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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: diffraction element 15, as disclosed in Paras. [0095-0101], is missing in Figs. 2-6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Para. [0095], the Examiner assumes that the last sentence, “The white regions… the first class of cells” should be deleted since it is in direct contradiction to the sentence immediately preceding it.
In Para. [0103], the Examiner assumes that “the 2D is made of silicon” should instead be --the 2D array grating is made of silicon--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the filter" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the Examiner assumes that Lines 2-3 of claim 1 should read --a light source, a beam collimator, a filter, a diffraction element, and an imaging detector--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finnie et al. (US 11,815,462), hereinafter Finnie, in view of Zhao et al. (CN 112014070), hereinafter Zhao, and Stepanov (RU 2544873), hereinafter Stepanov. (the citations to Zhao and Stepanov refer to the attached English translations)
Claim 1: Finnie discloses a phase-detection device (300, Fig. 3) for an optical element (302), wherein, along the direction of the optical path, the phase-detection device (300) comprises: a light source (310), a beam collimator (“collimated broadband light”, Col. 5, Lines 59-65), a filter (344), a diffraction element (326), and an imaging detector (350) (Col. 5, Lines 5-11,25-34);
the optical element (302) to be detected is set between the filter (344) and the diffraction element (326) (evident from figure).
Finnie is silent with respect to the particular configuration of the diffraction element.
Zhao, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical measurement, discloses a phase-detection device (Fig. 1) for an optical element (on 50), wherein, along the direction of the optical path, the phase-detection device comprises: a light source (10), a diffraction element (60), and an imaging detector (70) (“Referring to Figures 1 and 2, the wave aberration measuring device includes an illumination system 10, a mask stage 20, a small aperture plate on an object surface 30, a projection lens 40, a workpiece stage 50, an image plane shearing grating plate 60, a two-dimensional array photosensitive element 70, and a data processing unit 80.” [0051]);
the diffraction element (60) comprises an array region (Fig. 7) (“Referring to Figure 7, the image plane shearing grating plate 60 includes a checkerboard grating array, which includes a plurality of light-transmitting cells 602 and a plurality of non-light-transmitting cells 601.” [0066]);
the array region comprises a first class of cell (601) and a second class of cell (602), and the first class of cell (601) and the second class of cell (602) are alternatively arranged (“Along the row and column directions of the checkerboard grating array, the light-transmitting cells 602 and the non-light-transmitting cells 601 are arranged at intervals” [0066]);
the first class of cell (601) is used to provide a first phase for the lights of a target wavelength, and the second class of cell (602) is used to provide a second phase for the lights of the target wavelength; a phase difference between the first phase and the second phase is π rad (“The image plane shearing grating plate 60 includes a checkerboard grating array, which includes multiple transparent cells 602 and multiple non-transparent cells 601” [0086]);
the device further comprises a process (80); the process (80) is communicatively connected to the imaging detector (70) to determine a phase corresponding to the optical element (on 50) according to an interference image recorded by the imaging detector (70) (“The data processing unit 80 is used to calculate the wavefront aberration of the projection lens 40 based on the shearing interference pattern” [0053]).
Finnie is silent with respect to the diffraction element comprising a mesh mask region.
Stepanov, however, in the same field of endeavor of manufacturing diffraction gratings, discloses a diffraction element (Fig. 1) comprising a mesh mask region (3) and an array region (2) segmented (“a diffraction periodic microstructure embedded in its surface”) by the mesh mask region (3); the mesh mask region (3) (“The non-irradiated partitions 3”) is used to block lights of a target wavelength [0024].
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 Zhao’s diffraction grating with a mesh mask region for the purpose of creating partitions to prevent cross-talk between cells.
It would have been furthermore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finnie’s phase-detection device by substituting in the specific diffraction element as taught by Zhao for the purpose of accurately measuring wave aberration (Zhao: “The wavelet aberration of the projection objective lens is measured by using a checkerboard grating array in conjunction with the object plane pinhole markers 310 arranged in the array” [0066]).
Claim 11: Finnie further discloses wherein the beam collimator is a reflective collimator (inherent since the light goes through the collimator, just as in Applicant’s disclosed invention: Col. 5, Lines 59-65).
Claim 12: Finnie, in view of Zhao and Stepanov, further discloses wherein the diffraction element is a hybrid grating, and the hybrid grating comprises a mesh mask grating and a 2D array grating (evident from the modification of Zhao with Stepanov, see claim 1 rejection).
Finnie does not explicitly disclose the height difference in the 2D array grating between the first class of cell and the second class of cell.
However, given the same configuration as recited in claim 1, with a π phase difference (which corresponds to [Symbol font/0x6C]/2), it is evident from trigonometry that the height difference between the first class of cell and the second class of cell is λ/2(n-1);
wherein, λ is a target wavelength, n is a refractive index of the 2D array grating at the target wavelength.
Claim 13: Finnie is silent with respect to an antireflection film coating on one surface facing toward an incident light of the 2D array grating.
Stepanov, however, discloses increasing contrast in the reflection coefficients between the individual elements of the 2D array grating [0043].
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 Finnie’s 2D array grating with an antireflection film coating on one surface for the purpose of increasing contrast to thus improve diffraction efficiency (Stepanov [0043]).
Claim 14: Finnie does not explicitly disclose a distance between the diffraction element and the imaging detector.
However, Applicant has not provided any criticality for the distance between the diffraction element and the imaging detector to be within the range of 1mm - 5cm. “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)).
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 Finnie’s device to set a certain distance between the diffraction element and the imaging detector, such as within the range of 1mm - 5cm, for the purpose of creating a compact setup to achieve desired results.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finnie, in view of Zhao and Stepanov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (US 2007/0229848), hereinafter Yamamoto.
Claim 2: Finnie silent with respect to a wafer-level optical element and a displacement platform.
Yamamoto, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical measurement apparatus, discloses a phase-detection device (1, Fig. 1) for an optical element (40), wherein, along the direction of the optical path, the phase-detection device (1) comprises: a light source (12) and an imaging detector (130) [0044,0046];
wherein the optical element (40) is a wafer-level optical element [0042] and the phase detection device (1) comprises: a displacement platform (45), and the displacement platform (45) comprise a carrier (“The wafer stage 45 supports the substrate 40 via a wafer chuck” [0041]);
the wafer-level optical element (40) comprises a plurality of sub-optical elements (alignment marks) [0042].
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 Finnie’s optical element to be a wafer-level optical element on a displacement platform for the purpose of inspecting all parts of the wafer to assess its finesse for use in semiconductor devices. It is evident, in Finnie’s modified device, that, when the wafer-level optical element (302) is mounted on the carrier, the wafer-level optical element (302) is set on the optical path between the filter (344) and the diffraction element (326) (evident from Fig. 3 of Finnie).
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
Prosecution Insights