DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
quarter wave plate 31 from [0024] which is recited to be shown in Fig. 1. It would appear that the quarter wave plate being mentioned is the QWP element 30A where [0024] recites that a light source provides linearly polarized light to a quarter wave plate which creates circularly polarized light impinging on a metasurface grating. QWP 30A provides the circularly polarized light impinging on a metasurface grating.
Plane 1 (object plane) from [0025] which is recited to be shown in Fig. 1, however, the object plane in Fig. 1 is labeled as ‘OP’. [0042] of the specification also recites the object plane to be ‘OP’.
Green curve G from [0047] which is recited to be in the left and right plots of Fig. 7
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: QWP 30A. Paragraph [0024] of the specification does mention a quarter wave plate 31, therefore, it would appear that QWP 30A should instead be QWP 31 in Figure 1 or the specification needs to be amended to recite QWP 30A instead of QWP 31.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0024] of the specification recites that a light source 12 provides linearly polarized light into a quarter wave plate 31, which creates circularly polarized light impinging on the metasurface grating. However, Fig. 1 shows this quarter wave plate as being labelled as 30A, therefore, it would appear that paragraph [0024] should instead recite the quarter wave plate 31 as quarter wave plate 30A instead.
Paragraph [0024] of the specification recites an object plane as being element P1 in Fig. 1, however, Fig. 1 shows the object plane as being ‘OP’. Furthermore, [0042] of the specification recites the object plane as being ‘OP’, therefore, it appears that object plane should be corrected in the specification to be element ‘OP’ instead of ‘P1’ in [0024].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 3, it appears that claim 3 is incomplete as claim 3 recites “…further comprising an optical objective lens a zoom lens situated between the object plane and the quarter wave plate.” [0025] of the specification recites that there is an optical lens 34 and zoom lens 36 which are situated between a quarter lens plate 30 and the plane P1 (object plane), which is shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, it appears that claim 3 should instead recite “…further comprising an optical objective lens and a zoom lens situated between the object plane and the quarter wave plate.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 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.
Line 2 of Claim 6 recites the limitation "the source" in “…between the source and the metasurface based polarizing beam splitter.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 5, claim 2, or claim 1 recites a source. It would appear that the source is referring to the light source claimed in claim 5. Therefore, as best understood and therefore interpreted, the source is referring to the light source in claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwamu (JP 4701460 B2, where portions of an attached translation are cited below) in view of Hill (US 20240337606 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Kiwamu teaches ([0001]) an inspection device comprising:
(i) a quarter wave plate (Fig. 5: quarter wave plate 5b [0058]); and
(ii) a polarizing beam splitter (Fig. 5: polarizing beam splitter (PBS) 20 [0058]) situated adjacent to the quarter wave plate (Shown in Fig. 5).
Kiwamu appears to be silent to the polarizing beam splitter being metasurface based.
Hill, related to optical metrology, does teach a metasurface based beamsplitter ([0006], [0039], [0090], and [0125] recites a metasurface 116l is used in an optical system depicted in Fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kiwamu so that the polarizing beam splitter is metasurface based, as disclosed by Hill. It is known in the field of endeavor that optical measurement systems can have bulky components which increases costs and are probe to high degrees of variability ([0003] from Hill), therefore, the advantage of replacing bulky optical components with metasurfaced based optical components has the advantage of miniaturizing optical components and reducing costs ([0003] from Hill).
Regarding Claim 2, Kiwamu modified by Hill teaches the inspection device of claim 1.
Kiwamu modified by Hill further teaches two optical components (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: objective lens 7 shows multiple lenses) situated between the object plane (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: EUV mask 8 is at object plane [0061]) and the quarter wave plate (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: quarter wave plate 5b [0058]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kiwamu modified by Hill teaches the inspection device of claim 2.
Kiwamu modified by Hill further teaches a photomask situated at the object plane (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: EUV mask 8).
Regarding Claim 5, Kiwamu modified by Hill teaches the inspection device of claim 2.
Kiwamu modified by Hill further teaches a light source (Kiwamu, laser light L1 from [0028]) operating at an ultraviolent region (Kiwamu, [0028]), and a detector (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: camera 11a) capable of detecting light at 200 nm (Kiwamu, [0028]: laser light L1 has a wavelength in the UV region of about 0.2 microns which is 200 nm.) (Kiwamu, [0056]: camera 11a would necessarily be able to detect at wavelengths of the laser light L1 from [0028]; Detector used may also be a photodetector from [0077]; [0003]: Image of illuminated pattern, which the illumination used is ultraviolet illumination, is captured by the camera.).
Kiwamu modified by Hill (for claim 2) appears to be silent to the light source operates at 193, 213 nm, or 266 nm wavelength, and a detector capable of detecting light at 193 nm, 213 nm or 266 nm.
However, Kiwamu does teach that the wavelength of laser light used is in the ultraviolent region of about 0.2 microns which is 200 nm which is between 193 nm and 213 nm. 200 nm is relatively close to 193 nm and 213 nm. Kiwamu also teaches a camera that is capable of imaging the EUV mask that is illuminated with the 200 nm laser light ([0003], [0056]). Therefore, one or ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that a laser light wavelength of 193 nm or 213 nm and a detector capable of detecting wavelengths of 193 nm or 213 could also be used with a similar optical measurement outcome as using a 200 nm laser with a camera that is capable of detecting a wavelength at 200 nm. See MPEP 2144.05 (I) which recites “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.”
Regarding Claim 6, Kiwamu modified by Hill teaches the inspection device of claim 5.
Kiwamu modified by Hill further teaches (i) a quarter wave plate (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: quarter wave plate 5a) situated between the source (Kiwamu, Laser light L1 from [0028]) and the metasurface based (Hill, ([0006], [0039], [0090], and [0125] recites a metasurface 116l is used in an optical system depicted in Fig. 3B) polarizing beam splitter (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: PBS 20) and (i) another quarter wave plate (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: quarter wave plate 5c) situated between the metasurface based (Hill, ([0006], [0039], [0090], and [0125] recites a metasurface 116l is used in an optical system depicted in Fig. 3B) polarizing beam splitter (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: PBS 20) and the detector (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: camera 11a).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwamu (JP 4701460 B2, where portions of an attached translation are cited below) in view of Hill (US 20240337606 A1) and further in view Shimura (US 20140042332 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Kiwamu modified by Hill teaches the inspection device of claim 1.
Kiwamu modified by Hill further teaches an optical objective lens (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: objective lens 7) is situated between the object plane (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: EUV mask 8 is at the object plane) and the quarter wave plate (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: quarter wave plate 5b).
Kiwamu modified by Hill appears to be silent to having a zoom lens.
Shimura, related to an inspection device and method, does teach a zoom lens (Shown in Fig. 6 where the zoom lens is element 420. Element 420 is in element 40 where Fig. 1 shows element 40 as being between the object plane (where sample 10 is) and a sensor 60.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kiwamu combined with Hill to incorporate a zoom lens. Zoom lenses are well known optical elements in optical measurement devices. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine prior art elements (use of a zoom lens) according to known methods (in an inspection device) to yield predictable results (to vary the focal length) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiwamu (JP 4701460 B2, where portions of an attached translation are cited below) in view of Hill (US 20240337606 A1) and further in view of Luo et al (“Highly efficient spin-polarized beam splitter based on silicon Pancharatnam-Berry metasurface”, 2022, Journal of Optics).
Regarding Claim 7, Kiwamu modified by Hill teaches the inspection device of claim 6.
Kiwamu modified by Hill further teaches the metasurface based (Hill, ([0006], [0039], [0090], and [0125] recites a metasurface 116l is used in an optical system depicted in Fig. 3B) polarizing beam splitter (Kiwamu, Fig. 5: PBS 20).
Kiwamu modified by Hill appears to be silent to the metasurface based polarizing beam splitter is a Pancharatnam-Berry metasurface grating.
Luo et al, related to a polarized beam splitter, does teach that the metasurface based polarizing beam splitter is a Pancharatnam-Berry metasurface grating (Title and Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kiwamu combined with Hill so that the metasurface based polarizing beam splitter is a Pancharatnam-Berry metasurface grating, as disclosed by Luo et al. The advantage of using a Pancharatnam-Berry metasurface grating as a polarizing beam splitter is that it provides a high spin conversion efficiency (Abstract from Luo et al).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights