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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments submitted on 12/30/2025. Claims 1-12, 14, 16-21, and 24 are pending, with claims 1-8, 19-21, and 24 withdrawn from consideration. Claims 13, 15, and 22-23 are cancelled.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0135419 ("Finarov") in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0034494 ("Fernandez-Dorado") further in view U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0313062 ("Polejaev").
Regarding claim 9, Finarov discloses a semiconductor measurement apparatus comprising:
an illuminator (102, Fig. 2A) configured to emit output light (paragraph [0023]);
a stage (plate where A is placed, Fig. 2A) configured to position a test object (A, Fig. 2A) such that the output light from the illuminator is incident thereon (see Fig. 2A);
a camera (104, Fig. 2A, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a camera and a light detection system are the same thing) configured to receive light that is reflected or scattered (Fig. 2A, paragraph [0024]) from the test object (A, Fig. 2A) or is transmitted through the test object; and
a controller (106, Fig. 2A, paragraph [0023]) configured to
measure an intensity of a signal output by the camera (for example, measured response curve 1, Fig. 4) responsive to setting an exposure time of the camera to a reference exposure time (“small integration time,” paragraph [0035], or, “certain integration time” used for curves 1 and 2, Fig. 5A, paragraph [0036], and see claims 6-7) and
wherein the controller is configured to compare intensity of respective signals output by the camera (see intensity curves, Figs. 2-5) in each of the plurality of wavelength bands (Figs. 2-5, the wavelength bands include a wide range from 190 nm-950 nm, paragraph [0029]) with a predetermined target intensity (between minimal SNR and saturation levels, paragraph [0036]) and
determine respective exposure times of the camera responsive thereto (optimal integration times, paragraph [0023], claims 2, 11),
wherein the respective exposure times for at least some of the plurality of wavelength bands are different from each other (paragraph [0036]: “no single-value optimal integration time enabling the entire spectrum…,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this statement means that optimal integration times will vary by wavelength).
Finarov does not explicitly disclose setting a wavelength band of the output light from the illuminator to each of a plurality of wavelength bands, nor that the plurality of wavelength bands produced by the illuminator each have substantially a same intensity to the camera.
However, Fernandez-Dorado discloses a controller (202, Fig. 2) that sets a wavelength band of the output light from the illuminator to each of a plurality of wavelength bands (paragraphs [0039], [0042], [0045], [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to control the illuminator to output light to each of a plurality of wavelength bands as disclosed by Fernandez-Dorado in the device of Finarov in order to ensure optimal integration times for all the wavelength bands.
Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado does not disclose that the plurality of wavelength bands produced by the illuminator each have substantially a same intensity to the camera.
However, Polejaev discloses that the respective exposure times for at least some of the plurality of wavelength bands are different from each other (see Fig. 3, and paragraph [0024], the coefficients used to adjust the exposure duration for a plurality of wavelengths are varying, i.e. different from each other, resulting in different exposure times for different wavelengths) and the plurality of wavelength bands produced by the illuminator (paragraphs [0024]-[0025], across a range of light source wavelengths) each have substantially a same intensity to the camera (see Fig. 4, paragraph [0018], each wavelength intensity across the range of wavelengths remains within a narrow range of intensities, i.e. a flat response).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure the plurality of wavelength bands have substantially a same intensity to the camera as disclosed by Polejaev in the device of Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado in order to enable post-calibration optical signals to be recognized at the spectrometer or other optical sensor system without significant distortion that would otherwise adversely affect the accuracy of those post-calibration signals.
Claims 10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/003479 ("Zhang").
Regarding claim 10, Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev discloses the semiconductor measurement apparatus of claim 9, but does not disclose that the test object is a bare wafer.
However, Zhang discloses that a bare substrate is often used to calibrate a detection system (paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a bare substrate as disclosed by Zhang in the device of Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev with known geometry and material in order to obtain more robust results during calibration.
Regarding claim 17, Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev discloses the semiconductor measurement apparatus of claim 9, but does not disclose that the illuminator includes a light source and a monochromator configured to adjust a wavelength band of primary light output by the light source to one of the plurality of wavelength bands, and to emit the output light comprising the one of the plurality of wavelength bands.
However, Zhang discloses an illuminator (185, Fig. 11) includes a light source (186, Fig. 11) and a monochromator (paragraph [0079], Fig. 11) configured to adjust a wavelength band of primary light output by the light source to one of the plurality of wavelength bands, and to emit the output light comprising the one of the plurality of wavelength bands (Fig. 11, paragraph [0079], Zhang discloses a structure that meets the claim language, therefore it functions in a similarly way).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an illuminator with a light source and monochromator as disclosed by Zhang in the device of Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev in order to ensure precise selection of specific wavelengths.
Regarding claim 18, Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev further in view of Zhang discloses the semiconductor measurement apparatus of claim 17, and Zhang further discloses that the monochromator (Fig. 11) includes a grating structure (191, Fig. 11) configured to reflect the primary light output by the light source (186, Fig. 11), and a slit structure (193, Fig. 11) configured to allow the light reflected from the grating structure to pass through (see Fig. 11), and wherein the controller is configured to adjust the wavelength band of the primary light by changing a posture of the grating structure (paragraph [0079], also this is the inherent function of a Czerny-Turner monochromator design).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an illuminator with a monochromator, such as a Czerny-Turner monochromator as disclosed by Zhang, in the device of Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev in order to ensure precise selection of specific wavelengths.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,253,765 ("Kato").
Regarding claim 11, Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev discloses the semiconductor measurement apparatus of claim 9, and Fernandez-Dorado further discloses that the plurality of wavelength bands include a first wavelength band and a second wavelength band different from the first wavelength band (paragraph [0024], different wavelength bands).
Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev does not explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to set the exposure time of the camera for the first wavelength band to a first exposure time among the respective exposure times, and to set the exposure time of the camera for the second wavelength band to a second exposure time among the respective exposure times, wherein the second exposure time is different from the first exposure time.
However, Kato discloses a plurality of wavelength bands include a first wavelength band (for example subrange, λ1-λx, forms first band, Fig. 3) and a second wavelength band different from the first wavelength band (subrange λx+1-λy, forms second band, Fig. 3), and
wherein the controller is configured to set the exposure time of the camera for the first wavelength band to a first exposure time among the respective exposure times, and to set the exposure time of the camera for the second wavelength band to a second exposure time among the respective exposure times, wherein the second exposure time is different from the first exposure time (col. 4, lines15-16: “different integration times are set for these subranges respectively”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have different integration times for the different wavelength bands as disclosed by Kato in the device of Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev in order to ensure the whole wavelength range can be subjected to measurement under an optimum condition.
Claims 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0344827 ("Van Hoey").
Regarding claim 12, Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev discloses the semiconductor measurement apparatus of claim 9, but does not disclose that the plurality of wavelength bands include two or more first wavelength bands grouped into a first group and two or more second wavelength bands grouped into a second group, and wherein the controller is configured to determine the respective exposure times of the camera as including a first exposure time for the two or more first wavelength bands, and a second exposure time for the two or more second wavelength bands.
However, Van Hoey discloses plurality of wavelength bands include two or more first wavelength bands grouped into a first group (type 1 group, paragraph [0097]) and two or more second wavelength bands grouped into a second group (type 2 group, paragraph [0097]), and wherein the controller is configured to determine the respective exposure times of the camera as including a first exposure time for the two or more first wavelength bands, and a second exposure time for the two or more second wavelength bands (24, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0140]-[0147], estimated exposure time is calculated for all groups).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have different integration times for the different groups of wavelength bands as disclosed by Van Hoey in the device of Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev in order to speed up the calibration process.
Regarding claim 14, Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev further in view of Van Hoey discloses the semiconductor measurement apparatus of claim 12, and Finarov further discloses that the first exposure time (chosen integration time, paragraph [0036]) is determined based on a first intensity of a first signal output from the camera responsive to receiving the output light comprising one of the two or more first wavelength bands (for example, wavelength bands within ΔL1, Fig. 5) and the predetermined target intensity (between minimal SNR and saturation levels, paragraph [0036]), and wherein the second exposure time (chosen integration time, paragraph [0036]) is determined based on a second intensity of a second signal output from the camera responsive to receiving the output light comprising one of the two or more second wavelength bands (for example, wavelength bands within ΔL2, Fig. 5) and the predetermined target intensity (between minimal SNR and saturation levels, paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 16, Finarov in view of Fernandez-Dorado and Polejaev further in view of Van Hoey discloses the semiconductor measurement apparatus of claim 12, and Finarov further discloses that the first exposure time is an average of exposure times (paragraph [0036]) determined based on intensity of the respective signals output from the camera responsive to receiving the output light comprising each of the two or more first wavelength bands and the predetermined target intensity (paragraph [0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 9 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878