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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7 of the claim recites “a reticle tray”. Antecedent basis for the terms previously appears in line 6. It is suggested to amend line 7 to recite “the reticle tray”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by de Boeij et al (US 2022/0179327 A1), hereinafter “Boeij”.
Regarding claim 10, Boeij discloses a reticle (abstract, Figs. 1, 6A-C, ref 100), comprising:
a pattern (Fig. 6A, ref 110a, paragraphs [0031], [0047]); and
an anti-reflective coating disposed on the pattern, the coating being opaque (paragraph [0030], “a blocking part of the reticle may absorb part of this light energy using a light absorbing coating”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kalk (US 6759171 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Kulk discloses a reticle (abstract, col. 1, lines 20-25), comprising:
a pattern (col. 2, lines 25-25); and
an anti-reflective coating disposed on the pattern, the coating being opaque (col. 2, lines 25-25).
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, 3-6, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeij, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR20180136421A), references to English machine translation, hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 1, Boeij teaches a measurement system (abstract, Fig. 1), comprising:
a stage (ref 102) operable to retain an object (ref 104, paragraph [0031]); and
a light engine disposed above the stage (refs 118), the light engine including:
a light source directed towards the object (ref 118, paragraph [0031]);
a reticle tray disposed after the light source (ref 108)
a reticle coupled to a reticle tray (ref 110, paragraph [0031]), the reticle comprising:
a pattern (Fig. 6A-C, ref 110a, paragraph [0032]); and
an anti-reflective coating disposed on the reticle and aligned with the pattern (paragraph [0030], “a blocking part of the reticle may absorb part of this light energy using a light absorbing coating”).
Boeij is silent regarding a first lens operable to collimate or focus a light from the light source.
However, Lee teaches a defect detection system (abstract, Figs. 1-2) including a first lens operable to collimate or focus a light from the light source (Fig. 1, ref 140, paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Boeij with the teaching of Lee by including a first lens operable to collimate or focus a light from the light source in order to have accurate edge detection by using focused light.
Regarding claim 3, Boeij teaches wherein the coating is configured to absorb light reflected from the object (paragraph [0030], “a blocking part of the reticle may absorb part of this light energy using a light absorbing coating”).
Regarding claim 4, Boeij is silent regarding wherein the coating is disposed between the pattern and the object.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the coating is disposed between the pattern and the object as it has been held that the particular placement of an element in a measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One would place the coating between the pattern and the object in order to prevent reflections from interfering with the measurement.
Regarding claim 5, Boeij teaches wherein the coating is opaque (paragraph [0030], “inorganic black coating”).
Regarding claim 6, Boeij teaches wherein the object comprises one or more optical devices disposed on a substrate (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 15, Boeij teaches a method (abstract, Fig. 1), comprising:
projecting a beam from a light engine (ref 118, paragraph [0031]) toward a device (ref 104),;
absorbing reflected light with a coating disposed on a pattern of the reticle (ref 110, paragraphs [0005], [0030]-[0032]).
Boeij is silent regarding wherein the device is an optical device; the light engine disposed in a measurement system; passing the beam through a reticle toward an optical device, the beam undergoing total internal reflection within the optical device; detecting one or more images of the beam when the beam is outcoupled to a detector; and processing the image to extract a metrology metric.
However, Lee teaches a defect detection method (abstract, Figs. 1-2) including wherein the device is an optical device; the light engine disposed in a measurement system; passing the beam through a reticle toward an optical device, the beam undergoing total internal reflection within the optical device; detecting one or more images of the beam when the beam is outcoupled to a detector; and processing the image to extract a metrology metric (paragraphs [0030]-[0032], [0041]-[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Boeij with the teaching of Lee by including wherein the device is an optical device; the light engine disposed in a measurement system; passing the beam through a reticle toward an optical device, the beam undergoing total internal reflection within the optical device; detecting one or more images of the beam when the beam is outcoupled to a detector; and processing the image to extract a metrology metric in order to measure an optical device using the claimed method.
Regarding claim 16, Boeij teaches wherein the light engine comprises: a body (ref 100); a light source disposed within the body (ref 118); and a reticle tray (ref 108) disposed between the light source and the first lens, the reticle tray including the reticle (paragraphs [0030]-[0032]), but is silent regarding a first lens operable to collimate or focus a light from the light source.
However, Lee teaches a defect detection system (abstract, Figs. 1-2) including a first lens operable to collimate or focus a light from the light source (Fig. 1, ref 140, paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Boeij with the teaching of Lee by including a first lens operable to collimate or focus a light from the light source in order to have accurate edge detection by using focused light.
Regarding claim 17, Boeij teaches wherein the coating is opaque (paragraph [0030], “inorganic black coating”).
Claims 2, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeij and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jindal et al. (US 2020/0133114 A1), hereinafter “Jindal”.
Regarding claim 2, Boeij is silent regard wherein the coating comprises a multilayer coating.
However, Jindal teaches a photomask (abstract, Fig. 4) including wherein the coating comprises a multilayer coating (refs 306, 308, 310; paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Boeij with the teaching of Jindal by including wherein the coating comprises a multilayer coating in order to reflect the appropriate light in the system.
Regarding claim 8, Boeij is silent regarding wherein the pattern comprises a metal.
However, Jindal teaches wherein the pattern comprises a metal (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Boeij with the teaching of Jindal by including wherein the pattern comprises a metal in order to use an effective AR coating material.
Regarding claim 9, Boeij is silent regarding wherein the coating comprises an oxide of the metal.
However, Jindal teaches wherein the coating comprises an oxide of the metal (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Boeij with the teaching of Jindal by including wherein the coating comprises an oxide of the metal in order to use an effective AR coating material.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeij and Lee as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Fu et al. (US 2020/0141802 A1), hereinafter “Fu”.
Regarding claim 7, Boeij is silent regarding wherein the one or more optical devices comprise a waveguide.
However, Fu teaches a metrology device (abstract, Fig. 1) including wherein the one or more optical devices comprise a waveguide (paragraphs [0020], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Boeij with the teaching of Fu by including wherein the one or more optical devices comprise a waveguide in order to measure characteristics of the waveguide.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeij and Lee as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Jindal.
Regarding claim 11, Boeij is silent regarding wherein the pattern comprises a metal.
However, Jindal teaches wherein the pattern comprises a metal (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Boeij with the teaching of Jindal by including wherein the pattern comprises a metal in order to use an effective AR coating material.
Regarding claim 12, Boeij is silent regarding wherein the anti-reflective coating comprises an oxide of the metal.
However, Jindal teaches wherein the anti-reflective coating comprises an oxide of the metal (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Boeij with the teaching of Jindal by including wherein the anti-reflective coating comprises an oxide of the metal in order to use an effective AR coating material.
Regarding claim 13, Boeij is silent regarding wherein the anti-reflective coating comprises a multilayer coating
However, Jindal teaches wherein the anti-reflective coating comprises a multilayer coating (refs 306, 308; paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Boeij with the teaching of Jindal by including wherein the anti-reflective coating comprises a multilayer coating in order to use an effective AR coating material.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeij as applied to claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, Boeij is silent regarding wherein the pattern and the anti-reflective coating are disposed on a first side of the reticle.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the pattern and the anti-reflective coating are disposed on a first side of the reticle as it has been held that the particular placement of an element in a measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One would place the pattern and the AR coating on a first side in order to prevent reflections from interfering with the measurement.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boeij and Lee as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Jindal.
Regarding claim 18, Boeij is silent regard wherein the coating is a multilayer coating.
However, Jindal teaches a photomask (abstract, Fig. 4) including wherein the coating is a multilayer coating (refs 306, 308, 310; paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Boeij with the teaching of Jindal by including wherein the coating is a multilayer coating in order to reflect the appropriate light in the system.
Regarding claim 19, Boeij is silent regarding wherein the pattern comprises a metal.
However, Jindal teaches wherein the pattern comprises a metal (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Boeij with the teaching of Jindal by including wherein the pattern comprises a metal in order to use an effective AR coating material.
Regarding claim 20, Boeij is silent regarding wherein the coating comprises an oxide.
However, Jindal teaches wherein the coating comprises an oxide (paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Boeij with the teaching of Jindal by including wherein the coating comprises an oxide in order to use an effective AR coating material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (US 2014/0063490) teaches a photomask with a pattern and an opaque coating and appears to anticipate at least claim 10.
Montgomery (US 2006/0105248) teaches a photomask with a pattern and an opaque coating and appears to anticipate at least claim 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights