and 15a” are orthogonal. Further, it is also met since 15a’ and 15b” are orthogonal.
Regarding Claim 37, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses wherein the first, second, third and fourth measurements form part of a shearing interferometry process (Paragraph 257).
Regarding Claim 38, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses wherein the first portion has a first shearing direction and the second portion has a second shearing direction, the second shearing direction being different from the first shearing direction (Fig. 3A, Paragraph 120).
Regarding Claim 39, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses wherein the image plane sensor comprises a plurality of image plane sensors (Fig. 3A, 15a-15c).
Regarding Claim 40, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses wherein the image plane sensor (21, Fig. 2) comprises a patterning device (19a-19c) positionable so as to receive radiation (17a-17c) from the plurality of object plane patterning devices; and
using a detector (25a-25c) to receive radiation from the patterning device of the image plane sensor.
Regarding Claim 42, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses wherein the physical quantity comprises one or more aberrations of a projection system (Paragraph 133).
Regarding Claim 43, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses wherein the physical quantity comprises one or more intensities of a measured radiation, and the first, second, third and fourth physical parameters respectively correspond to first, second, third and fourth intensity values (Paragraph 261).
Regarding Claim 46, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses illuminating the plurality of object plane patterning devices with radiation (Paragraphs 116, 125, & 128);
forming an image of each of the plurality of object plane patterning devices on a patterning device of a different one of a plurality of image plane sensors (Paragraphs 116, 125, & 128);
scanning the plurality of object plane patterning devices or the corresponding plurality of image plane sensors through a plurality of positions separated in a direction so as to generate an oscillating phase-scanning signal for each of the plurality of sampling positions (Paragraphs 116, 125, & 128); and
determining a phase of a harmonic of the oscillating signal at a plurality of positions on a radiation detector (Paragraph 127).
Regarding Claims 49 & 51, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses a measurement system comprising:
a plurality of object plane patterning devices (Fig. 2, 15a-15c) comprising a first set of patterning devices (Fig. 3A, 15a’-15c’ & 15a”-15c”) having a structure having a first orientation and a second set of patterning devices having a structure having a second orientation, the second orientation being different to the first orientation;
an illumination system (Fig. 2, IL) arranged to illuminate the plurality of object plane patterning devices with radiation so as to form a plurality of first diffraction beams (17a-17c), the first diffraction beams from each of the first set of patterning devices being separated in a modulation direction corresponding to the first orientation of the first set of patterning device and the first diffraction beams from each of the second set of patterning devices being separated in a modulation direction corresponding to the second orientation of the second set of patterning devices (Paragraph 116);
an image plane sensor (Fig. 2, 21) comprising a patterning device (19a-19c) and a radiation detector (23);
wherein the illumination system is configured to form an image of each of the plurality of object plane patterning devices on the patterning device of the image plane sensor so as to form a plurality of second diffraction beams from each of the first diffraction beams (Paragraph 122);
a positioning apparatus configured to move the plurality of object plane patterning devices and/or the patterning device of the image plane sensor, in a first direction or a second direction (Paragraph 126).
Regarding Claim 50, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses a measurement system comprising:
a plurality of object plane patterning devices (Fig. 2, 15a-15c);
an illumination system (Fig. 2, IL) arranged to illuminate the plurality of object plane patterning devices with radiation so as to form a plurality of first measurement beams (17a-17c);
a plurality of image plane sensors (21), each comprising a patterning device (19a-19c) and each in communication with a radiation detector (23);
wherein the illumination system being configured to form an image of each of the plurality of object plane patterning devices on the patterning device a respective image plane sensor of the image plane sensors so as to form a plurality of second measurement beams from each of the first measurement beams (Paragraph 122);
a positioning apparatus configured to move the plurality of object plane patterning devices and/or the corresponding plurality of image plane sensors in a first direction or a second direction (Paragraph 126); and
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) 45 & 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baselmans.
Regarding Claim 45, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first direction and the second direction are each aligned at 45° relative to an orientation of structural features of each of the first structure and the second structure;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Baselmans with wherein the first direction and the second direction are each aligned at 45° relative to an orientation of structural features of each of the first structure and the second structure because scanning in the X and Y direction when the gratings are aligned in the U and V directions would be functionally equivalent to the scanning disclosed and would be done based upon the allowed movement directions of the apparatus versus the orientation of the gratings.
Regarding Claim 48, Baselmans discloses the aforementioned. Further, Baselmans discloses a processor (CN), wherein the processor readable instructions comprise instructions arranged to control the computer to carry out the method of claim 32 (Paragraph 133);
Baselmans fails to explicitly disclose a memory storing processor readable instructions, and the processor arranged to read and execute instructions stored in the memory;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Baselmans with a memory storing processor readable instructions, and the processor arranged to read and execute instructions stored in the memory because this is a commonplace setup for most computer systems and having a memory where the instructions are read from it allows for the execution of different instructions in a machine and thus advantageously allowing for the processor to perform different sets of instructions depending on a user’s choice.
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 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 September 14, 2026
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights