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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 8-9 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
The Examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments, but respectfully notes that they do not completely address the previously raised issues.
First, the Examiner previously noted that applicant does not reasonably disclose the distinction between the prior art and the instant application as it pertains to achieving a common orientation. Applicant has repeatedly argued that the prior art does not achieve the common orientation but that the instant application does. The Examiner has previously noted that as expressly stated in the original disclosure, it is the ability to rotate the wafer/die that allows for such a benefit, but applicant, respectfully, does not address this issue.
Second, the Examiner has previously explained that there is no disclosed mechanism that can reasonably identify when a die does not have the desired predetermined common orientation. As such, in the situation where a die does not have the predetermined common orientation, there must be some process of being able to identify whether a die has the common orientation or needs rotation to achieve it. However, no such mechanism is disclosed, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had the ability to achieve a common orientation, because they would not reasonably recognize any mechanism that would allow applicant to identify when any particular die fails to have the common orientation.
Lastly, the Examiner also raised an issue regarding a lack of any reasonable disclosure as to the manner in which any laser or other optical element is rotated to achieve any common orientation.
As such, the Examiner acknowledges that sections cited by applicant, but respectfully notes that these sections do not reasonably address the issues previously and currently raised.
With regard to the remaining arguments pertaining to the new claim features and the applied prior art of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) or Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Korenaga (US 6,479,991),
Applicant asserts the prior art fails to disclose the claim features, but no specific arguments are asserted as to why the prior art fails to disclose the claim features. As it pertains to the apparatus claims, these amendments only require an ability of the stage system rotate the orientation of the MRAM dies such that a signal-to-noise ration is above a threshold for a magneto-optical Kerr effect measurement. Because the prior art has the same ability tor rotate the dies as applicant, it must also have the same ability to achieve the same type of signal-to-noise ratio as claimed.
Furthermore, the original disclosure expressly explains that a signal-to-noise ratio “for some relative orientations may fall below a threshold for performing MOKE measurements.” However, this statement makes clear that the signal-to-noise ration “may” fall below such a threshold, but that it may not. The intent of the prior art is to make the same type of MOKE measurements as applicant, and it is reasonable to conclude that the prior art does have a signal-to-noise ratio sufficient to allow MOKE measurements to be made, either already prior to or subsequently to any rotation as claimed. Applicant, respectfully, does not explain why the prior art would fail to achieve this feature, and the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/4/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The Cite No. 2 NPL document to Huang has not been considered, because a legible copy of this document has not been provided. The provide document is identical to a previous version submitted, and when attempting to translate the document, portions of the document were deemed too low a resolution for a translation. The provided document is therefore not a legible copy of this non-patent literature document, which has therefore not been considered.
No prior art is being applied to Claims 9, 13, and 16 because the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “rotating the MRAM wafer about a rotational axis to successively position each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies to receive the laser beam; rotating the laser and the polarizer by equal amounts about their respective longitudinal axes to vary the polarization and corresponding plane of polarization of the laser beam, to provide each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies with a common orientation with respect to the plane of polarization of the laser beam when each MRAM die is positioned to receive the laser beam; receiving the laser beam as reflected by each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies at a detector, comprising rotating the detector by amounts equal to the equal amounts for the laser and the polarizer; and using the detector, measuring rotation of a polarization of the reflected laser beam with respect to the polarization of the laser beam as received by each MRAM die” on lines 11 to the end of Claim 9, in the combination, and as best understood.
Note that the Examiner is interpreting that rotating the laser, as claimed, is not the same as rotating optics that adjust or otherwise change the laser beam once it has left the laser. The laser is interpreted to be the original source of the laser beam.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 13, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 1, 9, 18, and 19,
The phrases “the optics comprising a polarizer to polarize the laser beam with a specific polarization corresponding to a specific plane of polarization, wherein the stage system is configured to: rotate the chuck to orient the plurality of MRAM die with a common orientation with respect to the specific plane of polarization of the laser beam such that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold for a magneto-optic Kerr effect measurement, and with the chuck rotated to orient the plurality of MRAM die with the common orientation, translate the chuck along the first and second axes of translation to successively position each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies to receive the laser beam; and a detector to receive the laser beam as reflected by each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies and to measure rotation of a polarization of the reflected laser beam with respect to the specific polarization.” on lines 12 to the end of Claim 1, “rotating the MRAM wafer about a rotational axis to successively position each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies to receive the laser beam; rotating the laser and the polarizer by equal amounts about their respective longitudinal axes to vary the polarization and corresponding plane of polarization of the laser beam, to provide each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies with a common orientation with respect to the plane of polarization of the laser beam when each MRAM die is positioned to receive the laser beam such that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold for a magneto-optic Kerr effect measurement; receiving the laser beam as reflected by each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies at a detector, comprising rotating the detector by amounts equal to the equal amounts for the laser and the polarizer; and using the detector, measuring rotation of a polarization of the reflected laser beam with respect to the polarization of the laser beam as received by each MRAM die” on lines 11 to the end of Claim 9, and “the laser and the polarizer are rotatable by equal amounts about their respective longitudinal axes to vary the polarization and corresponding plane of polarization of the laser beam, to provide each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies with a common orientation with respect to the plane of polarization of the laser beam when each MRAM die is positioned to receive the laser beam such that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold for a magneto-optic Kerr effect measurement; and a detector to receive the laser beam as reflected by each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies on the MRAM wafer and to measure rotation of a polarization of the reflected laser beam with respect to the polarization of the laser beam as received by each MRAM die, wherein the detector is rotatable by amounts equal to the equal amounts for the laser and the polarizer” on lines 15 to the end of Claim 18, and “polarizing the laser beam using a polarizer to provide the laser beam with a polarization with a corresponding plane of polarization, rotating the MRAM wafer to orient the plurality of MRAM die with a common orientation with respect to the corresponding plane polarization of the laser beam such that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold for a magneto-optic Kerr effect measurement, with the MRAM wafer rotated to orient the plurality of MRAM die with the common orientation, and while the MRAM wafer is positioned in the magnetic field, translating the MRAM wafer along first and second axes of translation to successively position each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies to receive the laser beam; and receiving the laser beam as reflected by each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies at a detector, and using the detector, measuring rotation of a polarization of the reflected laser beam with respect to the polarization of the laser beam as received by each MRAM die” on lines 12 to the end of Claim 19 lacks proper written description.
1) A first issue that applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which applicant provides each MRAM die on the MRAM wafer with a common orientation with respect to the polarization of the laser beam, or reasonably explain which this means in the context of the invention. While applicant does explain in paragraph [0010] that there is a wafer location dependence for the MRAM dies from the patterning of the magnetic fields on the MRAM dies, applicant does not explain how applicant overcomes this issue beyond explaining, for example, that “the common orientation may be achieved by rotating the chuck 402 and thus the MRAM wafer” in paragraph [0029]. However, merely moving the wafer, such as by way of rotation, is what the prior art achieves (see paragraph [0008]).
Applicant initially discloses a stage system 200 in paragraph [0008], and in which this stage has the ability to move the chuck, and thus the wafer mounted on the chuck, along a single axis or to rotate the wafer. In paragraph [0010], applicant explains the successive positioning of each MRAM die on the wafer using the stage system 200 causes different MRAM dies to have different orientations with respect to the polarization of the light beam.
As best understood, one of applicant’s solution to this is to provide a stage system 400 that has two axes of translation instead of the one axis of translation of stage system 200 of the prior art. However, applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which this stage system 400 causes or is configured to ensure that each MRAM die has a common orientation. Paragraph [0029] explains, as best understood, that rotating or moving the wafer along the first and second axes can provide the common orientation, but this respectfully does not reasonably explain the manner in which the common orientation is achieved, other than showing that a common orientation would exist for the entire wafer, and thus the individual dies, merely because the wafer is located on a chuck and thus maintains an overall perpendicular orientation with respect to the polarization of the laser beam for the entire inspection process.
Further, while the stage system 200 may only have one axis translation, as best understood, it would still be able to move the wafer in one of the two directions of translation of system 400, as well as the ability to rotate the wafer like system 400, to cause a common orientation for the wafer and its respective dies. As such, the stage system of the prior art would, as best understood, be able to provide the same common orientation as applicant through a rotation and single axis translation process. In fact, paragraph [0027] makes clear that the common orientation may be predetermined. If the predetermined orientation is to provide a wafer perpendicular to the light beam as shown in Figure 5, then it is unclear how applicant’s common orientation is implemented distinctly from the prior art, other than to provide an additional axis of movement. Applicant does not reasonably explain why stage system 200 would not provide a common orientation for each die on the wafer when it can translate the wafer along one axis and rotate the wafer.
The Examiner further notes that applicant has a second embodiment where the laser optics are rotated, such as in Figure 5. However, similar to the above noted issue. While the laser optics has the ability to rotate, as best understood, applicant is merely picking a specific orientation of the laser optics with respect to the wafer. Applicant does not reasonably explain how the selection of a specific positioning of the laser optics with respect to the wafer would cause a common orientation between the polarization of the laser beam and the wafer or any specific MRAM die as claimed. Meaning, the laser optics would already provide a common orientation of these optics and the laser beam with respect to the wafer, regardless of whether the wafer is translated or rotated. The laser beam (and any associated or plane of polarization) would also be at the same angle with respect to the wafer, and thus would provide a common orientation for the wafer with respect to the laser beams’ polarization or plane of polarization.
Lastly, applicant now argues that the common orientation is one that achieves a particular signal-to-noise ratio, but the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not provide any explanation as to the manner in which applicant identifies each individual orientation of each individual MRAM die in order to be able to adjust the stage or laser optics to account for this different individual orientation. Applicant does not disclose any device or feature that would allow for the identification of how the MRAM dies are oriented to allow the system to change the position of the MRAM die with respect to the laser. Applicant further does not disclose how the system would use any change in orientation of the MRAM dies to cause each MRAM die to have a common orientation. Applicant does not reasonably explain or disclose, even if each individual MRAM die orientation were identified, how applicant’s system which use this information to then change the location/orientation of the MRAM die with respect to the laser beam.
As such, the above claim features lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 9 and 18,
The phrases “rotating the MRAM wafer about a rotational axis to successively position each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies to receive the laser beam; rotating the laser and the polarizer by equal amounts about their respective longitudinal axes to vary the polarization and corresponding plane of polarization of the laser beam, to provide each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies with a common orientation with respect to the plane of polarization of the laser beam when each MRAM die is positioned to receive the laser beam such that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold for a magneto-optic Kerr effect measurement; receiving the laser beam as reflected by each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies at a detector, comprising rotating the detector by amounts equal to the equal amounts for the laser and the polarizer; and using the detector, measuring rotation of a polarization of the reflected laser beam with respect to the polarization of the laser beam as received by each MRAM die” on lines 11 to the end of Claim 9, and “the laser and the polarizer are rotatable by equal amounts about their respective longitudinal axes to vary the polarization and corresponding plane of polarization of the laser beam, to provide each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies with a common orientation with respect to the plane of polarization of the laser beam when each MRAM die is positioned to receive the laser beam such that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold for a magneto-optic Kerr effect measurement; and a detector to receive the laser beam as reflected by each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies on the MRAM wafer and to measure rotation of a polarization of the reflected laser beam with respect to the polarization of the laser beam as received by each MRAM die, wherein the detector is rotatable by amounts equal to the equal amounts for the laser and the polarizer” on lines 15 to the end of Claim 18 lacks proper written description.
The original disclosure explains that the common orientation may alternatively be achieved by rotating object components in paragraph [0030]. However, applicant’s disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant or applicant’s device decides how to rotate these optical components and by how much the components are rotated. In Claims 9 and 18, applicant claims that the laser, polarizer, and detector are all rotatable or actually rotated, but applicant does not disclose any mechanism that would allow these elements to rotate, the manner in which they are rotated, or the amount they need to be rotated to achieve the common orientation. Merely rotating these elements would not reasonably allow the device to function as intended, as best understood. Instead, some decision process must be present to cause these elements to be moved to a specific angle or orientation to be able to properly detect features about the MRAM dies as claimed. However, the disclosure does not provide any explanation as to what controls the movement of the optical elements, what decides by how much these elements should move, and the manner in which applicant goes about deciding the amount of movement of these elements to allow for the desired detection of the MRAM dies or to achieve the claimed common orientation. Further, the detector is rotatable in according with the rotation of the laser and polarizer. This phrase requires some device or individual, after the laser and polarizer have been moved, to decide how much to rotate the detector and the manner and direction that the detector should be moved based on the movement of the laser and polarizer. However, applicant does not reasonably disclose any processor, flow chart, formula, or any other feature to explain the manner in which applicant coordinates the movement of the various optical elements, or what device or devices move these elements into the desired position. Applicant does not disclose any mechanism that identifies the amount of movement of the laser and polarizer, which is reasonably necessary in order be able to determine by how much the detector should be moved, or what mechanism moves the detector. The specification is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant implements the above claim feature. As such, these phrases lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 3-6, 13, and 16,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s), and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 13, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue.” These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability or unpredictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction or guidance presented by invent tor;
(G) The existence or absence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation necessary.
See In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
MPEP §2164.01(a)
As to factor (A), the Examiner notes that the claims 1, 3-6, 9, 13, 16, 18 and 19 are unbounded. Applicant has not provided any explanation as to how applicant is implementing 1) “the optics comprising a polarizer to polarize the laser beam with a specific polarization corresponding to a specific plane of polarization, wherein the stage system is configured to: rotate the chuck to orient the plurality of MRAM die with a common orientation with respect to the specific plane of polarization of the laser beam such that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold for a magneto-optic Kerr effect measurement, and with the chuck rotated to orient the plurality of MRAM die with the common orientation, translate the chuck along the first and second axes of translation to successively position each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies to receive the laser beam; and a detector to receive the laser beam as reflected by each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies and to measure rotation of a polarization of the reflected laser beam with respect to the specific polarization.” on lines 12 to the end of Claim 1, 2) “rotating the MRAM wafer about a rotational axis to successively position each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies to receive the laser beam; rotating the laser and the polarizer by equal amounts about their respective longitudinal axes to vary the polarization and corresponding plane of polarization of the laser beam, to provide each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies with a common orientation with respect to the plane of polarization of the laser beam when each MRAM die is positioned to receive the laser beam such that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold for a magneto-optic Kerr effect measurement; receiving the laser beam as reflected by each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies at a detector, comprising rotating the detector by amounts equal to the equal amounts for the laser and the polarizer; and using the detector, measuring rotation of a polarization of the reflected laser beam with respect to the polarization of the laser beam as received by each MRAM die” on lines 11 to the end of Claim 9, 3)“the laser and the polarizer are rotatable by equal amounts about their respective longitudinal axes to vary the polarization and corresponding plane of polarization of the laser beam, to provide each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies with a common orientation with respect to the plane of polarization of the laser beam when each MRAM die is positioned to receive the laser beam such that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold for a magneto-optic Kerr effect measurement; and a detector to receive the laser beam as reflected by each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies on the MRAM wafer and to measure rotation of a polarization of the reflected laser beam with respect to the polarization of the laser beam as received by each MRAM die, wherein the detector is rotatable by amounts equal to the equal amounts for the laser and the polarizer” on lines 15 to the end of Claim 18, and 4) “polarizing the laser beam using a polarizer to provide the laser beam with a polarization with a corresponding plane of polarization, rotating the MRAM wafer to orient the plurality of MRAM die with a common orientation with respect to the corresponding plane polarization of the laser beam such that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold for a magneto-optic Kerr effect measurement, with the MRAM wafer rotated to orient the plurality of MRAM die with the common orientation, and while the MRAM wafer is positioned in the magnetic field, translating the MRAM wafer along first and second axes of translation to successively position each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies to receive the laser beam; and receiving the laser beam as reflected by each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies at a detector, and using the detector, measuring rotation of a polarization of the reflected laser beam with respect to the polarization of the laser beam as received by each MRAM die” on lines 12 to the end of Claim 19, and as such claims 1, 3-6, 9, 13, 16, 18, and 19 would cover any and every way possible to accomplish the above claim features.
As to factor (G), the Examiner notes that applicant has not provided sufficient working examples via the specification commensurate with the scope of the claims.
As to Claims 1, 9, 18, and 19,
Applicant does not provide any example of how applicant 1) configures to the stage system to provide each MRAM die on the MRAM wafer with a common orientation with respect to the polarization of the laser beam when the laser beam is incident on the MRAM die with the MRAM die positioned in the magnetic field; 2) orients each of the respective MRAM dies with a common orientation with respect to the polarization of the laser beam when the laser beam is incident on the MRAM die; and 3) rotates the laser, the polarizer, and detector such that are rotatable by equal amounts about their respective longitudinal axes to vary a polarization of the laser beam, to provide each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies with a common orientation with respect to the polarization of the laser beam when each MRAM die is positioned to receive the laser beam.
As was explained in the above written description rejection, applicant does not reasonably disclose what applicant means by providing the claimed common orientation. This is because applicant discloses that mere rotation of the wafer can provide a common orientation (Paragraph [0029]). However, the prior art can rotate the wafer and respective MRAM dies in a similar manner as applicant. As such, as best understood, applicant intends to adjust the orientation for each respective die, but applicant does not reasonably explain how applicant implements such a feature. Applicant does not reasonably provide any disclosure as to how applicant’s device achieves this in that applicant does not reasonably disclose how applicant reasonably identifies each individual orientation of each die, and then how applicant decides how to adjust the orientation of that die to achieve the desired signal to noise ratio. Even if applicant’s intent is not the above, and instead it is applicant’s intent to be able to better adjust the orientation of the dies by being able to move in more than one translation axis, applicant does not reasonable explain how applicant uses this two translation axis stage to achieve this feature. The specification is completely silent as to any decision process to achieve the claimed common orientation feature.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that the specification is silent as to how the laser, polarizer, and detector are rotated, and how any decision is made to adjust any of these elements. There is no disclosure of any mechanism that would allow these elements to be rotated, and there is no disclosure as to any element that would cause the rotation. Applicant furthermore does not provide any disclosure as to how the detector is rotatable in accordance with rotation of the laser and polarizer. In order to provide such a feature, applicant would reasonably need to know by how much the laser and/or polarizer have been moved, along with what impact this has had on the MRAM dies on the wafer. However, applicant does not disclose any feature would identify the amount of rotation of the laser and/or polarizer, identify the impact it has had on the dies, and then determine by how much and in what direction the detector should be rotated. The specification is completely silent as to how applicant implements this process. Applicant does not provide any flow charts, formulas, or other reasonable explanation to reasonably establish how applicant is implementing these features.
Further, applicant does not disclose how a mere rotation of the laser and polarizer would achieve the claimed common orientation. Similar to merely rotating the wafer, a rotation of the laser and polarizer would not reasonably provide a common orientation to the MRAM dies on the wafer. Applicant does not reasonably explain what applicant means by a common orientation, or how a rotation of the laser and polarizer would achieve such a common orientation. Therefore, the specification fails to disclose any suitable and sufficient working examples to perform the above claimed limitations.
As to factor (H), the Examiner notes that the quantity of experimentation need is high.
As to Claims 1, 9, 18, and 19,
Applicant provides no examples or explanation as to how applicant is implementing the above rejected features for these claims. Because applicant further does not provide any details as to how applicant implements these features, one having ordinary skill in the art would have to independently identify 1) how the device could determine the respective orientation for each MRAM die and its corresponding signal to noise ratio; 2) how the device could determine the proper or best fit orientation for that respective die such that the signal to noise ratio would be at a desirable level; 3) how the device could implement this best determine orientation to achieve a sufficient signal to noise ratio, and 4) how these features can be used to cause each MRAM die to have a common orientation by either rotation of the wafer or rotation of the laser and polarizer. This independent determination would reasonable include any and all processing needed to implement such a feature, including the independent development of the software and hardware for the device needed to perform or accomplish the claimed functions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have to independently figure out how such independently determined software and hardware would allow for the above claimed common orientation. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to figure out how a processor or processors could be used to implement these claim features, including the independent development of the software necessary to carry out the claim features.
Furthermore, because applicant further does not provide any details as to how applicant implements these features, one having ordinary skill in the art would have to independently identify the manner in which the laser, polarizer, and detector can be rotated so as to achieve the claimed common orientation. As explained above, the specification is silent as to how the laser, polarizer, and detector are rotated, and how any decision is made to adjust any of these elements. Because applicant further does not provide any details as to how applicant implements these features, one having ordinary skill in the art would have to independently identify 1) how the device could adjust each of the laser, polarizer, and detector, 2) how the device could determine the orientation of each die so as to ensure a proper signal to noise ratio for that particular die based on the adjusted laser, polarizer and detector, 3) and how the detector could be adjusted based on the adjusted laser and polarizer, and 4) how these features can be used to cause each MRAM die to have a common orientation. This independent determination would reasonable include any and all processing needed to implement such a feature, including the independent development of the software and hardware for the device needed to perform or accomplish the claimed functions. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have to independently figure out how such independently determined software and hardware would allow for the above claimed common orientation, the moving/adjusting of the laser, the moving/adjusting of the polarizer, and the moving/adjusting of not just the detector, but the moving/adjusting of the detector based on the moving/adjusting of the laser and polarizer. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have to figure out how a processor or processors could be used to implement these claim features, including the independent development of the software necessary to carry out the claim features.
In view of the forgoing, the Examiner finds that the unbounded modes of operation are directed to an invention for which no working examples have been provided commensurate with the scope of the claims. Based on the Wands factors (A), (G), and (H), the Examiner concludes that applicant's specification does not enable those skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The Examiner notes that the claimed features encompass any and all structures and/or acts for achieving their results and operation, including those which were not what the applicant had invented and those which could be invented in the future. As such, claims 1, 3-6, 9, 13, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 (a) for lacking an enabling disclosure.
As to Claims 3-6, 13 and 16,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claims and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
As to Claim 18,
AAPA discloses A metrology tool (100), comprising: a magnet (102) to generate a magnetic field (Figure 1); a stage system (200) to position a magnetic random-access memory (MRAM) wafer (110) comprising a plurality of MRAM dies (32) in the magnetic field (Figure 2), (Paragraphs [0004], [0008]) , the stage system comprising a chuck (202) on which to mount the MRAM wafer (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0008]), the chuck being rotatable about a rotation axis (Paragraph [0008]), and a single translational stage (204), to which the chuck is coupled (Paragraph [0008]), to translate the chuck along a single translational axis (Paragraph [0008]); optics to provide a laser beam (114) and direct the laser beam to be incident upon the MRAM wafer with the MRAM wafer positioned in the magnetic field (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0005]), the optic comprising a laser (112) to generate the laser beam and a polarizer (116) to polarize the laser beam to provide the laser beam with a polarization with a corresponding plane of polarization (Paragraph [0005] / note the plane of polarization feature is a property of the system), wherein the stage system is to translate the chuck along the single translational axis and rotate the chuck about the rotational axis to successively position each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies to receive the laser beam (Paragraph [0008]), and the laser and polarizer are rotatable by equal amounts about their respective longitudinal axes to vary the polarization and corresponding plane of polarization of the laser beam such that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold for a magneto-optic Kerr effect measurement (Paragraph [0006] / see note below), to provide each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies with a common orientation with respect to the plane of polarization of the laser beam when each MRAM die is positioned to receive the laser beam (Paragraph [0006] / see note below), and a detector (122) to receive the laser beam as reflected by the each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies on the MRAM wafer and to measure rotation of a polarization of the reflected laser beam with respect to the polarization of the laser beam as received by each MRAM die (Paragraph [0006]); wherein the detector is rotatable by equal amounts to the equal amounts of the laser and the polarizer (Paragraph [0006] / see note below).
(Note: Applicant claims that the laser, polarizer, and detector are “rotatable” by equal amounts. However, applicant does not claim or recite any structural feature that is configured to or otherwise has an intended purpose of rotating these components. As such, what applicant is claiming is that these components are “able” to be rotated by the above amount, with no specific component recited that is configured to or has an intended purpose to rotate these components. The laser, polarizer, and detector can reasonably be rotated, for example, when these elements are being installed into the system. They can be rotated to their desired position, and can all be rotated by an equal amount, even if they eventually are rotated by a larger amount prior to being installed into the system disclosed in paragraphs [0004]-[0009]. As such, AAPA reasonably disclose this feature. Note that any single rotation of the components can reasonably be for all MRAM dies, thus meeting the claim requirements.).
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Korenaga (US 6,479,991).
As to Claims 1, 3, 4, and 19,
PNG
media_image1.png
609
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
AAPA discloses A metrology tool (100), comprising: a magnet (102) to generate a magnetic field (Figure 1); a stage system (200) to position a magnetic random-access memory (MRAM) (110) comprising a plurality of MRAM dies (32) in the magnetic field (Figure 2), (Paragraphs [0004], [0008]) , the stage system comprising a chuck (202) on which to mount the MRAM wafer (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0008]), the chuck being rotatable about a rotation axis (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0008]), a first translation stage (Paragraph [0009] / the single axis of translation), (Figure 2), to which the chuck is coupled, to translate the chuck along a first translational axis (Figure 2), (Paragraphs [0004]-[0008]), optics to provide a laser beam (114) and direct the laser beam to be incident upon the MRAM wafer with the MRAM wafer positioned in the magnetic field (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0005]), wherein providing the laser beam includes generating the laser beam using a laser and the optics comprising a polarizer (116) to polarize the laser beam with a specific polarization corresponding to a specific plane of polarization (Paragraph [0005]), wherein the stage system is configured to: rotate the chuck/MRAM wafer to orient the plurality of MRAM die with a common orientation with respect to the specific polarization of the laser beam such that a signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold for a magneto-optic Kerr effect measurement (Paragraphs [0008],[0009] / note that as best understood, because the wafer itself is rotated, the plurality of MRAM die will have a common orientation and exceed the claimed threshold because such a feature is a property of the system), and with the chuck/MRAM wafer rotated to orient the plurality of MRAM die with the common orientation, and with the MRAM wafer positioned in the magnetic field, translate the chuck/ the MRAM wafer along the first axis of translation to successively position each MRAM die of the plurality of dies to receive the laser beam (Paragraph [0008]), and a detector (122) to receive the laser beam as reflected by the each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies and to measure rotation of a polarization of the reflected laser beam with respect to the specific/corresponding plane polarization or polarization of the laser beam as received by each MRAM die (Paragraph [0006]), the stage system further comprises a first motor (210) to move the first translational stage along the first translational axis (Paragraph [0008]); and a third motor (208) to rotate the chuck about the rotational axis (Paragraph [0008]), mounting the MRAM wafer on a chuck (202) (Paragraph [0008]).
AAPA does not disclose a second translational stage, to which the first translation stage is coupled, to translate the chuck/ the MRAM wafer and the first translational stage along a second translational axis, and with the chuck rotated to orient the plurality of MRAM die with the common orientation, and while the MRAM wafer is positioned in the magnetic field, translate the chuck/MRAM wafer along the first and second axes of translation to successively position each MRAM die of the plurality of dies to receive the laser beam, a second motor to move the second translational stage along the second translational axis, the first and second translational axes are perpendicular.
Korenaga discloses a second translational stage (mechanism that translates along the Y axis) (Figure 8), (Column 10, Lines 39-67), to which the first translation stage (mechanism that translates along the X axis) is coupled (Figure 8), (Column 10, Lines 39-67), to translate the chuck (33) and the first translational stage along a second translational axis (Figures 8, 9,), (Column 10, Lines 39-67), (see above figure), (Column 12, Lines 1-5); and with the chuck rotated to orient the wafer with the common orientation, translate the chuck along the first and second axes of translation to successively position portions of the wafer to desired locations (Column 13, Lines 36-39), (Figures 8,12), (Column 10, Lines 39-67), (Column 14, Lines 1-11), a second motor (4Y),(21Y) to move the second translational stage along the second translational axis (Column 11, Lines 33-34), the first and second translational axes are perpendicular (Figure 8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify AAPA to include a second translational stage, to which the first translation stage is coupled, to translate the chuck/ the MRAM wafer and the first translational stage along a second translational axis, and with the chuck rotated to orient the plurality of MRAM die with the common orientation, and while the MRAM wafer is positioned in the magnetic field, translate the chuck/MRAM wafer along the first and second axes of translation to successively position each MRAM die of the plurality of dies to receive the laser beam, a second motor to move the second translational stage along the second translational axis, the first and second translational axes are perpendicular given the above disclosure and teaching of Korenaga in order to advantageously make it easier to properly position the wafer and dies with respect to the laser beam and magnetic field by allowing for additional axes of freedom to move the wafer, and to advantageously allow the wafer to be repositioned quicker with a higher degree of precision by allowing the wafer to move along more than one axis, and in order to provide an improved high-speed and high-precision stage system (Column 2, Lines 43-45), and in order to advantageously provide a stage that can advantageously be moved in the X and Y directions with similar strokes (Column 13, Lines 7-15), and provide a wafer stage that is lighter in weight and provides a higher-speed stage system (Column 13, Lines 7-15).
As to Claim 5,
AAPA discloses the magnet is configured to generate the magnetic field to be normal to a surface of the MRAM wafer when the MRAM wafer is positioned in the magnetic field (Paragraph [0004]); and the optics are configured to direct the laser beam to be normally incident upon each MRAM die of the plurality of MRAM dies when each MRAM die is successively positioned to receive the laser beam (Paragraph [0005]).
As to Claim 6,
AAPA discloses the optics further comprise mirrors (118-1),(118-2) to steer the laser beam to be incident upon the MRAM wafer (Paragraph [0005]); and the detector comprises an analyzer (Paragraph [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights