CTNF 19/108,715 CTNF 97230 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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 second patterning device ” in claims 1, 10 and 16. “ a positioning apparatus ” in claim 10. “ an illumination system ” in claim 12 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 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 2, 3, 5, 17-18 and 21 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 2-3, 5 and 17-18: In claims 2-3, 5 and 17-18 , the phrases “ but otherwise being similar to the other phase stepping or phase scanning processes ” and “ similar to each other phase stepping or phase scanning process ” are indefinite because the term “ similar ” is a term of degree that does not inform a person of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty about the scope of the claim (Does similar mean that the additional phase stepping or phase scanning process is identical to the other phase stepping or phase scanning process, or can there be differences as long as they are “similar”?) and “ the other phase stepping or phase scanning processes ” lacks clear antecedent basis (what specifically does “the other phase stepping or phase scanning process” refer back to?). Regarding claim 21: Claim 21 recites “ at least the method of claim 4 ”. The phrase “ at least ” means “not less than” which indicates that the claimed “non-transitory computer-readable medium” is not limited to performing only the method of claim 4, but must perform claim 4’s method plus some additional unspecified method(s). However, claim 21 provides no guidance about what these additional methods are. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 6-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( a) (1 ) as being anticipated by Chong (WO 2019149468 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Chong (WO 2019149468 A1) teaches a method of determining one or more aberrations of a projection system ([0002]) , the method comprising: performing a phase stepping or phase scanning process ( [0008] ), the phase stepping or phase scanning process comprising: illuminating a first patterning device ( MA’, fig. 2 ) with illumination radiation ( [0075] ), wherein the first patterning device comprises a specular diffraction grating ( Chong discloses the diffraction grating is reflective ([00074]). The grating is specular because it sends light in specific known directions with specific known intensities as disclosed in [000128 ] ) arranged to form a plurality of first diffraction beams, the first diffraction beams being separated in a shearing direction ( [0101]-[0105] ); projecting, with the projection system, at least part of the plurality of first diffraction beams onto a sensor apparatus, the sensor apparatus comprising: a second patterning device arranged to receive the first diffraction beams from the projection system and to form a plurality of second diffraction beams from each of the first diffraction beams ( [0082], [0105], [110] ); and a radiation detector ( 23, fig. 2 ) arranged to receive at least a portion of the second diffraction beams ( [0110] ); and moving the first and/or second patterning device in the shearing direction such that an intensity of radiation received by each part of the radiation detector that receives radiation varies as a function of the movement in the shearing direction so as to form an oscillating signal ( [0039], [0122] ); and determining one or more aberrations of the projection system from the oscillating signals determined by each part of the radiation detector that receives radiation ( [0142], [0156] ). Regarding claim 2, Chong teaches the method of claim 1, comprising performing a plurality of phase stepping or phase scanning processes, each of the plurality of phase stepping or phase scanning processes being performed using a different illumination mode such that different parts of the radiation detector receive radiation during different ones of the plurality of phase stepping or phase scanning processes but otherwise being similar to the other phase stepping or phase scanning processes ( [0076] ); and wherein the determining one or more aberrations of the projection system comprises using the oscillating signals determined by each part of the radiation detector that receives radiation from any one of the plurality of phase stepping or phase scanning processes ( [0122] ). Regarding claim 6, Chong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the illumination radiation comprises extreme ultraviolet ( EUV ) radiation ( [0054] ). Regarding claim 7, Chong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first patterning device is provided on a fiducial or/and on a reticle ( [0054] a support structure MT is typically a reticle stage ). Regarding claim 8, Chong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the phase stepping or phase scanning process further comprises: illuminating the first patterning device with illumination radiation, wherein the first patterning device comprises a specular diffraction grating arranged to form a plurality of first diffraction beams, the first diffraction beams being separated in a second shearing direction ( [0075] , [0101]-[0105] , ; projecting, with the projection system, at least part of the plurality of first diffraction beams separated in the second shearing direction onto the sensor apparatus ( [0082], [0105], [110] ); and moving the first and/or second patterning device in the second shearing direction such that an intensity of radiation received by each part of the radiation detector that receives radiation varies as a function of the movement in the second shearing direction so as to form an oscillating signal ( [0039], [0087], ([0122]), fig. 2 ). Regarding claim 9, Chong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more aberrations of the projection system from the oscillating signals determined by each part of the radiation detector that receives radiation comprises equating a phase of a harmonic of the oscillating signal received by each part of the radiation detector that receives radiation to a sum of at least one difference in the aberration map between a pair of positions in a pupil plane of the projection system ( [0150] ). Regarding claim 10, Chong teaches a measurement system ( [0002] ) comprising: a first patterning device ( MA’, fig. 2 ) comprising a specular diffraction grating ( [0071], [0074], Chong discloses the diffraction grating is reflective ([00074]). The grating is specular because it sends light in specific known directions with specific known intensities as disclosed in [000128 ]); a sensor apparatus ( 21 ) comprising a second patterning device and a radiation detector ( [0039], [0082], fig. 2 ), the first patterning device and the sensor apparatus being positionable such that a projection system can form an image of the first patterning device on the second patterning device with illumination radiation and such that the radiation detector is arranged to receive the illumination radiation after it has passed via the second patterning device ( [0082], fig. 2 ); a positioning apparatus ( PW, fig. 2 ) configured to move the first patterning device and/or the sensor apparatus ( [0091] ); and a controller ( CN, fig. 2 ) configured to: control the positioning apparatus so as to move the first patterning device and/or the sensor apparatus in a shearing direction such that an intensity of radiation received by each part of the radiation detector varies as a function of the movement in the shearing direction so as to form an oscillating signal ( [0039], [0091] ); determine, from the radiation detector, a phase of a harmonic of the oscillating signal at a plurality of positions on the radiation detector ( [0039] ); and determine at least one coefficient that characterizes at least one aberration of the projection system from the phase of a harmonic of the oscillating signal at the plurality of positions on the radiation detector ( [0039] ) Regarding claim 12, Chong teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising an illumination system operable to illuminate the first patterning device with illumination radiation ( [0071] ). Regarding claim 13, Chong teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the illumination radiation comprises extreme ultraviolet radiation ( [0054] ). Regarding claim 14, Chong teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the first patterning device is provided on a fiducial or/and on a reticle ( [0054] a support structure MT is typically a reticle stage ). Regarding claim 15, Chong teaches a lithographic apparatus comprising the measurement system of claim 10 ( [0052], [0054] ). Regarding claim 16, Chong teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to at least: cause performance of a phase stepping or phase scanning process, the phase stepping or phase scanning process ( [0170] ) and claim 16 incorporates all the limitations of claim 1 with minor variations in the claimed language. The reasons for the rejection of claim 1 apply to claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 17, claim 17 incorporates all the limitations of claim 2 with minor variations in the claimed language, in computer program product form, rather than method form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 2 apply to claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 19, claim 19 incorporates all the limitations of claim 8 with minor variations in the claimed language, in computer program product form, rather than method form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 8 apply to claim 19. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 incorporates all the limitations of claim 9 with minor variations in the claimed language, in computer program product form, rather than method form. The reasons for the rejection of claim 9 apply to claim 20. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 4 is allowed. 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 3 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 07-43-02 Claims 5 and 21 would be allowable due to dependency on allowable claim 4 and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 3 and 18: The allowable subject matter resides in the combination of: performing an additional phase stepping or phase scanning process, the additional phase stepping or phase scanning process being performed using a diffusive diffraction grating as the first patterning device; determining one or more additional aberrations of the projection system from the oscillating signals determined by each part of the radiation detector that receives radiation during the additional phase stepping or phase scanning process; and determining calibration data which characterizes any differences between: (a) the determined one or more aberrations of the projection system; and (b) the determined one or more additional aberrations of the projection system. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 4: The references ( Chong (WO 2019149468 A1) and Van Der Laan (US 20040114119 A1)) whether considered individually or in combination, do not render obvious the claim subject matter: “ performing an additional phase stepping or phase scanning process using an object-level diffusive diffraction grating so as to generate one or more additional oscillating signals; determining one or more additional aberrations of the projection system from the one or more additional oscillating signals; and determining calibration data which characterizes any differences between: (a) the determined one or more aberrations of the projection system; and (b) the determined one or more additional aberrations of the projection system. ” Chong teaches a method of determining one or more aberrations using specular diffraction grating ([00074], [000128]) and Van Der Laan teaches a method of determining one or more aberrations using diffusive diffraction grating ([0027]). The references do not make obvious the a calibration data using both specular diffraction grating and diffusive diffraction grating . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Kruizinga (US20100284064A1) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED DOUMBIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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. /MOHAMED DOUMBIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /Michael A Lyons/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/108,715 Page 2 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/108,715 Page 3 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/108,715 Page 4 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/108,715 Page 5 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/108,715 Page 6 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/108,715 Page 7 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/108,715 Page 8 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/108,715 Page 9 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/108,715 Page 10 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 19/108,715 Page 11 Art Unit: 2877
Prosecution Insights