DETAILED ACTION
1. This is the initial office action of application number 18/128,032 filed on 03/29/2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and considered below.
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I directed to claims 1-15 in the reply filed on December 9, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The drawings are missing the claimed ‘wireless transceiver’ as claimed in claim 10. Also, no reference number were given to ‘wireless transceiver’ in the specification. Therefore, the ‘wireless transceiver’ must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
4. The term “Spectrometer” recited in claim 1 is understood as any device that detects light for the purposes of compact prosecution.
The term “wireless transceiver” recited in claim 10 is understood as any device that receives wireless communication.
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.
5. Claim 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 20210398785 A1)
Regarding Claim 11 and 12: Lin et al. (“Lin” hereinafter) teach a processing tool 500 that is comprised of a chamber 505, multiple in-situ optical sensor 520 (diagnostic device) integrated to chamber 505 [fig 5; para 45]. Lin teach in an embodiment of optical sensor 320 which is similar to optical sensor 20. The optical sensor 320 is used to measure things such as, wavelengths of plasma 343, film 306, properties of film 306 or materials being used in film 306. [para 37-42]. Lin teach that optical sensor 320 (an embodiment of sensor 120 or 520) can be used to measure properties of objects such as film 306. Reflected signals 342 may be used to find differences relative to the reference signal 341. The changes in the reflected signals include thickness of objects such as films [para 42; fig 3B]. Therefore, the apparatus by Lin is capable of measuring properties and thickness values of objects which recites the limitation in claims 11 and 12.
Alternatively, the limitations recited in claim 11, “wherein the integrated diagnostic devices are configured to provide layer thickness measurements, layer composition measurements, and/or plasma property measurements” and claim 12, “wherein the set of integrated diagnostic devices are configured to provide a spatial map of layer thickness, a spatial map of plasma properties, and/or a spatial map of layer composition within the chamber.” are directed to intended use of the claimed ‘processing tool’. Those limitation do not define any further structure of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 13 and 14: Lin teach that optical sensor 120 is comprised of source 137 (light source) and sensor 138 (spectrometer) [para 30 and para 32]. Fig 5 shows embodiment of optical sensor 120 labeled as 520 and they are similar structures [para 45]. Fig 5 also shows the chamber 505 of processing tool 500 has multiple optical sensors 520 which is comprised of multiple light source 137 and spectrometers 138.
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.
6. Claim 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20210398785 A1) in view of Cafferty et al. (US 9535053 B1).
Regarding Claim 1: Lin et al. (“Lin” hereinafter) teach a processing tool 500 that is comprised of a chamber 505, in-situ optical sensor 520 (diagnostic device) integrated to the chamber 505 [fig 5; para 45]. Processing tool 500 including chamber 505, and optical sensor 520 is a similar embodiment of processing tool 100, chamber 105, and optical sensor 120 respectively [para 45; para 23]. Optical sensor 120 or 520 is comprised of a sensor 138, and the sensor is a spectrometer [para 32]
However, Lin specifically do not teach “a board; a spectrometer on the board; and a housing around the board.”
Cafferty et al. teach an apparatus 10 that is comprised of a spectrometer module 100 (diagnostic device) [para 29; fig 1]. The spectrometer module has a circuit board 112 (board) and a light-array detector 116 (spectrometer) on the circuit board [column 14, lines 55-67 and column 15, lines 1-26; fig 12, 13, 14]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate such module with a circuit board and a light-array detector into the invention of Lin because Cafferty teach that having such configuration eliminates the need to mount and position each structure (i.e. slit and detector) separately [column 15, lines 4-7].
Regarding Claim 2: Lin shows in fig 5 that optical sensor 520 is integrated within perimeter (wall or liner) of the chamber 505 [para 45]. Additionally, Lin suggest that optical sensor 120 may be positioned through any surface of chamber 105 [para 23].
Regarding Claim 4: Lin teach plurality of optical sensors 520 (diagnostic device) integrated within chamber 505 in fig 5 [para 45].
Regarding Claim 8: Lin teach a lens 125/325 within housing 124 and 125 of optical sensor 120 that acts a window and it appears transparent as light beams (341, 342, 343) are moving a straight path as shown in fig 3A.
Regarding Claim 10: Lin teach that a computer system 760 controls the processing of the processing tool 100. Lin also suggest that the computer system 760 (wireless transceiver) can be a cellphone or a tablet PC, a network router (wireless transceiver) which is connect to internet. [para 52]
7. Claim 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20210398785 A1) in view of Cafferty et al. (US 9535053 B1) and further in view of Frick et al. (US 20050052648 A1)
Regarding Claim 5: Lin and Cafferty teach their respective light sources. However, Lin and Cafferty do not specifically teach a light source on the board.
Frick teach an apparatus 30 which is comprised of a light source on a printed circuit board 15 (board) as shown in fig 1 [Abstract]. The apparatus also includes a photoreceptor 50 (spectrometer) on printed circuit board 15 as shown in fig 1 [para 41]. This configuration would have the photoreceptor and light source being on a printed circuit board. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate a light source and photoreceptor configuration into the invention of Lin and Cafferty because Frick teach that photoreceptor assists in capturing reflected light directly from measured object [para 41].
Regarding Claim 6: Lin already teach that the tool 100 can have multiple in-situ optical sensors 120 [para 23] and is also shown in fig 5 labeled as 520. Each of the sensors 120 or 520 will have a source 137 and sensor 138. Lin also teach the source 137 (light source) is connected with sensor 138 (spectrometer) through fiber optical cable 138 [para 30]. Therefore, in each of the multiple optical sensor 120 or 520, plurality of sensors 138 will be connected to plurality of source 137.
Regarding Claim 9: The combination of Lin and Cafferty teach an apparatus but do not specifically teach an internal power source. Frick teach an apparatus comprised of circuit 100 (power source) that is connected to light source 11 and the circuit controls the light source by providing power [Abstract; para 48]. It would have been obvious to include circuit 100 into the invention of Lin and Cafferty because Frick teach that the circuit controls illumination arrangement (light) [para 23].
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20210398785 A1) in view of Cafferty et al. (US 9535053 B1) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20240096713 A1)
Regarding Claim 3: The combination of Lin and Caffrey teach a processing tool with a spectrometer (diagnostic device) but they do not teach “diagnostic device is integrated into a gas line into or out of the chamber.”
Zhang et al. (“Zhang” hereinafter) teach an apparatus that is comprised of a spectral reflectometer system 200 (spectrometer/diagnostic device). The reflectometer has a collimator housing 184 that is connected with a gas inlet 182 (gas line). The gas inlet is connected to gas source 130. [para 70; fig 1].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate a gas source 130 and fluidly connected it to the reflectometer because Zhang teach that the gas lines help producing a tunable gas injection profile leading to proper adjustment of gas flow (in or out) within multiple zones during plasma process. [para 67].
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20210398785 A1) in view of Cafferty et al. (US 9535053 B1) and further in view of Jang et al. (US 10551312 B2)
Regarding Claim 7: Lin teach an apparatus comprised of a plurality of sensor (spectrometer) as part of the optical sensor (520) in fig 5. However, Lin and Cafferty do not teach plurality of spectrometer being on a board.
Jang et al. teach an apparatus 300 comprised of multiple photodetectors 341, 342, 343, 344, and 345 (spectrometers) on a substrate (board) [fig 3; column 7, lines 42-67, column 8, lines 1-3]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plurality of photodetector configuration into the invention of Lin because Jang teach that the photodetectors assist in measuring absorbance value of object be receiving a quantity of light [column 2, lines 4-32].
10. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20210398785 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20240096713 A1)
Regarding Claim 15: Lin et al. teach a processing tool with multiple spectrometer (diagnostic device) as mentioned above in paragraph 6 but do not teach “the set of diagnostic devices comprises at least one diagnostic device along a gas inlet line and/or an exhaust line.”
Zhang et al. (“Zhang” hereinafter) teach an apparatus that is comprised of a spectral reflectometer system 200 (spectrometer/diagnostic device). The reflectometer has a collimator housing 184 that is connected with a gas inlet 182 (gas line). The gas inlet is connected to gas source 130. [para 70; fig 1].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate a gas source 130 and fluidly connected it to the reflectometer using gas inlet because Zhang teach that the gas lines help producing a tunable gas injection profile leading to proper adjustment of gas flow (in or out) within multiple zones during plasma process. [para 67].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wasiqul Haq whose telephone number is (571)272-9973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm ET.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/WASIQUL HAQ/Examiner, Art Unit 1717 /Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights