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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/6/2025; 10/01/2025; 12/31/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the claims recite "determining a Jones matrix of the sample at one or more pixels" which should read "determining a Jones matrix of the sample at the one or more pixels" similar to claim 2. The examiner notes that entire phrase "the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera is used to extract structural information for the sample" is considered to have antecedent basis from claims 1 and 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a means for generating one or more path length differences “ in claim 21 and “a means for modulating a phase of the interference illumination or modulating the narrow band illumination beam” in claim 23.
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.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “a means for generating one or more path length differences” which uses the generic placeholder “means for” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “a means for generating one or more path length differences” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a reference mirror, objective lens, or equivalent ([0105]).
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “a means for modulating a phase of the interference illumination or modulating the narrow band illumination beam” which uses the generic placeholder “means for” 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. Accordingly, the limitation on “a means for modulating a phase of the interference illumination or modulating the narrow band illumination beam” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to modulator, moving mirror, or equivalent ([0112]; [0113] moving the reference mirror performs the function and acts as a modulator).
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.
Claim 24 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.
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites “a moving reference surface” in line 1. It is unclear if this is the same “reference surface” recited in claim 14 line 7. Based on the specification and claim 11 lines 2-3, it appears the reference surface of claim 14 is the same reference surface as the “moving reference surface” in claim 24. The examiner is unsure if the claim was intended to read “moving the reference surface”. For the purposes of examination, “a moving reference surface” is interpreted to optionally be the same as “the reference surface” in claim 14. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-11, 13-19, 23-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180156597A1 by Smith et al. (cited in the IDS as US10288408A1; hereinafter "Smith") in view of US20090073456A1 by Wax et al. (cited in the IDS; hereinafter "Wax").
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a method of characterizing a sample ([0034], [0035] sample 110) with an interferometer (at least Fig. 1 and 9), the method comprising:
generating illumination beam with a plurality of wavelengths ([0035] broadband light source 130; [0036] plurality of wavelengths);
generating interference illumination with an interferometric objective ([0039] interferometric objective 140) from the illumination beam that comprises reference illumination that is incident on and reflected by a reference surface ([0039] reference beam, reference surface) and sample illumination that is incident on and reflected by the sample ([0039] probe beam) and generating interference of the interference illumination by recombining reflected sample illumination and reflected reference illumination ([0039] recombined to allow interference);
using at least one polarizing element (polarizer 138; [0035]) to generate one or more polarization states in the sample illumination and to generate one or more polarization states in the reference illumination ([0045] the reflected beam which contains both sample and reference illumination passes through the polarizer);
capturing images with at least one camera at a back focal plane of the interferometric objective ([0044] back focal plane; [0045] camera 160; see applicants paragraph 26 Fig. 1) and to produce interferometric data for each polarization state ([0055] interferometric data obtained from the camera 160); and
using the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera to extract structural information for the sample ([0055] computer 170 may analyze the interferometric data to determine one or more physical characteristics of the sample 110; [0063] pixels on camera).
Smith does not explicitly teach generating a narrow band illumination beam with a peak wavelength that is varied over a plurality of wavelengths, generating interference illumination with an interferometric objective from the narrow band illumination beam, using at least one polarizing element to generate one or more polarization states in the sample illumination at each peak wavelength and to generate one or more polarization states in the reference illumination at each peak wavelength, interferometric data for each combination of peak wavelength and polarization state in this embodiment.
However, Smith does teach the light source may include an ability to select an array of narrower bands through the use of filters, spectrographs, or other means ([0036]). Additionally, Smith teaches the use of a plurality of peak wavelengths ([0063]; Fig. 5A, Fig. 16).
Further, Wax does address this limitation. Wax and Smith are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of interferometry.
Wax teaches generating a narrow band illumination beam with a peak wavelength that is varied over a plurality of wavelengths and generating interference illumination with an interferometric objective from the narrow band illumination beam ([0044] swept-source light source is used to generate a reference signal and a signal directed towards a sample, the light source is controlled or varied to sweep the center wavelength of a narrow band of emitted light over a given range of wavelengths). Further, Wax teaches, in a separate embodiment, that sample and reference illumination from the swept light source can be polarized ([0070]; Fig. 6b).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a swept light source to generate narrow band illumination with a varying peak wavelength. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to replace the light source with a swept-source light source for generating a narrow band illumination beam with a peak wavelength that is varied over a plurality of wavelengths such that the interference illumination is generated from the narrow band illumination beam, polarization states in the sample and reference illumination are generated for each peak wavelength, and interferometric data is produced for each combination of peak wavelength and polarization state as suggested by Wax in order to provide more robust data that is spectrally-resolved ([0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Smith modified by Wax teaches the method of claim 1, and Smith further teaches wherein the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera is used to extract structural information for the sample by determining a reflectance of the sample at the one or more pixels and at each peak wavelength ([0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle).
Regarding claim 3, Smith modified by Wax teaches the method of claim 1, and Smith further teaches wherein the interferometric data comprises intensity with respect to wavelength for each pixel ([0068] optical intensity at each pixel), and wherein determining the reflectance of the sample comprises:
extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination that is reflected by the sample, the complex reflectance being a function of azimuth angle and angle of incidence ([0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle); and
determining one or more characteristics of the sample ([0055] may analyze the interferometric data to determine one or more physical characteristics of the sample 110) based on the complex reflectance ([0072]An electric field with complex parameters is extracted from the interferometric data, the electric field being a function of azimuth angle, angle of incidence and wavelength (204)).
Regarding claim 4, Smith modified by Wax teaches the method of claim 1, and Smith further teaches wherein the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera is used to extract structural information for the sample by determining a Jones matrix of the sample at one or more pixels and at each peak wavelength ([0073] electric field model may be represented as a generalized Jones matrix; [0081]; [0093]).
Regarding claim 5, Smith modified by Wax teaches the method of claim 1, and Smith further teaches wherein the at least one polarizing element comprises a first polarizing element in a beam path of the narrow band illumination beam (polarizer 138; [0035]).
Although Smith does not explicitly teach a second polarizing element in a beam path of the reference illumination in the embodiment of claim 1, Smith teaches possible configurations include two polarizers with one at the input to the sample objective and the other at the input to the reference objective ([0049]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a separate polarization for each beam. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to include a second polarizing element in a beam path of the reference illumination as it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. One would use a second polarizer in order to make the device more adjustable and robust.
Regarding claim 6, Smith modified by Wax teaches the method of claim 1, and Smith further teaches wherein the at least one polarizing element comprises a first polarizing element in a beam path of the narrow band illumination beam (polarizer 138; [0035]).
Regarding claim 10, Smith modified by Wax teaches the method of claim 1, and Smith further teaches wherein producing the interferometric data comprises modulating a phase of the interference illumination or modulating the narrow band illumination beam to modulate the phase of the interference illumination ([0043] the path difference may be varied by moving a reference mirror in a direction perpendicular to the vertical direction; [0059]; changing path difference modulates phase of the interference illumination, see claim 11) and extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on modulating the phase of the interference illumination ([0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle; [0072]).
Regarding claim 11, Smith modified by Wax teaches the method of claim 1, and Smith further teaches further comprising generating two or more path length differences between the reference illumination and the sample illumination by moving the reference surface to modulate a phase of the interference illumination ([0043] the path difference may be varied by moving a reference mirror in a direction perpendicular to the vertical direction; [0059]) and extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on modulating the phase of the interference illumination ([0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle; [0072]).
Regarding claim 13, Smith modified by Wax teaches the method of claim 1, and although Smith teaches the peak wavelength for the Fourier transform ([0129]-[0130]), Smith does not explicitly teach wherein generating the narrow band illumination beam with a peak wavelength that varies over the plurality of wavelengths comprising selecting the peak wavelengths of the narrow band illumination beam based on properties of the sample.
However, Wax does address this limitation.
Wax teaches the light is emitted in particular wavelengths or narrower ranges of wavelengths during emission, scattered light returned from the sample is known to be in response to a particular wavelength or range of wavelengths ([0044]). Further, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A.
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the wavelength to correspond with the sample. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to include wherein generating the narrow band illumination beam with a peak wavelength that varies over the plurality of wavelengths comprising selecting the peak wavelengths of the narrow band illumination beam based on properties of the sample as suggested by Wax in order to efficiently analyze a specific sample.
Regarding claim 14, Smith teaches an interferometer (at least Fig. 1 and 9) configured to characterize a sample ([0034] sample 110), the interferometer comprising:
a light source that generates an illumination beam with a plurality of wavelengths ([0035] broadband light source 130; [0036] plurality of wavelengths);
an interferometric objective ([0039] interferometric objective 140) that generates interference illumination from illumination beam that comprises reference illumination that is incident on and reflected by a reference surface ([0039] reference beam, reference surface) and sample illumination ([0039] probe beam) that is incident on and reflected by the sample and that generates interference of the interference illumination by recombining reflected sample illumination and reflected reference illumination ([0039] recombined to allow interference);
at least one polarizing element (polarizer 138; [0035]) that generates one or more polarization states in the sample illumination at each peak wavelength and generates one or more polarization states in the reference illumination ([0045] the reflected beam which contains both sample and reference illumination passes through the polarizer);
at least one camera that captures images at a back focal plane of the interferometric objective ([0044] back focal plane; [0045] camera 160; see applicants paragraph 26 Fig. 1) to produce interferometric data for each and polarization state ([0055] interferometric data obtained from the camera 160); and
at least one processor ([0055] computer 170, which includes at least one processor 172) that extracts structural information for the sample using the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera ([0055] computer 170 may analyze the interferometric data to determine one or more physical characteristics of the sample 110; [0063] pixels on camera).
Smith does not explicitly teach the light source generates a narrow band illumination beam with a peak wavelength that is varied over a plurality of wavelengths, generating interference illumination with an interferometric objective from the narrow band illumination beam, using at least one polarizing element to generate one or more polarization states in the sample illumination at each peak wavelength and to generate one or more polarization states in the reference illumination at each peak wavelength, interferometric data for each combination of peak wavelength and polarization state in this embodiment.
However, Smith does teach the light source may include an ability to select an array of narrower bands through the use of filters, spectrographs, or other means ([0036]). Additionally, Smith teaches the use of a plurality of peak wavelengths ([0063]; Fig. 5A, Fig. 16).
Further, Wax does address this limitation. Wax and Smith are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of interferometry.
Wax teaches a light source generating a narrow band illumination beam with a peak wavelength that is varied over a plurality of wavelengths and generating interference illumination with an interferometric objective from the narrow band illumination beam ([0044] swept-source light source is used to generate a reference signal and a signal directed towards a sample, the light source is controlled or varied to sweep the center wavelength of a narrow band of emitted light over a given range of wavelengths). Further, Wax teaches, in a separate embodiment, that sample and reference illumination from the swept light source can be polarized ([0070]; Fig. 6b).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a swept light source to generate narrow band illumination with a varying peak wavelength. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to replace the light source with a swept-source light source for generating a narrow band illumination beam with a peak wavelength that is varied over a plurality of wavelengths such that the interference illumination is generated from the narrow band illumination beam, polarization states in the sample and reference illumination are generated for each peak wavelength, and interferometric data is produced for each combination of peak wavelength and polarization state as suggested by Wax in order to provide more robust data that is spectrally-resolved ([0044]).
Regarding claim 15, Smith modified by Wax teaches the interferometer of claim 14, and Smith further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to use the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera to extract structural information for the sample by determining a reflectance of the sample at the one or more pixels and at each peak wavelength ([0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle).
Regarding claim 16, Smith modified by Wax teaches the interferometer of claim 15, and Smith further teaches wherein the interferometric data comprises intensity with respect to wavelength for each pixel ([0068] optical intensity at each pixel), and wherein the at least one processor is configured to use the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera to extract structural information for the sample by being configured to:
extract a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination that is reflected by the sample, the complex reflectance being a function of azimuth angle and angle of incidence ([0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle); and
determine one or more characteristics of the sample ([0055] may analyze the interferometric data to determine one or more physical characteristics of the sample 110) based on the complex reflectance ([0072]An electric field with complex parameters is extracted from the interferometric data, the electric field being a function of azimuth angle, angle of incidence and wavelength (204)).
Regarding claim 17, Smith modified by Wax teaches the interferometer of claim 14, and Smith further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to use the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera to extract structural information for the sample by determining a Jones matrix of the sample at one or more pixels and at each peak wavelength ([0073] electric field model may be represented as a generalized Jones matrix; [0081]; [0093]).
Regarding claim 18, Smith modified by Wax teaches the interferometer of claim 14, and Smith further teaches wherein the at least one polarizing element comprises a first polarizing element in a beam path of the sample illumination (polarizer 138; [0035]).
Although Smith does not explicitly teach a second polarizing element in a beam path of the reference illumination in the embodiment of claim 1, Smith teaches possible configurations include two polarizers with one at the input to the sample objective and the other at the input to the reference objective ([0049]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a separate polarization for each beam. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to include a second polarizing element in a beam path of the reference illumination as it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. One would use a second polarizer in order to make the device more adjustable and robust.
Regarding claim 19, Smith modified by Wax teaches the interferometer of claim 14, and Smith further teaches wherein the at least one polarizing element comprises a first polarizing element in a beam path of the narrow band illumination beam (polarizer 138; [0035]).
Regarding claim 23, Smith modified by Wax teaches the interferometer of claim 14, and Smith further teaches further comprising a means for modulating a phase of the interference illumination or modulating the narrow band illumination beam to modulate the phase of the interference illumination ([0043] the path difference may be varied by moving a reference mirror in a direction perpendicular to the vertical direction; [0059]; changing path difference modulates phase of the interference illumination, see claim 11) and the at least one processor is configured to use the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera by extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on modulating the phase of the interference illumination ([0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle; [0072]).
Regarding claim 24, Smith modified by Wax teaches the interferometer of claim 14, and Smith further teaches further comprising a moving reference surface to generate two or more path length differences between the reference illumination and the sample illumination at each peak wavelength to modulate a phase of the interference illumination ([0043] the path difference may be varied by moving a reference mirror in a direction perpendicular to the vertical direction; [0059]) and the at least one processor is configured to use the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera by extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on modulating the phase of the interference illumination ([0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle; [0072]).
Regarding claim 26, Smith modified by Wax teaches the interferometer of claim 14, and although Smith teaches the peak wavelength for the Fourier transform ([0129]-[0130]), Smith does not explicitly teach wherein the light source generates the narrow band illumination beam with a peak wavelength that varies over the plurality of wavelengths by being controlled to select the peak wavelengths of the narrow band illumination beam based on properties of the sample.
However, Wax does address this limitation.
Wax teaches the light is emitted in particular wavelengths or narrower ranges of wavelengths during emission, scattered light returned from the sample is known to be in response to a particular wavelength or range of wavelengths ([0044]). Further, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A.
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the wavelength to correspond with the sample. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to include wherein the light source generates the narrow band illumination beam with a peak wavelength that varies over the plurality of wavelengths by being controlled to select the peak wavelengths of the narrow band illumination beam based on properties of the sample as suggested by Wax in order to efficiently analyze a specific sample.
Claim 7-9 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Wax as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US 20210088453 A1 by Smith et al. (hereinafter "Smith '21").
Regarding claim 7, Smith modified by Wax teaches the method of claim 1, and Smith further teaches wherein producing the interferometric data comprises:
capturing the interference illumination with the at least one camera at a plurality of polarization states at each pixel ([0049] camera 160 captures polarized light; Each polarizer 138, 158 may have the ability to rotate either continuously or in increments of 90°) ; and
extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on the interference illumination captured at a plurality of polarization states at each pixel ([0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle; [0072]).
Although Smith teaches the polarizer may be a circular polarizer ([0035]), Smith is silent as to wherein producing the interferometric data comprises: circularly polarizing the sample illumination with the at least one polarizing element; circularly polarizing the reference illumination with the at least one polarizing element, wherein the sample illumination and the reference illumination are circularly polarized in opposite directions.
However, Smith ’21 does address this limitation. Smith ’21 and Smith are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of interferometry.
Smith '21 teaches producing the interferometric data ([0038] data) comprises: circularly polarizing the sample illumination with the at least one polarizing element ([0031]; quarter wave plate 153; p-polarized sample illumination from the sample 140 is converted into right-hand circular polarization); circularly polarizing the reference illumination with the at least one polarizing element ([0031] s-polarized reference illumination from the reference mirror 138 is converted into left hand circular polarization, wherein the sample illumination and the reference illumination are circularly polarized in opposite directions ([0031]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use circularly polarized light to perform interferometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to include wherein producing the interferometric data comprises: circularly polarizing the sample illumination with the at least one polarizing element; circularly polarizing the reference illumination with the at least one polarizing element, wherein the sample illumination and the reference illumination are circularly polarized in opposite directions as suggested by Smith '21 in order to reduce the impact of sample surface polarization ([0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Smith modified by Wax teaches the method of claim 1, and Smith further teaches wherein producing the interferometric data comprises:
generating two or more path length differences between the reference illumination and the sample illumination at each peak wavelength ([0043] the path difference may be varied by moving a reference mirror in a direction perpendicular to the vertical direction; [0059]);
capturing the interference illumination with at least one camera at the two or more path length differences between the reference illumination and the sample illumination ([0049] camera 160; [0059] As the system varies the path difference, e.g., scanning optical system 101 along the Z axis, a series of images are captured by the camera 160.) ; and
extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on the interference illumination captured at the two or more path length differences between the reference illumination and the sample illumination ([0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle; [0072]).
Although Smith teaches the polarizer may be a circular polarizer ([0035]), Smith is silent as to wherein producing the interferometric data comprises: circularly polarizing the sample illumination with the at least one polarizing element; circularly polarizing the reference illumination with the at least one polarizing element, wherein the sample illumination and the reference illumination are circularly polarized in opposite directions.
However, Smith ’21 does address this limitation. Smith ’21 and Smith are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of interferometry.
Smith '21 teaches producing the interferometric data ([0038] data) comprises: circularly polarizing the sample illumination with the at least one polarizing element ([0031]; quarter wave plate 153; p-polarized sample illumination from the sample 140 is converted into right-hand circular polarization); circularly polarizing the reference illumination with the at least one polarizing element ([0031] s-polarized reference illumination from the reference mirror 138 is converted into left hand circular polarization), wherein the sample illumination and the reference illumination are circularly polarized in opposite directions ([0031]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use circularly polarized light to perform interferometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to include wherein producing the interferometric data comprises: circularly polarizing the sample illumination with the at least one polarizing element; circularly polarizing the reference illumination with the at least one polarizing element, wherein the sample illumination and the reference illumination are circularly polarized in opposite directions as suggested by Smith '21 in order to reduce the impact of sample surface polarization ([0020]).
Regarding claim 9, Smith modified by Wax teaches the method of claim 1, and Smith further teaches wherein producing the interferometric data comprises
linearly polarizing the sample illumination with the at least one polarizing element ([0035] polarizer 138 may be linear, sample illumination passes through it);
linearly polarizing the reference illumination with the at least one polarizing element ([0035] polarizer 138 may be linear, reference illumination passes through it);
capturing the interference illumination with the at least one camera that captures the interference illumination at a plurality of polarization states at each pixel ([0049] camera 160 captures polarized light; Each polarizer 138, 158 may have the ability to rotate either continuously or in increments of 90°.); and
extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on the interference illumination captured at the plurality of polarization states at each pixel ([0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle; [0072]).
Smith does not explicitly teach wherein polarization states of the sample illumination and the reference illumination are orthogonal.
However, Smith ’21 does address this limitation. Smith ’21 and Smith are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of interferometry.
Smith '21 teaches wherein polarization states of the sample illumination and the reference illumination are orthogonal ([0031] orthogonally polarized beams; [0026])
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use orthogonal polarizations for interferometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to include wherein polarization states of the sample illumination and the reference illumination are orthogonal as suggested by Smith '21 in order to in order to improve the measurement by maximizing fringe contrast ([0025]).
Regarding claim 20, Smith modified by Wax teaches the interferometer of claim 14, and Smith further teaches wherein:
the at least one camera captures the interference illumination with the at least one camera at a plurality of polarization states at each pixel ([0049] camera 160 captures polarized light; Each polarizer 138, 158 may have the ability to rotate either continuously or in increments of 90°) ; and
the at least one processor ([0009]) is configured to use the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera by extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on the interference illumination captured at a plurality of polarization states at each pixel ([0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle; [0072]).
Although Smith teaches the polarizer may be a circular polarizer ([0035]), Smith is silent as to wherein the at least one polarizing element is configured to circularly polarize the sample illumination; and the at least one polarizing element is further configured to circularly polarize the reference illumination, wherein the sample illumination and the reference illumination are circularly polarized in opposite directions.
However, Smith ’21 does address this limitation. Smith ’21 and Smith are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of interferometry.
Smith '21 teaches wherein the at least one polarizing element is configured to circularly polarize the sample illumination([0031]; quarter wave plate 153; p-polarized sample illumination from the sample 140 is converted into right-hand circular polarization); and the at least one polarizing element is further configured to circularly polarize the reference illumination([0031] s-polarized reference illumination from the reference mirror 138 is converted into left hand circular polarization), wherein the sample illumination and the reference illumination are circularly polarized in opposite directions ([0031]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use circularly polarized light to perform interferometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to include wherein the at least one polarizing element is configured to circularly polarize the sample illumination; and the at least one polarizing element is further configured to circularly polarize the reference illumination, wherein the sample illumination and the reference illumination are circularly polarized in opposite directions as suggested by Smith '21 in order to reduce the impact of sample surface polarization ([0020]).
Regarding claim 21, Smith modified by Wax teaches the interferometer of claim 14, and Smith further teaches wherein further comprising a means for generating one or more path length differences between the reference illumination and the sample illumination at each peak wavelength ([0043] the path difference may be varied by moving a reference mirror in a direction perpendicular to the vertical direction; [0059]), wherein:
the at least one camera captures the interference illumination at two or more path length differences between the reference illumination and the sample illumination ([0049] camera 160; [0059] As the system varies the path difference, e.g., scanning optical system 101 along the Z axis, a series of images are captured by the camera 160.) ; and
the at least one processor ([0009]) is configured to use the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera by extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on the interference illumination captured at the two or more path length differences between the reference illumination and the sample illumination. ([0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle; [0072]).
Smith is silent as to wherein: the at least one polarizing element is configured to circularly polarize the sample illumination; and the at least one polarizing element is further configured to circularly polarize the reference illumination, wherein the sample illumination and the reference illumination are circularly polarized in opposite directions.
However, Smith ’21 does address this limitation. Smith ’21 and Smith are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of interferometry.
Smith '21 teaches wherein the at least one polarizing element is configured to circularly polarize the sample illumination([0031]; quarter wave plate 153; p-polarized sample illumination from the sample 140 is converted into right-hand circular polarization); and the at least one polarizing element is further configured to circularly polarize the reference illumination([0031] s-polarized reference illumination from the reference mirror 138 is converted into left hand circular polarization), wherein the sample illumination and the reference illumination are circularly polarized in opposite directions ([0031]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use circularly polarized light to perform interferometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to include wherein the at least one polarizing element is configured to circularly polarize the sample illumination; and the at least one polarizing element is further configured to circularly polarize the reference illumination, wherein the sample illumination and the reference illumination are circularly polarized in opposite directions as suggested by Smith '21 in order to reduce the impact of sample surface polarization ([0020]).
Regarding claim 22, Smith modified by Wax teaches the interferometer of claim 14, and Smith further teaches the at least one polarizing element is configured to linearly polarize the sample illumination ([0035] polarizer 138 may be linear, sample illumination passes through it;
the at least one polarizing element is configured to linearly polarize the reference illumination ([0035] polarizer 138 may be linear, reference illumination passes through it),
the at least one camera captures the interference illumination at plurality of polarization states at each pixel; and
the at least one processor is configured to use the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera by extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on the interference illumination captured at the plurality of polarization states at each pixel ([0049] camera 160 captures polarized light; Each polarizer 138, 158 may have the ability to rotate either continuously or in increments of 90°; [0037] the reflectance of a sample will be measured as a function of wavelength, angle of incidence and azimuth angle; [0072]).
Smith does not explicitly teach wherein polarization states of the sample illumination and the reference illumination are orthogonal.
However, Smith ’21 does address this limitation. Smith ’21 and Smith are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of interferometry.
Smith '21 teaches wherein polarization states of the sample illumination and the reference illumination are orthogonal ([0031] orthogonally polarized beams; [0026])
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use orthogonal polarizations for interferometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to include wherein polarization states of the sample illumination and the reference illumination are orthogonal as suggested by Smith '21 in order to in order to improve the measurement by maximizing fringe contrast ([0025]).
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Wax as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US20120140235A1 by Lee et al. (cited in the IDS; "hereinafter "Lee") and US20170016835A1 by Barak et al. (hereinafter "Barak").
Regarding claim 12, Smith modified by Wax teaches the method of claim 1, but Smith does not explicitly teach wherein producing the interferometric data comprises: blocking illumination directed to the reference surface with a shutter; capturing images with the at least one camera of the back focal plane of the interferometric objective for only the sample illumination when the shutter blocks illumination directed to the reference surface; and extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on the imaged interference illumination and imaged reflected sample illumination.
However, Lee does address this limitation. Lee and Smith are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of interferometry.
Lee teaches wherein producing the interferometric data comprises:
blocking illumination directed to the reference surface with a shutter ([0025] blocking reference beam; the use of a shutter is implied);
capturing images with the at least one camera images only the sample illumination when the shutter blocks illumination directed to the reference surface ([0025]; [0023]); and
extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on the imaged interference illumination and imaged reflected sample illumination ([0023] reflectance R can be measured by comparing the detected intensity between the test sample and a reference specimen when the reference arm is blocked; [0025] measures reflectance and phase).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a measurement when blocking the reference beam to imaging a sample. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to include wherein producing the interferometric data comprises: blocking illumination directed to the reference surface with a shutter; capturing images with the at least one camera of the back focal plane of the interferometric objective for only the sample illumination when the shutter blocks illumination directed to the reference surface; and extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on the imaged interference illumination and imaged reflected sample illumination as suggested by Lee in order to measure the reflectance of a sample that is unknown ([0025]).
Even arguendo Lee does not explicitly teach the illumination is blocked with a shutter, Barak does address this limitation. Barak, Lee, and Smith are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of interferometry.
Barak teaches the use of a shutter to block light to a reference mirror ([0057] when the mirror 28 is not used (i.e. is moved out of the optical path of incident light or is inactivated by the use of an appropriate shutter)).
Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith to include a shutter as suggested by Barak in order to efficiently block illumination when acting in another mode of operation ([0057]).
Regarding claim 25, Smith modified by Wax teaches the interferometer of claim 14, but Smith does not explicitly teach further comprising a shutter configured to block illumination directed to the reference surface, wherein: the at least one camera is configured to capture images of the back focal plane of the interferometric objective for only the sample illumination when the shutter blocks illumination directed to the reference surface; and the at least one processor is configured to use the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera by extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on the imaged interference illumination and imaged reflected sample illumination.
However, Lee does address this limitation. Lee and Smith are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of interferometry.
Lee teaches comprising a shutter configured to block illumination directed to the reference surface ([0025] blocking reference beam; the use of a shutter is implied), wherein:
the at least one camera is configured to capture images for only the sample illumination when the shutter blocks illumination directed to the reference surface ([0025]; [0023]); and
the at least one processor is configured to use the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera by extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on the imaged interference illumination and imaged reflected sample illumination ([0023] reflectance R can be measured by comparing the detected intensity between the test sample and a reference specimen when the reference arm is blocked; [0025] measures reflectance and phase).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a measurement when blocking the reference beam to imaging a sample. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Smith to include further comprising a shutter configured to block illumination directed to the reference surface, wherein: the at least one camera is configured to capture images of the back focal plane of the interferometric objective for only the sample illumination when the shutter blocks illumination directed to the reference surface; and the at least one processor is configured to use the interferometric data at one or more pixels of the at least one camera by extracting a complex reflectance between illumination that is incident on the sample and the reflected sample illumination from the sample based on the imaged interference illumination and imaged reflected sample illumination as suggested by Lee in order to measure the reflectance of a sample that is unknown ([0025]).
Even arguendo Lee does not explicitly teach the illumination is blocked with a shutter, Barak does address this limitation. Barak, Lee, and Smith are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of interferometry.
Barak teaches the use of a shutter to block light to a reference mirror ([0057] when the mirror 28 is not used (i.e. is moved out of the optical path of incident light or is inactivated by the use of an appropriate shutter)).
Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith to include a shutter as suggested by Barak in order to efficiently block illumination when acting in another mode of operation ([0057]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20220397392A1 by Courteville et al. teaches device and method for imaging and interferometry measurements which teaches means for toggling between the imaging configuration and the interferometry configuration which may comprise a blocking element for blocking or preventing the transmission of light in the reference arm of the interferometric device. Thus the reference arm is not illuminated by the at least one light source in the imaging configuration. This blocking element can be for example a mechanical or electrooptical shutter, or a means for modifying for example an alignment of an element such as a mirror of the reference arm ([0029]-[0030]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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 at 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 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights