CTNF 18/879,550 CTNF 88561 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 : On Line 8 , the Examiner assumes that “reflected light reflected onto the test mirror” should actually be --reflected light reflected from the test mirror--. Claim 1 : On Line 10 , the Examiner assumes that “configured to transmit incident light” should actually be --configured to transmit the reflected light--. Claim 1 : On Line 19 , the Examiner assumes that “and being incident;” should actually be --and being incident on the second lens--. Claim 6 : On Line 6 , the Examiner assumes that “the predetermined first angle” should actually be --the first predetermined angle --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first light surface" in Line 6 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This indefiniteness makes it unclear where light is being diverged from to create parallel light that then passes through the fourth lens. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that “diverged from the first light surface” should instead be --incident on a first light surface of the fourth lens, the first light surface being disposed to be directed towards the first light source,--. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 recites wherein a surface of the third sensor satisfies an equation, but does not recite any additional structure needed to satisfy this equation. Therefore, it is assumed that, if the prior art teaches the structure of claims 1 and 7 , then the conditions recited in claim 8 are inherently met. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opsal et al. (US 7,567,351), hereinafter Opsal , in view of Levy et al. (US 2016/0290796), hereinafter Levy . Claim 1 : Opsal discloses a measurement device configured to simultaneously measure multi-axis displacement of a rigid body, the measurement device having a measurement part ( Fig. 1 ) comprising: a test mirror ( 8 ) coupled to the rigid body ( 6 ) and configured to be capable of moving in a direction toward an X-axis, a Y-axis or a Z-axis and tilting along the X-axis or the Y-axis according to movement of the rigid body ( 6 ) ( Col. 4, Lines 1-5 ) (under BRI, “configured to be capable of moving… and tilting” means only that it is possible for the test mirror to exhibit motion, not that it must be disclosed as exhibiting motion); and a first lens ( 32 ) configured to transmit incident light incident on a reference point defined on the test mirror ( 8 ) and reflected light reflected from the test mirror ( 8 ) ( Col. 4, Lines 22-23 ). Opsal is silent with respect to a second lens disposed along an optical axis of the reflected light and configured to transmit the reflected light as parallel light. Levy, however, in the same field of endeavor of metrology, discloses a measurement part ( 100 , Fig. 1A ) comprising: a first lens ( 116 ) configured to transmit incident light incident on a reference point defined on a test mirror ( 106 ) and reflected light reflected from the test mirror ( 106 ) [ 0031 ]; and a second lens ( 124 ) disposed along an optical axis of reflected light (from 106 ) and configured to transmit the reflected light as parallel light [ 0033 ]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Opsal’s measurement part with a second lens disposed along an optical axis of the reflected light and configured to transmit the reflected light as parallel light for the purpose of maintaining the collimation of the reflected light and compensating for natural dispersion. PNG media_image1.png 524 876 media_image1.png Greyscale modification of Fig. 1 of Opsal to show the second lens, labelled as element 124 Opsal further discloses: a first sensor ( 86 ) configured to detect the movement of the test mirror ( 8 ) along the X-axis and the Y-axis, based on a light receiving position of the parallel light transmitted through the second lens ( 124 ) (“for alignment and focus purposes”, Col. 6, Lines 28-30 ); a first light source ( 22 ) disposed to be perpendicular to the optical axis of the reflected light (after reflection from beam splitter 29 , Col. 4, Lines 12-15 ); a first beam splitter ( 30 ) disposed between the first lens ( 32 ) and the second lens ( 124 ), and configured to reflect light from the first light source ( 22 ) to define incident light incident on the first lens ( 32 ) and transmit the reflected light transmitted through the first lens ( 32 ) and being incident on the second lens ( 124 ) ( Col. 4, Lines 19-21,38-41 ); a second beam splitter ( 46 ) disposed between the first lens ( 32 ) and the second lens ( 124 ), and configured to reflect a part of the reflected light transmitted through the first beam splitter ( 30 ) and transmit a remaining part of the reflected light to be incident on the second lens ( 124 ) ( Col. 4, Lines 38-41 ); a second sensor ( 40 ) configured to receive the part of the reflected light reflected by the second beam splitter ( 36 ) and detect an X-axis or Y-axis tilting angle of the test mirror based on a position of the receiving of the reflected part (“generate a separate output signal proportional to the power of the portion of the probe beam striking that quadrant”, Col. 4, Lines 49-53 ); a second light source ( 90 ) configured to output light toward the reference point ( Col. 6, Lines 32-34 ); and a third sensor ( 104 ) configured to receive light from the second light source ( 90 ) reflected onto the reference point and, based on a position of the receiving of the light, detect movement of the test mirror ( 8 ) along the Z-axis (“ellipsometric parameters of the sample”, Col. 7, Lines 20-22 ). Claim 2 : Opsal further discloses wherein the first lens ( 32 ) is configured to: comprise a first surface disposed to be directed toward the test mirror ( 8 ), and a second surface disposed to be directed toward the second lens ( 124 ) (evident from figure), and be disposed such that, when light is incident on the first surface, the incident light is transmitted through the second surface, and when light is incident on the second surface, the incident light is transmitted through the first surface and incident on the test mirror ( 8 ) (inherent to the function of the objective lens 32 ). Claim 3 : Opsal further discloses wherein the test mirror ( 8 ) is disposed at a first focal length which is a focal length of the first lens ( 32 ), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first lens and the second lens are disposed to be apart from each other by a distance equal to a sum of the first focal length and a second focal length which is a focal length of the second lens, and wherein the first sensor is disposed to be apart from the second lens by the second focal length. However, Applicant has provided no criticality for either the separation distance between the first and second lens to be equal to the sum of their respective focal lengths, or for the separation distance between the first sensor and the second lens to be equal to the second lens’ focal length. Furthermore, since the reflected light transmitted through the first lens ( 32 ), incident on the second lens ( 124 ), and transmitted through the second lens ( 124 ) is parallel light, there is no issue of detecting a defocused signal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Opsal’s measurement part so that the first and second lens are separated by a desired distance, such as the sum of their respective focal lengths, and so that the first sensor the second lens are separated by a desired distance, such as the second lens’ focal length, for the purpose of satisfying dimensionality requirements of the measurement device. Claim 4 : Opsal further discloses a third lens ( 38 ) configured as a convex lens between the second beam splitter ( 46 ) and the second sensor ( 40 ) ( Col. 4, Lines 36-37 ), wherein the second sensor ( 40 ) is disposed on a position on which light is concentrated by the third lens ( 38 ) so that the part of the reflected light reflected by the second beam splitter ( 46 ) is concentrated by the third lens to define a focal point on a surface of the second sensor ( 40 ) (the light transmitted through the third lens 38 undergoes focusing, as evident from figure). Claim 5 : Opsal further discloses a fourth lens ( 28 ) disposed between the first beam splitter ( 30 ) and the first light source ( 22 ) and configured to cause light from the first light source ( 22 ) to be incident on the first beam splitter ( 30 ) ( Col. 4, Lines 12-15 ), wherein the first light source ( 22 ) is positioned at a focal length of a lens group comprising the first lens ( 32 ), the first beam splitter ( 30 ), and the fourth lens ( 28 ) so that light incident on a first light surface of the fourth lens, the first light surface being disposed to be directed towards the first light source, constitutes parallel light that passes through the fourth lens ( 28 ), is incident on the first beam splitter ( 30 ), is reflected onto the first beam splitter ( 30 ), and then, passes through the first lens ( 32 ) (evident from figure). Claim 6 : Opsal further discloses wherein an incident angle of the light from the second light source ( 90 ) and a reflection angle of the light from the second light source ( 90 ) each define a first predetermined angle with an optical axis defined by the light from the first light source ( 22 ), the light being reflected onto the test mirror ( 8 ) (evident from figure). Opsal does not explicitly disclose wherein the first predetermined angle is an angle between 25 and 40 degrees. However, Applicant has not provided any criticality for this angle range. Furthermore, Opsal discloses wherein “Mirror 72 focuses the beam onto the sample surface at an oblique angle, ideally on the order of 70 degrees to the normal of the sample surface” ( Col. 6, Lines 2-4 ), which is larger than the predetermined first angle (evident from figure). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Opsal’s measurement part by configuring the second light source to have a desired incidence angle, such as between 25 and 40 degrees, for the purpose of optimizing the ellipsometry information gathered. “Determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious.” In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also In re Geisler , 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995)). Claim 7 : Opsal further discloses a fifth lens ( 94 ) and a sixth lens ( 96 ) between the second light source ( 90 ) and the reference point and between the reference point and the third sensor ( 104 ), respectively ( Col. 6, Lines 57-58,66-67 ), wherein the fifth lens ( 94 ) is disposed so that light incident from the second light source ( 90 ) to the reference point is concentrated on the reference point by the fifth lens ( 94 ) along an optical axis of the light (evident from figure), and the third sensor ( 104 ) is disposed so that the light from the second light source ( 90 ) reflected onto the reference point is concentrated on an upper surface of the third sensor ( 104 ) by the sixth lens ( 96 ) along an optical axis of the reflected light from the second light source ( 90 ) (evident from figure, concentrated by collimating the diverging light beam). Claim 8 : Opsal further discloses wherein a surface of the third sensor ( 104 ) defines a contained angle Φ according to Equation below: Φ = A r c t a n m tan 2 θ wherein the contained angle is an angle defined by a normal to the surface of the third sensor ( 104 ) and the optical axis of the reflected light from the second light source ( 90 ), the normal is located on a plane determined by the optical axis of the reflected light from the second light source ( 90 ) and an optical axis of light incident on the reference point, and the contained angle is an angle having a positive sign and measured in a counterclockwise direction from the optical axis of the reflected light from the second light source ( 90 ) (inherently met due to Opsal having the same structure as claimed), and the θ is an angle between a direction of the normal to the test mirror ( 8 ) and the optical axis of the second light source ( 90 ), and the m is a positive value of a transverse magnification of the sixth lens ( 96 ), wherein a distance to the test mirror ( 8 ) is an object distance and a distance to the third sensor ( 104 ) is an image distance (inherently met due to Opsal having the same structure as claimed). Claim 13 : Opsal further discloses wherein the test mirror ( 8 ) has an area smaller than an area of parallel light incident from the first lens ( 32 ) on the test mirror ( 8 ) (inherent since the test mirror could otherwise not be fully interrogated since the reference point would not reach the outer edges of the test mirror) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opsal as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Heideman (US 11,204,234), hereinafter Heideman . Claim 9 : Opsal is silent with respect to the measurement part comprising a sealed room surrounding a periphery of the test mirror. Heideman, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical measuring systems, discloses a measurement device ( 10 , Fig. 1 ) configured to measure displacement of a target ( 18 ), the measurement device ( 10 ) having a measurement part ( 12 ) comprising: a sealed room ( 50 ) surrounding a periphery of the target ( 18 ) ( Col. 7, Lines 38-41 ) to prevent scattered light of the target ( 18 ) from being transmitted (intended use); the sealed room comprises: a first window disposed between a light source ( 14 ) and a first lens ( 26 ) (inherent so light can pass through; Col. 6, Lines 29-31 ); a second window disposed between the target ( 18 ) and a first quarter wave plate ( 34 ) (inherent so light can pass through; Col. 6, Lines 42-45 ); and a third window disposed between a second lens ( 48 ) and a detector ( 20 ) (inherent so light can pass through; Col. 7, Lines 22-29 ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Opsal’s measurement part with a sealed room surrounding a periphery of the test mirror for the purpose of keeping the components of the measurement part secure (Heideman, Col. 7, Lines 38-40 ). In Opsal’s modified measurement part, it is evident that the sealed room comprises a window at each location where light travels between the test mirror and a component of the measurement part inside the sealed room, since light cannot transverse an opaque barrier. Opsal’s sealed room thus comprises: a first window disposed between the first lens ( 32 ) and the test mirror ( 8 ) to transmit incident light from the first light source ( 22 ), the incident light being incident on the test mirror ( 8 ), and reflected light from the first light source ( 22 ), the reflected light being reflected onto the test mirror ( 8 ); a second window disposed between the fifth lens ( 94 ) and the test mirror ( 8 ) to transmit incident light from the second light source ( 90 ), the incident light being incident on the test mirror ( 8 ); and a third window disposed between the sixth lens ( 96 ) and the test mirror ( 8 ) to transmit reflected light from the second light source ( 90 ), the reflected light being reflected from the test mirror ( 8 ). Claim 10 : Opsal, in view of Heideman, does not explicitly disclose the tilt of the first window from an optical axis defined by the reflected light from the first light source, the reflected light being reflected onto the test mirror. However, Applicant has provided any criticality for the first window to have a certain predetermined tilt, stating only that “may have an angle between 1 degree and 5 degrees” [ 22 ]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Opsal’s first window to have a desired tilt, such as between 1 degree and 5 degrees, for the purpose of effectively interrogating the test mirror with proper alignment of components. “Determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious.” In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also In re Geisler , 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995)) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 11-12 : None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches of discloses the measurement device of claim 1 , comprising: a memory comprising distance-displacement tables corresponding to the first to third sensors in the measurement part, respectively; and a control unit configured to calculate movement distances in directions toward the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis, and a tilting angle along the X-axis or the Y-axis with respect to the rigid body in correspondence with a detection value detected by each of the first to third sensors in the measurement part, based on the distance-displacement tables corresponding to the first to third sensors, respectively, along with the rest of the limitations of dependent claim 11 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri. 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, 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. /Hina F Ayub/ Primary Patent Examiner Art Unit 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/879,550 Page 2 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/879,550 Page 3 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/879,550 Page 4 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/879,550 Page 5 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/879,550 Page 6 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/879,550 Page 7 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/879,550 Page 8 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/879,550 Page 9 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/879,550 Page 10 Art Unit: 2877
Prosecution Insights