Patent Application 18766961 - SIMULTANEOUS MULTI-BANDWIDTH OPTICAL INSPECTION - Rejection
Patent Application 18766961 - SIMULTANEOUS MULTI-BANDWIDTH OPTICAL INSPECTION
Title: SIMULTANEOUS MULTI-BANDWIDTH OPTICAL INSPECTION OF SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
Application Information
- Invention Title: SIMULTANEOUS MULTI-BANDWIDTH OPTICAL INSPECTION OF SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES
- Application Number: 18766961
- Submission Date: 2025-05-14T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2024-07-09T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2024-07-09T00:00:00.000Z
- Examiner Employee Number: 75085
- Art Unit: 2882
- Tech Center: 2800
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 6
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on Apr. 22, 2025 have been fully considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa (2009/0315988) in view of Chou et al. (Chou) (2020/0264111) and Hunt (2003/0231302).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuzawa discloses a method of qualifying semiconductor wafer processing (para 0010), said method comprising: illuminating a semiconductor wafer (10, Fig. 1, para 0039) simultaneously with source light having wavelengths in a plurality of wavebands (30, 31a, 31b, 31c, Fig. 1, 2, para 0041), including at least a first waveband and a second waveband, said second waveband being different from the first waveband (para 0041); separating light reflected from the semiconductor wafer as a result of said illuminating (para 0047-0049), said separating dividing the reflected light according to waveband (para 0049, 0050); generating a first image of the semiconductor wafer based on reflected light separated into the first waveband (para 0049, 0050, 0052); generating a second image of the semiconductor wafer base on reflected light separated into the second waveband (para 0049, 0050, 0052); and, analyzing the first and second images (para 0052-0054). However, Fukuzawa does not disclose qualifying the semiconductor wafer based on a predetermined value of a defect count. Fukuzawa also does not disclose wherein the illuminating comprises regulating at least one of an aperture and a polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband and regulating at least one of an aperture and a polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband, wherein regulating the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband is done independently of regulating of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband. Chou discloses an inspection method and apparatus wherein a wafer is inspected and the result is determined based on whether the number or sizes of the defects do not exceed the threshold value (para 0047). Hunt discloses a method (Fig. 1) of inspecting for defect on a wafer (14, para 0018) wherein the illuminating comprises regulating at least one of an aperture (spatial filter, 26) and a polarization (22) of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband (18) and regulating at least one of an aperture (Fig. 1) and a polarization (Fig. 1, para 0020, in the optical source 16, the elements corresponding to the first laser 18 to control aperture and polarization) of the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband (30), wherein regulating the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband is done independently of regulating of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband (para 0019, 0020). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of qualifying wafer based on a predetermined value of a defect count to the invention of Fukuzawa to determine whether the amount of defect is acceptable and to continue with processing or remove the wafer if the number of defects exceed the predetermined value and to provide independent regulating of aperture and polarization for the first waveband and the second waveband as taught by Hunt, in order to provide more flexibility controlling the parameters of two different wavebands.
Regarding claim 2, Fukuzawa discloses wherein said generating of the first and second images includes: directing reflected light separated into the first waveband along a first optical path to a first image sensor (41a, Fig. 3) from which the first image is generated (para 0049); and directing reflected light separated into the second waveband along a second optical path to a second image sensor (41b, Fig. 3) from which the second image is generated (para 0049), said second image sensor being different than the first image sensor (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Fukuzawa does not disclose wherein said illuminating comprises: regulating the aperture of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband; and regulating the polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband. Hunt discloses wherein said illuminating comprises: regulating the aperture of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband (para 0018-0020); and regulating the polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband (para 0018-0020). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to regulate the aperture of the first waveband and the polarization of the second waveband for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 4, Fukuzawa does not disclose wherein said illuminating comprises: regulating the aperture of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband; and regulating the polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband. Hunt discloses regulating the aperture of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband (para 0018-0020); and regulating the aperture of the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband (para 0018-0020). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to regulate the aperture of the first waveband and the the second waveband for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 5, Fukuzawa discloses wherein said illuminating comprises: generating source light having wavelengths in the first waveband from a first light source (31a, Fig. 2, 15, para 0041); generating source light having wavelengths in the second waveband from a second light source (31b, para 0041), said second light source being different than the first light source (Fig. 2, 15); independently conditioning at least one of intensity, polarization, and/or beam spot of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband and source light having wavelengths in the second waveband (34a, 34b, Fig. 15, para 0103); and combining the independently conditioned source light from the first light source and the independently conditioned source light from the second light source such that they illuminate the semiconductor device together (36, para 0044, 0045, “the optical axes of the illumination light match”).
Regarding claim 9, Fukuzawa discloses combining the first image with the second image to produce a resulting image; and wherein the analyzing includes image processing the resulting image to detect at least one defect in the semiconductor wafer (para 0052-0054, 0059, 0060).
Claim(s) 10-12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa (2009/0315988) in view of Chou et al. (Chou) (2020/0264111), Hunt (2003/0231302) and Van Der Zouw (2016/0091422).
Regarding claim 10, Fukuzawa discloses an optical inspection apparatus (Fig. 1-3, 15, para 0010) for qualifying semiconductor wafer processing, said apparatus comprising: an illumination module (30, Fig. 1 and 2) producing source light illuminating a semiconductor wafer (10), said source light having wavelengths in a first waveband and a second waveband (30, 31a, 31b, 31c, Fig. 1, 2, para 0041), said illumination module including a first optical element (32a, 33a, 34a) arranged along a first optical path (Fig. 2, 15) and a second optical element (32b, 33b, 34b) arranged along a second optical path (Fig. 2, 15), said first optical element regulating an first optical parameter of the source light in the first waveband and said second optical element regulating an second optical parameter of the source light in the second waveband (para 0043, 0046, 0103); a collection module (Fig. 3) including a first image sensor (41a) and a second image sensor (41b, para 0049), said first image senor receiving reflected light in the first waveband from the semiconductor wafer as a result of the semiconductor wafer's illumination with the source light from the illumination module and said second image sensor receiving reflected light in the second waveband from the semiconductor wafer as the result of the semiconductor wafer's illumination with source light from the illumination module (para 0047-0050); and an image processor (27) that, processes a first image of the semiconductor wafer generated in accordance with data obtained from the first image sensor (para 0049, 0050, 0052) and processes a second image of the semiconductor wafer generated in accordance with data obtained from the second image sensor (para 0049, 0050, 0052). However, Fukuzawa does not disclose qualifying the semiconductor wafer based on a predetermined value of a defect count. Fukuzawa also does not disclose wherein the first optical element comprises a first aperture wheel having multiple apertures along the first optical path of the first waveband and the second optical element comprises a second aperture wheel having multiple apertures along the second optical path of the second waveband, said first aperture wheel regulating a first optical parameter by rotation of the first aperture wheel to place a selected aperture of the multiple apertures of the first aperture wheel in the first optical path of the first waveband and said second aperture wheel regulating a second optical parameter by rotation of the second aperture wheel to place a selected aperture of the multiple apertures of the second aperture wheel in the second optical path of the second waveband.
Chou et al. (Chou) (2020/0264111) discloses an inspection method and apparatus wherein a wafer is inspected and the result is determined based on whether the number or sizes of the defects do not exceed the threshold value (para 0047).
Hunt discloses an optical inspection apparatus comprising a first optical element (12) comprising a first aperture regulating element (26) along a first optical path of the first waveband (Fig. 1) and a second optical element (16) comprising a second aperture regulating element (in the second optical element 16 that corresponds to the first aperture regulating element in the first optical element 12, para 0020). Van Der Zouw discloses an optical inspection apparatus (Fig. 5(a), 6) comprising aperture plate (13) in a form of a wheel having multiple apertures along the optical path of the light (para 0075).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of qualifying wafer based on a predetermined value of a defect count to the invention of Fukuzawa to determine whether the amount of defect is acceptable and to continue with processing or remove the wafer if the number of defects exceed the predetermined value and to provide aperture regulating elements of Hunt for the first waveband and the second waveband, and the wheel of Van Der Zouw to selectively adjust the aperture for the first waveband and the second waveband in order to provide flexibility in selecting different spatial intensity distribution as needed for each wavebands.
Regarding claim 11, Although Fukuzawa discloses a polarizer (22, Fig. 1), Fukuzawa does not disclose wherein the first optical element further includes a first polarizer, and the second optical element further includes a second polarizer. Hunt discloses a first polarizer (22) for the first waveband and a second polarizer for the second waveband (Fig. 1, para 0019, 0020). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide separate polarizer for the first waveband and the second waveband in order to provide more flexible control of the polarizer by providing independent control of polarization.
Regarding claim 12, Fukuzawa discloses wherein the illumination module further comprises: combining optics (36) that combine the source light in the first waveband after it passes through the first optical element with the source light in the second waveband after it passes through the second optical element (para 0045).
Regarding claim 14, Fukuzawa discloses wherein the illumination module further comprises: a first light source (31a) that emits light in the first waveband along the first optical path; and a second light source (31b) that emits light in the second waveband along the second optical path (Fig. 2, 15).
Regarding claim 15, Fukuzawa discloses wherein the image processor combines the first image of the semiconductor wafer and the second image of the semiconductor wafer together to produce a resulting image and processes the resulting image to detect if there is a defect in the semiconductor wafer (para 0052-0054, 0059, 0060).
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa in view of Chou et al. and Hunt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shortt et al. (Shortt) (2007/0081151).
Regarding claim 6, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Fukuzawa is wherein the analyzing includes: applying a first imaging processing to the first image to detect a first type of defect in the semiconductor wafer and applying a second imaging processing to the second image to detect a second type of defect in the semiconductor wafer, wherein the first type of defect and the second type of defect are different types of defects. Shortt discloses processing the output signal from the first waveband to detect the first defect and processing the output signal from the second waveband to detect the second defect (para 0047). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to process the first image and the second image separately to detect different types of defects as taught by Shortt since different defect require different processing.
Regarding claim 7, Fukuzawa discloses wherein the analyzing includes: classifying the defects detected by applying the first imaging processing to the first image as defects of the first type of defect (para 0052-0054).
Regarding claim 8, Fukuzawa discloses wherein the analyzing further includes: classifying the defects detected by applying the second imaging processing to the second image as defects of the second type of defect (para 0052-0054).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa in view of Chou et al., Hunt and Van Der Zouw as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hamada (5,096,280).
Regarding claim 13, Fukuzawa discloses the light in the first waveband directed along the first optical path, while light in the second waveband directed along the second optical path (Fig. 2, 15). However, Fukuzawa does not disclose wherein the illumination module further comprises: a common light source that emits light having wavelengths in both the first and second wavebands; and dividing optics that separates light emitted from the common light source according to waveband. Hamada discloses a common light source (white light) into components of a plurality of wavelength bands using dichroic mirrors (col. 4, line 51 – col. 5, line 3). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a common light source and separating them into a plurality of different wavebands when only a common light source is provided instead of a plurality of light source is provided as in Fukuzawa. Since both providing a plurality of light sources of different wavebands and providing a common light source and separating it into a plurality of wavebands are well known in the art it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a common light source on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa in view Hunt.
Regarding claim 16, Fukuzawa discloses an inspection method (Fig. 1-3) for qualifying semiconductor wafer processing, said method comprising: illuminating a semiconductor wafer with source light (30) having wavelengths in a plurality of wavebands (Fig. 2), including at least a first waveband and a second waveband, said second waveband being different from the first waveband (para 0041); prior to the illuminating, conditioning the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband; and conditioning the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband (Fig. 2, 15, para 0043, 0046, 0103); wherein said conditioning of the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband is carried out independently of said conditioning of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband (Fig. 2, 15, para 0043, 0046, 0103); separating light reflected from the semiconductor device as a result of said illuminating (Fig. 3, para 0049), said separating dividing the reflected light according to waveband such that reflected light in the first waveband is directed to a first image sensor (41a), while reflected light in the second waveband is directed to a second image sensor (41b); generating a first image of the semiconductor wafer in accordance with data produced from the first image sensor; and, generating a second image of the semiconductor wafer in accordance with data produced from the second image sensor (para 0049, 0050, 0052). However, Fukuzawa does not disclose wherein the conditioning includes regulating at least one of an aperture and a polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband and regulating at least one of an aperture and a polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband. Hunt discloses an inspection method (Fig. 1) comprising prior to illuminating the wafer (14) regulating (12) one of an aperture (26) and a polarization (22) of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband and regulating (16) at least one of an aperture and a polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband and regulating of the second waveband is carried out independently of regulating of the first waveband (Fig. 1, para 0018-0020). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide independent regulating of aperture and polarization for the first waveband and the second waveband as taught by Hunt, in order to provide more flexibility controlling the parameters of two different wavebands.
Regarding claim 18, Fukuzawa discloses applying a first imaging processing to the first image to detect if a first type of defect is present in the semiconductor wafer; and applying a second imaging processing to the second image to detect if a second type of defect is present in the semiconductor wafer (para 0052-0054).
Regarding claim 19, Fukuzawa discloses combining the first image with the second image to produce a resulting image; and image processing the resulting image to detect if a defect is present in the semiconductor wafer (para 0052-0054, 0059, 0060).
Regarding claim 20, Although Fukuzawa discloses regulating a polarization (22, Fig. 1), Fukuzawa does not disclose wherein: conditioning the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband includes regulating a polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband; and conditioning the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband includes regulating a polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband. Hunt discloses regulating a polarization (22) of the first waveband and a polarization of the second waveband (with the corresponding polarization element for the second waveband, Fig. 1, para 0018-0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide separate polarizer for separate wavebands as taught by Hunt, in order to provide more flexible conditioning of the wavabands.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa in view of Hunt as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Gong et al. (Gong) (2021/0201460).
Regarding claim 21, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Fukuzawa is applying a convolution neural network (CNN) to the first and second image to simultaneously detect and classify defects. Gong discloses in Fig. 2 and abstract, para 0015, applying CNN to wafer image to detect and classify defects and Gone also teaches one or more system and multiple subsystems to perform detecting classifying simultaneously (para 0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply CNN to the invention of Fukuzawa in order to increase performance as taught by Gong in para 0003, 0012.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,068,207. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the patent is directed to a method of qualifying semiconductor wafer processing, said method comprising: illumination a semiconductor simultaneously with a plurality of wavebands, including a first waveband and a second waveband (first waveband along first optical path, a second waveband along second optical path, claim 1), separating light reflected from the wafer, generating a first image of the wafer, generating a second image of the wafer and analyzing the first and second images, wherein the illuminating comprises regulating at least one of an aperture and a polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband and regulating at least one of an aperture and a polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband (claim 1), wherein regulating the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband is done independently of regulating of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband (claim 5). The claim of the instant application is broader than the claim 5 of the patent. The claim is fully met and no further analysis is necessary. For example, claim 5 of the patent is further directed to analyzing the first and second image to detect a first type of defect and a second type of defect.
Regarding claim 3, claim 5 of the patent is directed to wherein said illuminating comprises: regulating the aperture of the first waveband (claim 5) and regulating the polarization of the second waveband (claim 5).
Regarding claim 4, claim 5 of the patent is directed to wherein said illuminating comprises: regulating the aperture of the first waveband (claim 5) and regulating the aperture of the second waveband (claim 5).
Claims 10-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,068,207 in view of Van der Zouw.
Regarding claim 10, claim 12 of the patent is directed to an optical inspection apparatus comprising: an illumination module producing source light having a first waveband and a second waveband, a first optical element and a second optical element; a collection module including a first image sensor and a second image sensor, and an image processor that processes a first image and a second image (claim 10) wherein the first optical element includes a first aperture plate and the second optical element includes a second aperture plate (claim 12). However, the claim of the patent does not specify a first aperture wheel having multiple apertures and a second aperture wheel having a multiple apertures. Van der Zouw discloses an optical inspection apparatus (Fig. 5(a), 6) comprising aperture plate (13) in a form of a wheel having multiple apertures along the optical path of the light (para 0075). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the wheel of Van Der Zouw to selectively adjust the aperture for each of the first waveband and the second waveband in order to provide flexibility in selecting different spatial intensity distribution as needed for each wavebands.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 of the patent is directed to combining optics that combine the source light in the first waveband after it passes through the first optical element with the source light in the second waveband after it passes through the second optical element (claim 10).
Regarding claim 13, claim 12 of the patent is directed to a common light source that emits light having wavelengths in both the first and second wavebands; and dividing optics that separates light emitted from the common light source according to waveband, such that light emitted from the common light source in the first waveband is directed along the first optical path, while light emitted from the common light source in the second waveband is directed along the second optical path (claim 10).
Regarding claim 14, claim 12 of the patent is directed to a first light source that emits light in the first waveband along the first optical path; and a second light source that emits light in the second waveband along the second optical path (claim 10).
Claims 16, 18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15, 16 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,068,207 in view of Hunt.
Regarding claim 16, claim 15 of the patent is directed to an inspection method comprising: illuminating a wafer with source light having a first waveband and a second waveband, prior to illuminating conditioning the first waveband, prior to illuminating conditioning the second waveband; wherein the conditioning is carried out independently (claim 15), separating light reflected form the semiconductor device and generating a first image with data from the first image sensor and generating a second image with data from the second image sensor (claim 15). However, the claim 15 of the patent is not directed to wherein the conditioning includes regulating at least one of an aperture and a polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband and regulating at least one of an aperture and a polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband. Hunt discloses an inspection method (Fig. 1) comprising prior to illuminating the wafer (14) regulating (12) one of an aperture (26) and a polarization (22) of the source light having wavelengths in the first waveband and regulating (16) at least one of an aperture and a polarization of the source light having wavelengths in the second waveband and regulating of the second waveband is carried out independently of regulating of the first waveband (Fig. 1, para 0018-0020). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide independent regulating of aperture and polarization for the first waveband and the second waveband as taught by Hunt, in order to provide more flexibility controlling the parameters of two different wavebands.
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 16 of the patent.
Claim 19 corresponds to claim 17 of the patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Runde et al. (2012/0249988) discloses in para 0008 that spatial filters are opaque plates with apertures located where the poles are desired.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/PETER B KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 May 10, 2025
