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
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on December 9, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 9, 2025.
The Examiner notes that claims 1-10 are examined and claims 11-20 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed December 9, 2025. Claim 1 is amended.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “during the establishing of the reference data set establishing the measurement data set.” It is unclear at what step the second light beam is provided as “establishing of the reference data” as claimed in claim 1 refers to the step in which the substrate alone is measured and “establishing the measurement data” as claimed in independent claim 1 refers to measuring the film as the substrate is being processed. Based on para. the specification, the Examiner interprets the “first light beam” of claim 9 to refer to light beam 508 of Figs. 5B and 5C at operation 404 and the Examiner interprets the “second light beam” of claim 9 to refer to light beam 510 of Figs. 5E and 5F and operation 412. Therefore, for the purpose of this action, claim 9 will be interpreted to mean “when a second light beam is provided from the light source of the in-situ reflectometry system during the establishing of the measurement data set.”
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Budiarto (US 2015/0203966 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Budiarto teaches:
A method for measuring film properties on a substrate, comprising:
placing a substrate (substrate 114) on a substrate support (substrate support 112) in a process chamber (processing volume 106) having an in- situ reflectometry system (in-situ metrology assembly 122, abstract “Embodiments of the present disclosure enable measurement of film properties, such as thickness, using reflectometry”) integrated with the process chamber;
establishing a reference data set via in-situ reflectometry using the in-situ reflectometry system for a selected region of the substrate (Fig. 3, para. 42, in box 320 reflectance data is taken on the substrate to determine properties of the base layer);
processing the substrate by selectively depositing a film on the selected region of the substrate (Fig. 3, para. 46, box 330 “igniting and maintaining plasma of one or more processing gases in the processing chamber to facilitate a deposition process on the substrate surface”);
establishing a measurement data set via in-situ reflectometry using the in-situ reflectometry system for the film deposited on the selected region of the substrate (para. 46 “repeated measurements separated by time intervals are continuously performed during igniting and maintain the plasma for film deposition.”);
and determining a thickness of the film by comparing the measurement data set with the reference data set (para.49 “In box 360, properties, such as thickness, of each film layer being deposited in the processing chamber may be determined according to the properties of the base layer and the time series data.”).
With respect to claim 2, Budiarto further teaches:
directing a first light beam from a light source of the in-situ reflectometry system onto a surface of the substrate at the selected region (para. 32 light from the light source 124 travels towards a measuring point 138 on the substrate 114 at normal incident.”),
the first light beam reflecting off the surface of the substrate to produce a first reflected light beam (para. 32 The fiber-optic bundle 126 then captures reflection of the light from the substrate 114 from the normal incident”);
receiving the first reflected light beam using a spectrometer of the in-situ reflectometry system (para. 32 “transmits the reflection towards the spectrometer 128”);
and recording an intensity of the first reflected light beam as the reference data set (para. 36 “the control software may instruct the in-situ metrology assembly 122 to perform measurement, receive and process measurement data from in-situ metrology assembly 122 to obtain properties of the substrate 114.”).
With respect to claim 3, Budiarto further teaches:
wherein establishing the measurement data set using the in-situ reflectometry system for the film comprises:
directing a second light beam from a light source onto a surface of the film deposited on the substrate at the selected region (para. 43 “The repeated measurement is maintained in the duration of deposition of the films to be measured.”, “The measurement may be made using a metrology assembly, such as the metrology assembly 122, by impinging light from a light source to the surface of the substrate at normal incident”),
the second light beam reflecting off the surface of the film to produce a second reflected light beam (para 43 “and detecting reflections of the impinging light.”);
receiving the second reflected light beam using a spectrometer of the in- situ reflectometry system (para. 32 “transmits the reflection towards the spectrometer 128”);
and recording an intensity of the second reflected light beam as the measurement data set (para. 36 “the control software may instruct the in-situ metrology assembly 122 to perform measurement, receive and process measurement data from in-situ metrology assembly 122 to obtain properties of the substrate 114”).
With respect to claim 6, Budiarto further teaches: establishing a monitoring data set via in-situ reflectometry using the in-situ reflectometry system concurrently while the film is being deposited on the selected region of the substrate (para. 43 “The repeated measurement is maintained in the duration of deposition of the films to be measured.”, “The measurement may be made using a metrology assembly, such as the metrology assembly 122, by impinging light from a light source to the surface of the substrate at normal incident”);
and determining a thickness of the film deposited by comparing the measurement data set with the reference data set for real-time monitoring of the film during processing of the substrate (para. 67 “After the substrate reflectivity calculation is completed, a faster algorithm, such as algorithm for static fitting, may be used to process the buffered data to calculate thickness of the deposited films, and eventually catch up with the real-time data stream.”)
With respect to claim 7, Budiarto further teaches:
wherein comparing the measurement data set with the reference data set to determine the thickness of the film comprises analyzing a change in intensity of a reflected light from a surface of the selected region of the substrate and a surface of the film deposited on the selected region of the substrate. (para. 72 “thickness of a high index film may be extracted by direct fringe (cycle) counting of reflectance vs. time data. The large real refractive index (n) in high index films, such as amorphous silicon or polysilicon, allows direct fringe (cycle) counting of the reflectance vs. time data to extract the thickness of the film”)
With respect to claim 8, Budiarto further teaches:
wherein the substrate comprises a patterned substrate with a non-planarized top surface and unknown surface or material properties (para. 42 “Surface properties of the substrate may be unknown or patterned.”)
With respect to claim 10, Budiarto further teaches:
wherein the reference data set and measurement data set are associated with light reflected off of the substrate and the film, respectively, based on variables comprising:
intensity; wavelength; frequency; amplitude; phase shift; and fit to a function. (see paragraphs 53-57 for discussion on different variables and functions used in fitting the data sets)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budiarto (US 2015/0203966 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Budiarto does not teach:
wherein the selected region comprises an open area of about 5% of the substrate.
However, the amount of the substrate over which the film is deposited is a matter of design choice and it would be obvious to the ordinary artisan that the film measurement process as claimed would apply to the film thickness measurement regardless of how much of the substrate the film thickness covers.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to selectively deposit a film over an area of about 5% of the substrate, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the film deposited. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budiarto (US 2015/0203966 A1) in view Sreenivasan (US 2022/0013417 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Budiarto further teaches:wherein the substrate comprises a patterned substrate (para. 42 “Surface properties of the substrate may be unknown or patterned”),
Budiarto fails to teach:
and selectively depositing the film on the selected region of the substrate comprises selectively depositing the film in a trench formed on a top surface of the patterned substrate.
Sreenivasan teaches:
and selectively depositing the film on the selected region of the substrate comprises selectively depositing the film in a trench formed on a top surface of the patterned substrate (abstract “a drop pattern can be determined and then dispensed on the patterned substrate”, Sreenivasan further teaches that this process can be monitored with in-situ reflectometry “The execution of PAINT for planarization can be combined with in-situ metrology to determine in real-time, near real-time or offline conditions, the performance of the planarization process. This in-situ metrology can be optical-based (e.g., thin film reflectometry)”.)
Budiarto discloses the claimed invention except for the film being deposited in patterned trenches. Sreenivasan teaches that it is known to deposit film in trenches while monitoring by in-situ reflectometry. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Budiarto as taught by Sreenivasan since Sreenivasan states that such a process can be used to planarize a substrate or transfer a substrate pattern after curing. See MPEP 2144.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budiarto (US 2015/0203966 A1) in view of Paul (US 2016/0370173 A1) and Danylyuk (Phys. Status Solidi C, 2015).
With respect to claim 9, Budiarto teaches all limitations of independent claim 1 upon which claim 9 depends. Budiarto fails to teach:
further comprising a controller connected to the in-situ reflectometry system,
the controller recording one or more angular position of the substrate support when a first light beam is provided from a light source of the in-situ reflectometry system during the establishing of the reference data set,
when a second light beam is provided from the light source of the in-situ reflectometry system during the establishing of the reference data set establishing the measurement data set,
and during the processing the substrate as the substrate support is being rotated, and wherein the controller associates wavelengths or intensities of reflected light from the first and second light beams to one of the one or more angular positions of the substrate support.
Paul teaches:
further comprising a controller connected to the in-situ reflectometry system (para. 34 “The system controller 142 is connected to the in-situ metrology assembly 122.”),
the controller recording one or more angular position of the substrate support when a first light beam (beam during measurement of substrate prior to processing) is provided from a light source of the in-situ reflectometry system during the establishing of the reference data set (para. 48 “The substrate 114 may be rotated and phase variation information at a different location on the substrate may be obtained. The steps may be repeated until locations on the substrate on which the greatest phase variation is shown are identified. These locations may be used as the measurement points.”),
Budiarto discloses the claimed invention except for the rotation of the substrate support to measure the substrate and sample at multiple angles. Paul teaches that it is known to measure the substrate from multiple angles by rotating the substrate to find the measurement points with the highest reflectivity. 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 device of Budiarto with the teachings of Paul, since Budiarto states in para. 51 that such a modification would find the optimal combination of measurement points for the substrate. See MPEP 2144.
Danylyuk teaches that it is known to measure reflectometry of a sample at multiple angles:
Abstract: “the extension of the method to multi-angle measurements will be presented. It allows to reduce a number of fit parameters in the analysis model, making the method suitable for com-plex samples of unknown composition.”
It would therefore be obvious to combine the method of Rubiarto and Paul in which the substrate is rotated and measured with the teaching of Danylyuk to also measure the film at multiple angles to meet the limitation:
when a second light beam is provided from the light source of the in-situ reflectometry system during the establishing of the reference data set establishing the measurement data set (Budiarto para. 43 ““The measurement may be made using a metrology assembly, such as the metrology assembly 122, by impinging light from a light source to the surface of the substrate at normal incident”),
and during the processing the substrate as the substrate support is being rotated, and wherein the controller associates wavelengths or intensities of reflected light from the first and second light beams to one of the one or more angular positions of the substrate support (measuring multiple angles using substrate rotation method of Paul with the motivation from Danylyuk).
Budiarto/Paul discloses the claimed invention except for the rotating the substrate during processing to measure the film at multiple angles. Danylyuk teaches that it is known to take reflectometry measurements at multiple angles. 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 Budiarto/Paul as taught by Danylyuk that such a modification would reduce the number of fit parameters in the analysis model (abstract of Danylyuk). See MPEP 2144.
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