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 .
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: “optical element” in claim 1-3 and 6-13.
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 § 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 9 and 13 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 9, lines 1-3 recites the limitation “that the secondary beams in a first of the one or more pairs have intensities that are different from intensities of the secondary beams in others of the one or more pairs” where the scope implies a configuration including a single pair of secondary beams, however, the limitation describes a comparison of intensities to other pairs of secondary beams. Therefore, it is not clear what the scope of the limitation is and whether the limitation is intended to include a single light beam pair configuration. For the purpose of this examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “that the secondary beams in a first of the two or more pairs have intensities that are different from intensities of the secondary beams in others of the two or more pairs”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3, 5-6, 10-12 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stallinga et al. (US 2010/0277580 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stallinga discloses a system configured for generating multiple light beams for illumination of a specimen (52), comprising:
an optical element (10) positioned in a path of a light beam (20) from a light source (40) of the system, wherein the optical element is configured for separating the light beam into a primary beam (22) and one or more pairs of secondary beams (24) (Fig. 1, 4-5; [0046]; [0048], lines 1-7), wherein the secondary beams in each of the one or more pairs are located on opposite sides of the primary beam (Fig. 4; [0049] – where the Examiner is considering one pair of secondary beams forming light spots 66 surrounding a primary beam forming light spot 64), respectively, and wherein the optical element is further configured such that the primary beam has a higher intensity than all of the secondary beams ([0022]; [0050]);
wherein focusing optics (34) of the system are configured for simultaneously focusing the primary beam and the secondary beams to different, spatially separated spots, respectively, in an imaging plane of the system (Fig. 1, 5; [0036]-[0037]; [0046], last 7 lines; [0048]; [0050], lines 14-16; see claims 2, 12-13 and 15); and
wherein the system is further configured for illuminating the specimen with the different, spatially separated spots in the imaging plane (Fig. 1, 5; [0036]-[0037]; [0046], last 7 lines; [0048]; [0050], lines 14-16; see claims 2, 12-13 and 15).
Regarding claim 2, Stallinga disclose the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the optical element is further configured such that light from the specimen due to illumination with the different, spatially separated spots corresponding to the primary beam and at least one of the secondary beams in said each of the one or more pairs located on at least one of the opposite sides of the primary beam is directed by the system to a field of view of a detector in the system (Fig. 4; [0015]; [0017], lines 10-15; [0022]; [0049]; see claim 15).
Regarding claim 3, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the optical element is further configured such that the one or more pairs have intensities that decrease as a distance between the one or more pairs and the primary beam increases (Fig. 4; [0022]; [0050], last 10 lines – where a single secondary beam pair, separated from the center of a primary beam by a distance, is disclosed as having a lower intensity than the primary beam).
Regarding claim 5, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the optical element is further configured such that the secondary beams are symmetrical to each other about the primary beam (see Fig. 4; [0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the optical element is further configured such that the secondary beams in at least one of the one or more pairs are spaced from the primary beam by substantially the same distance and opposite directions (see Fig. 4; [0049]).
Regarding claim 10, Stallinga discloses a system configured for determining information for a specimen, comprising:
a light source (40) configured for generating a light beam (20);
an optical element (10) positioned in a path of the light beam, wherein the optical element is configured for separating the light beam into a primary beam (22) and one or more pairs of secondary beams (24) (Fig. 1, 4-5; [0046]; [0048], lines 1-7), wherein the secondary beams in each of the one or more pairs are located on opposite sides of the primary beam (Fig. 4; [0049] – where the Examiner is considering one pair of secondary beams forming light spots 66 surrounding a primary beam forming light spot 64), respectively, and wherein the optical element is further configured such that the primary beam has a higher intensity than all of the secondary beams ([0022]; [0050]);
focusing optics (34) configured for simultaneously focusing the primary beam and the secondary beams to different, spatially separated spots, respectively, in an imaging plane at the specimen (Fig. 1, 5; [0036]-[0037]; [0046], last 7 lines; [0048]; [0050], lines 14-16; see claims 2, 12-13 and 15);
a detector (36) configured for separately and simultaneously detecting light from the different, spatially separated spots and generating different outputs responsive thereto (Fig. 1, [0036]-[0038]; [0046]); and
a computer subsystem (38, 62) configured for determining information for the specimen from the different outputs generated by the detector (Fig. 1, [0036]-[0038]; [0046]).
Regarding claim 11, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the optical element is further configured such that the light from the different, spatially separated spots corresponding to the primary beam and at least one of the secondary beams in said each of the one or more pairs located on at least one of the opposite sides of the primary beam is separately and simultaneously detected by the detector (Fig. 1, 5; [0036]-[0037]; [0046], last 7 lines; [0048]; [0050], lines 14-16; see claims 2, 12-13 and 15).
Regarding claim 12, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the optical element is further configured such that the one or more pairs have intensities that decrease as a distance between the one or more pairs and the primary beam increases (Fig. 4; [0022]; [0050], last 10 lines – where a single secondary beam pair, separated from the center of a primary beam by a distance, is disclosed as having a lower intensity than the primary beam).
Regarding claim 18, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein a dynamic range of the system is defined by a highest sensitivity achieved with the primary beam to a lowest sensitivity achieved with one of the secondary beams having a lowest intensity ([0022]).
Regarding claim 19, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 10, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein a dynamic range of the system achieved by using only the primary beam or only one of the secondary beams in the one or more pairs for determining the information for the specimen is greater than a dynamic range of the system using only the light beam for determining the information for the specimen ([0022]).
Claim(s) 4, 7-8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stallinga et al. (US 2010/0277580 A1) in view of Kadkly et al. (US 7385688 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the primary beam and each of the secondary beams are arranged in a one-dimensional array.
However, Kadkly, in the same field of endeavor of multi-spot illumination and inspection systems, discloses an illumination system wherein a primary beam and each secondary beam are arranged in a one-dimensional array (Fig. 2; Col. 9, lines 39-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to limit the illumination configuration to a one-dimensional or linear array of beams simplifying the illumination and detection systems needed while still uniform sampling the specimen surface.
Regarding claim 7, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical element is further configured such that each of the secondary beams in at least one of the one or more pairs has substantially the same intensity.
However, Kadkly discloses wherein an optical element (14) is further configured such that each secondary beam in at least one of a one or more pairs has substantially the same intensity (Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 43-60; see claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stallinga with a system where light beams have the same intensity providing a relatively simple and practical optical system where uniform illumination improves the overall efficiency in the defect inspection process (Kadkly: Col. 13, line 65 – Col. 14, line 11).
Regarding claim 8, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose and further discloses wherein the optical element is further configured such that each of the secondary beams in said each of the one or more pairs has substantially the same intensity.
However, Kadkly discloses wherein an optical element (14) is further configured such that each secondary beam in said each of one or more pairs has substantially the same intensity. (Kadkly: Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 43-60; see claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stallinga with a system where light beams have the same intensity providing a relatively simple and practical optical system where uniform illumination improves the overall efficiency in the defect inspection process (Kadkly: Col. 13, line 65 – Col. 14, line 11).
Regarding claim 20, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 10, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the information for the specimen comprises detecting defects on the specimen based on the different outputs generated by the detector.
However, Kadkly discloses a system wherein determining information for a specimen comprises detecting defects on the specimen based on the different outputs generated by a detector (64) (Fig. 9; Col. 9, lines 28-38; Col. 15, lines 4-8; Col. 18, lines 12-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stallinga in view of Kadkly with a system which is able to detect defects, increasing the overall functionality of the measurement system.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stallinga et al. (US 2010/0277580 A1) in view of Kitamura et al. (EP 0990927 A2).
Regarding claim 9, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical element is further configured such that the secondary beams in a first of the two or more pairs have intensities that are different from intensities of the secondary beams in others of the two or more pairs.
However, Kitamura, in the field of endeavor of optical beam generating and detection systems and methods, discloses a system wherein an optical element (diffraction grating) is further configured such that secondary beams in a first of the two or more pairs have intensities that are different from intensities of the secondary beams in others of the two or more pairs (Fig. 16-19; [0034]; [0116]-[0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stallinga with Kitamura’s optical element where the motivation would be to increase the number of spots used for calibrating the measurement system while keeping wavefront aberration low, limiting spot size and jitter characteristics, increasing the overall precision of the measurement system (Kitamura: [0034]-[0035]; [0080]).
Regarding claim 13, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 10, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical element is further configured such that the secondary beams in a first of the two or more pairs have intensities that are different from intensities of the secondary beams in others of the two or more pairs.
However, Kitamura, in the field of endeavor of optical beam generating and detection systems and methods, discloses a system wherein an optical element (diffraction grating) is further configured such that secondary beams in a first of the two or more pairs have intensities that are different from intensities of the secondary beams in others of the two or more pairs (Fig. 16-19; [0034]; [0116]-[0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stallinga with Kitamura’s optical element where the motivation would be to increase the number of spots used for calibrating the measurement system while keeping wavefront aberration low, limiting spot size and jitter characteristics, increasing the overall precision of the measurement system (Kitamura: [0034]-[0035]; [0080]).
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stallinga et al. (US 2010/0277580 A1) in view of Wolters et al. (US 8134698 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 10, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the computer subsystem is further configured for determining the information by determining if a first of the different outputs responsive to the light from one of the different, spatially separated spots illuminated by the primary beam is saturated and when the first of the different outputs is not saturated, determining the information for the specimen from only the first of the different outputs.
However, Wolters, in the same field of endeavor of multi-spot illumination and inspection systems, discloses wherein a computer subsystem (24) is further configured for determining information by determining if a first of different outputs responsive to light from one of the different, spatially separated spots illuminated by a primary beam is saturated and when a first of the different outputs is not saturated, determining the information for a specimen from only the first of the different outputs (Fig. 1; Abstract; Col. 9, line 37 – Col. 10, line 24; Col. 4, line 56 – Col. 5, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stallinga with a system which is responsive to saturation of a detection subsystem caused by one or more light beams, where information from such signals characterizing a specimen being analyzed would otherwise be lost. The motivation for the modification would be to improve the overall accuracy and sensitivity of the measurement system.
Regarding claim 15, Stallinga in view of Wolters discloses the system of claim 14, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein when the first of the different outputs is saturated, the computer subsystem is further configured for determining if a second of the different outputs responsive to the light from a second of the different, spatially separated spots illuminated by one of the secondary beams closest to the primary beam is saturated and when the second of the different outputs is not saturated, determining the information for the specimen from only the second of the different outputs (Wolters: Abstract; Col. 9, line 37 – Col. 10, line 24; Col. 4, line 56 – Col. 5, line 6).
Regarding claim 16, Stallinga discloses the system of claim 10, as outlined above, but does not disclose wherein the computer subsystem is further configured for determining the information by identifying one or more of the different outputs responsive to the light from the different, spatially separated spots that are not saturated and selecting one of the one or more identified different outputs having a highest intensity among the one or more identified different outputs as the only output used for determining the information for the specimen.
However, Wolters discloses wherein a computer subsystem (24) is further configured for determining the information by identifying one or more of the different outputs responsive to the light from the different, spatially separated spots that are not saturated and selecting one of the one or more identified different outputs having a highest intensity among the one or more identified different outputs as the only output used for determining the information for the specimen (Fig. 1; Abstract; Col. 9, line 37 – Col. 10, line 24; Col. 4, line 56 – Col. 5, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Stallinga with a system which is responsive to saturation of a detection subsystem caused by one or more light beams, where information from such signals characterizing a specimen being analyzed would otherwise be lost. The motivation for the modification would be to improve the overall accuracy and sensitivity of the measurement system.
Regarding claim 17, Stallinga in view of Wolters discloses the system of claim 16, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the computer subsystem is further configured for determining the information from an entirety of the selected one of the one or more identified different outputs (Stallinga: [0038]; [0046], last 7 lines; [0054]; see claim 15; Col. 4, line 56 – Col. 5, line 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER YAZBACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/MAHER YAZBACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights