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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/17/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-22 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/17/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims recite the limitation, the changing operation. However, there is no clear introduction of a specific changing operation in claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear in claims 2, 3, if the changing operation is specifically associated with the change of layer identification or some other aspect of the peak or trough. While claim 1 cites of change to a layer identification of a prior peak or trough, it does not mention a specific singular changing operation. In other words, even assuming the changing operation were associated with change of layer identification, the changing operation in claims 2-5 has the connotation of a specific/distinct subset or action, solely and specifically associated with said change, that the reader is expected to know. Furthermore, in claim 4, it cites, the detection of the given peak. However, claim 1 only mentions of detection of a given inflection, and there no clear introduction of what the given peak is and its specific detection. Therefore, it is unclear what it is specifically referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Morgan-Jones (US 20210287938).
Regarding claim 1. Morgan-Jones teaches an apparatus (system/apparatus [4]) comprising: an etcher (etcher [4]); computer-readable media storing instructions ([4] verbatim); and one or more hardware processors with memory ([4] verbatim) coupled thereto ([4] verbatim), the one or more hardware processors further coupled to the etcher and the computer-readable media ([55], his claim 1); wherein the instructions (his claims 1, 20), when executed by the one or more hardware processors (his claims 1, 20), cause the apparatus to: delayer a sample (his claims 1, 20) while monitoring one or more signals from the sample (his claims 12, 13, 21); identify successive layers of the sample based on peaks or troughs of the monitored signal(s) (his claims 16 21 [9] identifying the successive layer endpoints; the layers are determined by extension, since each endpoint has an associated layer/layer index, each layer endpoint determination/identification based on a detected trough in the process signal [7, 30 74-92] his claim 21); retrospectively change a layer identification of a prior peak or trough (in step 869 879, P/T is the peak/trough, which was already detected/prior in 850 by time of step 869/879, of the current layer being monitored for inflection/850, it is changed in 869/879 after retrospection with past data such as last found inflection in 861 [91], to that of a subsequent layer/ie. Subsequent endpoint/endpoint of the next layer, i.e. New endpoint P/T_Last = P/L, fig. 8b [92]), responsive to detection of a given inflection of the monitored signal(s) (as discussed, it is in response to detection of inflection in the monitored signals in step 850, fig. 8b); and suspend delayering when a predetermined target layer of the sample is reached ([30]), wherein identification of the predetermined target layer is dependent on the changed layer identification (as discussed, said previous steps 869 879 create new endpoint P/T values which lead to 807, fig. 8b, leading to new endpoints, which identifies the predetermined/set target layer when the etch stops [30]).
Regarding claim 2. Morgan-Jones teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the prior peak or trough is changed by the changing operation from a disregarded peak or trough (as discussed, the prior P/T is replaced/changed and disregarded in 869 879) to a peak or trough identifying a particular layer among the successive layers (as discussed, it is replaced w/ T/P associated w/ endpoint of the next/subsequent layer among the layers in the delayering process).
Regarding claim 3. Morgan-Jones teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the prior peak or trough is changed by the changing operation from a peak or trough identifying a particular layer among the successive layers to a disregarded peak or trough (as discussed previously, the change includes a label change from New endpoint/next endpoint peak which identifies the next layer of the layers to the label P which was the previous, disregarded/no longer used P or T, fig. 8b).
Regarding claim 4. Morgan-Jones teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the layer identification is changed, by the changing operation, based on an updated amplitude threshold, the amplitude threshold being updated responsive to the detection of the given peak or trough (as discussed, the change is based on a new endpoint i.e. 869, and all etch endpoints, represent the amplitude or level threshold/limit when the amount of etching, including time and amount etched, is to stop; this new endpoint updated the previous endpoint after detection of the inflection P, T, in 850 see Fig. 8b).
Regarding claim 5. Morgan-Jones teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the layer identification is changed, by the changing operation, based on periodicity of the peaks or troughs (said change based on inflection 850, as discussed, which includes periods/trends of data points of identifying peak/trough inflection [36]).
Regarding claim 6. Morgan-Jones teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the apparatus to perform endpoint detection (as discussed previously eg step 130 320, fig. 1, 3), with one or more adaptive parameters ([48]), to detect the peaks and troughs (the entire fig. 8ab is part of the adaptive endpoint detection and incorporates adaptive parameters [92] and detects P/T, fig. 8b) and identify the successive layers of the sample ([52] successive layers to be etched are determined/identified).
Regarding claim 7. Morgan-Jones teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the sample is a first sample (as discussed, the sample is one/a first substrate that is etched) and the instructions further cause the adaptive parameter(s) to be stored for use in delayering a second sample ([48 49] the predetermined and dynamic parameters [40] used for adaptive detection are adaptive detection parameters, and are codified to be permanently stored such as the predetermined parameters until accessed/retrieved for use [40 49], fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9. Morgan-Jones teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the etcher is configured to generate a focused ion beam (FIB) (his claim 14) and the apparatus further comprises: a scanning electron microscope (SEM) (his claim 15) configured to generate images of the sample during the delayer operation ([57 69]), wherein the monitored signal(s) comprise a parameter derived from the images (monitoring parameter/data point of the monitoring signal being image of sample such as grayscale value [84]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morgan-Jones (US 20210287938).
Regarding claim 8. Morgan-Jones teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the adaptive parameter(s) include a width of an averaging window (a predetermined parameter of the adaptive endpoint process being the length or time, i.e. width or x axis, of the averaging window [86]), but does not teach the instructions further cause the width of the averaging window to be updated based on one or more waveform parameters of the monitored signal(s). However, Morgan-Jones teaches in [40] that dynamic parameters can be set for predetermined parameters and that dynamic parameters include waveform parameters of the monitored signal such as amplitude, period, rise time, fall time, or characteristics of particular waveform features [49]. It would be obvious to those skilled in the art at the time of the invention to set the predetermined parameter, time/width of average window, to be changed/updated based on a dynamic waveform parameter of the monitored signal to tune the parameters to achieve superior performance across a wide range of devices and layer stacks [49].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUECHUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/YUECHUAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718