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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 26, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-8 and 16-17 are pending in this application.
Applicant elected without traverse Group I, Species A (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on June 10, 2025.
All nonelected claims have been cancelled in the amendment dated November 7, 2025.
The Examiner notes that claims 1-8 and 16-17 and newly added claims 18-21 are examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority from Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-043438, filed on March 18, 2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed November 7, 2025. Claims 1 and 16 are amended. Claims 28-21 are newly added. The Examiner notes that claims 1-8 and 16-21 are examined.
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, 3, 5, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranish (US 2019/0391017 A1) in view of Wellenius (US 2015/0110156 A1), Raad (Electronics Cooling, 2008) and Matsudo (US 2011/0235675 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Ranish teaches:
A temperature measurement method comprising (para. 2 “non-contact temperature measurement for a processing chamber”)
applying measurement light having a predetermined wavelength (para. 24 “the electromagnetic radiation sources 102 and 106 are operated one at time, either at the same wavelength or at different wavelengths.”) to a first surface of a semiconductor substrate (para. 28 “The radiation L.sub.1 illuminates the substrate 101 at incidence angle θ.sub.1, and is partially absorbed, partially transmitted and/or partially reflected”, para. 16 “the substrate 101 may be silicon (doped or undoped), crystalline silicon, silicon oxide, doped or undoped polysilicon, or the like, a germanium substrate, a silicon germanium (SiGe) substrate, a Group III-V compound substrate, such as a gallium arsenide substrate, a silicon carbide (SiC) substrate, a patterned or non-patterned semiconductor-on-insulator (SOI) substrate”);
receiving, with an optical member (pyrometer 110), reflected light generated by the measurement light being reflected by the substrate (para. 28 “Reflected radiation R.sub.1 and R.sub.2 proceed towards the pyrometer 110);
and calculating temperature of the semiconductor substrate based on reflectance based on a ratio between intensity of the measurement light and intensity of the reflected light (the method of using reflectivity to measure temperature is described in para. 30-36 of Ranish).
Ranish fails to teach:
a reflective film formed on a first surface of a substrate;
measurement light being reflected by the reflective film;
wherein the reflective film includes at least one of Al, Mo, TiN, and Pt.
the semiconductor substrate is mounted on a mounting table including an electrostatic chuck electrode,
and the measurement light is applied to the reflective film from a lift pin penetrating through the electrostatic chuck electrode.
Wellenius teaches:
a reflective film (metal 78) formed on a first surface (top surface) of a substrate (base sample material 82);
measurement light being reflected by the reflective film (para. 44 “the processing of the first and second surfaces 18 and 24 includes applying a material having a TR coefficient at the wavelength of the illumination of the TR probe 30 that has a magnitude that is greater than the magnitude of the TR coefficient of the sample material 20. This material may therefore operate as and be referred to herein as a TR transducer”, para. 46 “The metal layers 78 or 80, to be effective TR transducers”, para. 36 “Due to the reflectance of the sample material 20, the illumination from the TR probe 30 is reflected by the first surface 18 of the sample material 20 back into the microscope illuminator”);
Wellenius further teaches a different method of calculating temperature from reflectance than Ranish, calculating temperature directly from thermoreflectance thermography as described in para. 29.
Ranish discloses the claimed invention except for the reflective layer on the sample. Wellenius teaches that it is known to use thermoreflectance thermography to directly measure temperature from reflectance and that using a reflective film with large TR coefficients improves the measurement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ranish to use thermoreflectance thermography as the temperature measurement method with a metal transducer as a reflective film as taught by Wellenius, since Wellenius states in para. 29 that such a modification would allow for a measurement that can detect small changes in temperature on the surface of the material and in para. 44 that the use of a material with a high TR coefficient at the applied wavelength improves the measurement. See MPEP 2144.
Raad teaches that Al has a known thermoreflectance with a high peak around 800 nm and can be measured by thermo-reflectance thermography temperature measurements. Modifying Ranish/Wellenius by Raad renders obvious:
wherein the reflective film includes at least one of Al, Mo, TiN, and Pt (see Fig. 1 for thermoreflectance values for Al).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the reflective Au film of Wellenius with Al because they are known equivalents and it would have yielded the predictable result of providing a reflective surface with high thermoreflectance to be used as a transducer for temperature measurements and because it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Matsudo teaches in Fig. 3:
the semiconductor substrate is mounted on a mounting table including an electrostatic chuck electrode (para. 38 “a negative potential is generated on a surface (hereinafter, referred to as "rear surface") of the wafer W on the side of the electrostatic chuck 23 and then an electric field is generated between the electrostatic electrode plate 22 and the rear surface of the wafer W. The wafer W is attracted to and held on the electrostatic chuck 23”),
and the measurement light is applied to the wafer from a lift pin penetrating through the electrostatic chuck electrode (para. 74 “a measurement light beam 88 as a low-coherence light beam is irradiated from the light irradiating/light receiving unit 87 to the wafer W through the lift pin as an optical path”, Fig. 2B shows the lift pin 84 penetrating the chuck electrode plate 22, labeled in Fig. 1 but unlabeled in Fig. 2B).
Ranish/Wellenius/Raad teaches that the wafer is covered in a reflective film, therefore, Ranish/Wellenius/Raad modified by Matsudo meets the limitation:
and the measurement light is applied to the reflective film from a lift pin penetrating through the electrostatic chuck electrode
Ranish/Wellenius/Raad discloses the claimed invention except for sample being held by an electrostatic chuck and irradiated through a lift pin. Matsudo teaches that it is known hold the wafer with an electrostatic chuck and pass the measurement light through the chuck via a hollow lift pin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ranish/Wellenius/Raad to use an electrostatic chuck with a hollow lift pin as an optical path while measuring the temperature as Matsudo states in para. 76 that such a modification would make forming a hole in the mounting table unnecessary and prevent a deterioration of temperature uniformity. See MPEP 2144.
With respect to claim 3, Raad further teaches:
wherein the reflective film includes at least one of Al. (see Fig. 1 for thermoreflectance values for Al).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ranish in view of Wellenius, Raad, and Matsudo as explained above.
With respect to claim 5, Ranish further teaches in Fig. 4:
wherein the temperature is calculated before plasma processing (processing chamber may be a plasma enhanced CVD, high density plasma CVD, or plasma etch chamber, per para. 54) is executed on a surface opposite to the first surface of the semiconductor substrate (substrate 401) (Fig. 4 shows that the temperature measurement occurs on the bottom side of 401 and the processing occurs in enclosure 402 on the top side of 401).
Although Ranish does not specify the order in which temperature is calculated compared to plasma processing, it would be obvious to the ordinary artisan to measure temperature at least before processing begins for the purpose of knowing the starting conditions of the processing.
With respect to claim 18, Ranish further teaches that the upper surface of the substrate is processed by the processing module 403 while the bottom surface is measured during semiconductor device manufacturing (para. 3). Therefore, the following limitation is obvious over Rainish:
wherein a device structure (para. 3, processing associated with fabrication of semiconductor devices) is formed on a second surface (top surface under processing module 403) of the semiconductor substrate (substrate 401) opposite to the first surface (bottom surface)
Claims 2, 4, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranish (US 2019/0391017 A1) in view of Wellenius (US 2015/0110156 A1), Raad (Electronics Cooling, 2008), and Matsudo (US 2011/0235675 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Haas (Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1949).
With respect to claim 2, Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo teach all limitations of independent claim 1 upon which claim 2 depends. Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo fails to teach:
wherein the reflective film is covered with a protective film configured to transmit the measurement light.
Haas teaches:
wherein the reflective film (abstract “aluminum is used as the reflecting material) is covered with a protective film (silicon monoxide, was investigated and found to produce good quality protective films)) configured to transmit the measurement light (“The visual reflectivity of aluminum mirrors protected with an optimum thickness (about 1500A) of SiO is about 89 percent, or only one percent lower than that of the unprotected aluminum surface”)
Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo discloses the claimed invention except for the protective film on the reflective film. Haas teaches that it is known to deposit a protective layer over a reflective layer such that the layer protects the reflective layer without significantly reducing the amount of light that reaches the layer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo to include a protective layer as taught by Haas, since Haas states in the abstract that such a layer would provide protection for a reflective aluminum layer while still allowing light to pass through. See MPEP 2144.
With respect to claim 4, Haas further teaches:
wherein the protective film includes at least one of SiN and SiO (title, “silicon monoxide”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo in view of Haas as explained above.
With respect to claim 17, Haas further teaches:
wherein the protective film includes SiO (title, “silicon monoxide”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo in view of Haas as explained above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranish (US 2019/0391017 A1) in view of Wellenius (US 2015/0110156 A1), Raad (Electronics Cooling, 2008), and Matsudo (US 2011/0235675 A1).as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Dussart (ECS Meeting Abstract, 2014) and Wang (Journal of Electronic Materials, 2009), hereinafter referred to as Wang-1.
With respect to claim 6, Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo teaches all limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 6 depends. Ranish further teaches:
wherein the temperature is calculated before etching (processing chamber may be an etch chamber, per para. 54) is executed on a surface opposite to the first surface of the semiconductor substrate (substrate 401) (Fig. 4 shows that the temperature measurement occurs on the bottom side of 401 and the processing occurs in enclosure 402 on the top side of 401).
Although Ranish does not specify the order in which temperature is calculated compared to plasma processing, it would be obvious to the ordinary artisan to measure temperature at least before processing begins for the purpose of knowing the starting conditions of the processing.
Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo does not specify that the etching is cryoetching.
Dussart teaches the use of cryoetching as a way to etch a substrate:
“Several different processes are commonly exploited for deep silicon etching. One of the techniques is the so-called cryogenic process, which requires the substrate to be cooled down to a temperature of the order of -100°C.”
Wang-1 teaches that reflectance thermography is possible and useful at cryogenic temperatures as low as 100 K, which provides evidence that this technique can be useful for temperature monitoring before and during cyroetching:
“The first thermal imaging at cryogenic temperatures using thermoreflectance technique is reported”
Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo discloses the claimed invention except for the use of cryoetching as the etching process. Dussart teaches that it is known to use cryoetching to pattern a substrate and Wang-1 teaches that the measurement techniques of Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo are adaptable to cryogenic temperatures used by Dussart. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo to use cryoetching as the method of etching as taught by Dussart, since Dussart states in the abstract that such a modification would make post etch treatments unnecessary because the passivation layer evaporates at ambient temperature. See MPEP 2144.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranish (US 2019/0391017 A1) in view of Wellenius (US 2015/0110156 A1), Raad (Electronics Cooling, 2008), and Matsudo (US 2011/0235675 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wang-1 (Journal of Electronic Materials, 2009).
With respect to claim 7, Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo teaches all limitations of independent claim 1 upon which claim 7 depends. Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo fails to teach:
wherein a temperature range to be measured is 00C or less.
Wang-1 teaches the use of reflectance for temperature measurements at cryogenic temperatures and teaches:
wherein a temperature range to be measured is 0°C or less. (conclusion “The first thermal imaging at cryogenic temperatures using thermoreflectance technique is reported. Thermoelectric cooling and thermionic cooling in a single barrier InAlGaAs-based microrefrigerator were investigated experimentally. Maximum cooling of 1.8 K and 0.6 K over a 1 µm thick barrier are reported at 295 K and 100 K”)
Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo discloses the claimed invention except for the use of the device to measure temperatures below 0°C. Wang teaches that it is known to use reflectance measurements to measure temperature as low as 100 K (-173°C). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo to measure temperature below 0°C for the purpose of allowing temperature measurement during low temperature processing steps. See MPEP 2144.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranish (US 2019/0391017 A1) in view of Wellenius (US 2015/0110156 A1), Raad (Electronics Cooling, 2008), and Matsudo (US 2011/0235675 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wang (Journal of Applied Physics, 2010), hereinafter referred to as Wang-2.
With respect to claim 8, Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo teaches all limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 8 depends. Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo fails to teach:
wherein the wavelength is 780 nm or more and 900 nm or less
Wang-2 teaches:
wherein the wavelength is 780 nm or more and 900 nm or less (abstract “At a laser wavelength of 785 nm, the highest thermoreflectance is found in Al and Ta”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to measure Al films at a wavelength of 785 nm because it is known in the art that Al has a peak in thermoreflectance such that a wavelength of 785 is optimal for measuring an Al film and using the claimed wavelength would yield the predictable result of a higher signal for the temperature measurement. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranish (US 2019/0391017 A1) in view of Wellenius (US 2015/0110156 A1), Raad (Electronics Cooling, 2008), and Matsudo (US 2011/0235675 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of (Choi 2017/0178978 A1)
With respect to claim 16, Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo teaches all limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 16 depends. Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo fails to teach:
wherein the measurement light is applied in a state where the first surface of the semiconductor substrate is mounted on the mounting table including the electrostatic chuck electrode and a refrigerant flow path for circulating a refrigerant,
and temperature of the refrigerant is changed based on the calculated temperature of the semiconductor substrate.
Choi teaches:
wherein the measurement light is applied (para. 45 “Temperature, tension, pressure, or bending may be detected by measuring the amount of the wavelength shift of reflected light from the FBGs.”) in a state where the first surface of the semiconductor substrate (bottom surface of wafer W) is mounted on the mounting table including the electrostatic chuck (electrostatic chuck 20) electrode (electrode 27 with electrode cap 25) and a refrigerant flow path for circulating a refrigerant (The coolant passing through the channel 29 a circulates inside the electrode cap 25 and then is exhausted through the channel 29 b),
and temperature of the refrigerant is changed based on the calculated temperature of the semiconductor substrate (para. 36 “The electrostatic chuck 20 includes channels 29 a and 29 b that provide a circulation path of a coolant for cooling the electrode cap 25. The coolant passing through the channel 29 a circulates inside the electrode cap 25 and then is exhausted through the channel 29 b. The temperature of the coolant exhausted from the channel 29 b is controlled by the temperature control unit 60, e.g., a chiller. Then, the coolant is re-supplied to the channel 29 a. The coolant temperature control by the temperature control unit 60 is controlled by the main controller 70. The main controller 70 receives information relating to the temperatures of a plurality of measurement zones 21 of the electrostatic chuck 20 from the measurement zone temperature measuring unit 50, that calculates the temperatures of the measurement zones 21.”)
Ranish/Wellenius/Raad discloses the claimed invention except for the electrode and refrigerant in which the temperature of the refrigerant is adjusted based on the measured temperature. Choi teaches that it is known to use a coolant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the temperature of the refrigerant with a main controller that is receiving temperature information to adjust the temperature during the measurement operation as taught by Choi, since Choi states in para. 36 that such a modification would result in managing the temperature of the measurement table. See MPEP 2144.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranish (US 2019/0391017 A1), Wellenius (US 2015/0110156 A1), Raad (Electronics Cooling, 2008) and Matsudo (US 2011/0235675 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Firoz (Measurement Science and Technology, 2011).
Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo teach all limitations of independent claim 1 upon which claim 19 depends. Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo fails to teach:
wherein the reflective film includes Mo.
Firoz teaches that it is known in the art to use thermoreflectance measurements on Mo thin films deposited on a substrate. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo with the teaching of Firoz to use Mo as a reflective film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the reflective film of Wellenius with Mo because they are known equivalents and it would have yielded the predictable result of providing a reflective surface with known thermoreflectance properties to be used as a transducer for temperature measurements and because it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranish (US 2019/0391017 A1), Wellenius (US 2015/0110156 A1), Raad (Electronics Cooling, 2008) and Matsudo (US 2011/0235675 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Liu (Review of Scientific Instruments, 2005).
Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo teach all limitations of independent claim 1 upon which claim 20 depends. Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo fails to teach:
wherein the reflective film includes TiN.
Liu teaches that it is known in the art to use thermoreflectance measurements on TiN thin films to measure temperature from known thermo-optical parameters of TiN. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo with the teaching of Liu to use TiN as a reflective film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the reflective film of Wellenius with TiN because they are known equivalents and it would have yielded the predictable result of providing a reflective surface with known thermoreflectance properties to be used as a transducer for temperature measurements and because it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranish (US 2019/0391017 A1), Wellenius (US 2015/0110156 A1), Raad (Electronics Cooling, 2008) and Matsudo (US 2011/0235675 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Favaloro (Review of Scientific Instruments, 2015).
Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo teach all limitations of independent claim 1 upon which claim 21 depends. Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo fails to teach:
wherein the reflective film includes Pt.
Favaloro teaches that it is known in the art to use thermoreflectance measurements on Pt films to measure temperature from known thermoreflectivity characteristics of Pt (section V. Results and Discussion B. Platinum). Therefore, it would be obvious to modify Ranish/Wellenius/Raad/Matsudo with the teaching of Favaloro to use Pt as a reflective film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the reflective film of Wellenius with Pt because they are known equivalents and it would have yielded the predictable result of providing a reflective surface with known thermoreflectance properties to be used as a transducer for temperature measurements and because it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 16-17 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON MICHAEL WEGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 AM - 5 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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/A.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights