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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (claims 2-7) in the reply filed on February 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species I is mischaracterized in the Election/Restriction Requirement by referring to a metrology with Raman measurements; wherein, claims 2-7 are not limited to Raman measurements as claim 1 additionally refers to at least one four-wave mixing signal or at least one multi-wave mixing signal component and at least one detected four-wave mixing signal and at least one detected multi-wave mixing signal. This is not found persuasive because even though claim 1 was amended to remove ‘or the at least one Raman signal,’ claims 2-7 still refer to an optical metrology system with no corona discharge source and no electrical measurements (noting FIGS. 1A, 6A-6C, and 15B); wherein Species II (claims 8-15) are to a metrology system with electrical measurements from a sample surface being exposed to a corona discharge device and including optical measurements (Fig. 20A).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
3. Claims 8-15 were provisionally withdrawn from consideration by the applicant in the reply of February 26, 2026.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 72 of Fig. 1C; 304 of Fig. 3A; 314 of Fig. 3B; and 4958 of both FIG. 31A and FIG. 31B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
5. The drawings are objected to because in FIG. 33A and FIG. 33B: ‘5004’ under Silicon Substrate should read -5000-. 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.
Specification
6. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on lines 5 and 6 of paragraph [0158] ‘2210 (extended’ should read -2220 (extended- and ‘contaminant 2220’ should read -contaminant 2230-.
Appropriate correction is required.
7. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
9. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
10. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: system configured to introduce a time delay between the pulses output from the first optical source and the pulses output from the second optical source in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
11. Claim 5 is objected to for the following: on line 2 it appears that ‘pulsed lasers’ should read -a pulsed laser-. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
13. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ma et al. (2020/0057104).
As for claim 1, Ma in a field-based nonlinear optical metrology using corona discharge source discloses/suggests the following: a system for optically interrogating a surface of a sample (Fig. 7A: 7000 with Figs. 7B and 7C and paragraphs [0149]-[0160]) , said system comprising: a first optical source configured to emit a first incident beam of light towards said surface of said sample (Fig. 7A: 7001a with 7007a and 3020); a second optical source configured to emit a second incident beam of light towards said surface of said sample (Fig. 7A: 7001b with 7007b and 3020); and an optical detection system configured to detect at least one four-wave mixing component from the sample to generate at least one detected four-wave mixing signal or at least one multi-wave mixing signal component from the sample to generate at least one detected multi-wave mixing signal (FIG. 7A: 7005 and FIG. 7C with paragraphs [0154] and [0159]; and one or more processors in communication with said optical detection system [Fig. 7A: 3295 communicates with 7005 via the arrow with dotted line going from 3295 to 7005 with paragraphs 0141, 0144, and 0164-0168).
As for ‘to: receive the at least one detected four-wave mixing signal or the at least one detected multi-wave mixing signal; and determine a geometric feature of the sample or a variation in a geometric feature of the sample based on the at least one detected four-wave mixing signal or the at least one detected multi-wave mixing signal,’ it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
As for claim 2, Ma discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Ma discloses/suggests said first optical source comprises a pulsed optical source configured to output pulses (Fig. 7A: 7001a and paragraph [0155]: lines 3-13).
As for claim 3, Ma discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Ma discloses/suggests said second optical source comprises a pulsed optical source configured to output pulses (Fig. 7A: 7001b and paragraph [0155]: lines 3-13).
As for claim 4, Ma discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 3). In addition, Ma discloses/suggests a system configured to introduce a time delay between the pulses output from the first optical source and the pulses output from the second optical source (paragraph [0155]: last 9 lines and paragraph [0156]).
As for claim 5, Ma discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Ma discloses/suggests at least one of said first and second optical sources comprises a pulsed laser configured to output pulses (Fig. 7A: 7001a and 7001b with paragraph [0155]: lines 3-13).
As for claim 6, Ma discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 5). In addition, Ma discloses/suggests the pulsed laser is selected from nanosecond, picosecond and femtosecond lasers (paragraph [0155]: lines 6-13).
As for claim 7, Ma discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 5). In addition, Ma discloses/suggests an optical delay system configured to introduce a variable time delay between optical pulses of the first incident beam and the second incident beam (paragraph [0156]).
13. Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nelson et al. (6,348,967).
As for claim 1, Nelson in a method and device for measuring the thickness of opaque and transparent films discloses/suggests the following: a system for optically interrogating a surface of a sample (FIG. 1A and 1B), said system comprising: a first optical source configured to emit a first incident beam of light towards said surface of said sample (FIG. 1A: 16, 16’ with 10; col. 4, lines 37-42; col. 8, lines 6-29); a second optical source configured to emit a second incident beam of light towards said surface of said sample (FIG. 1A: 18 with 10; col. 4, lines 39-43; col. 8, lines 30-57); and an optical detection system configured to detect at least one four-wave mixing component from the sample to generate at least one detected four-wave mixing signal or at least one multi-wave mixing signal component from the sample to generate at least one detected multi-wave mixing signal (FIG. 1B: 22 with 20, 20’ and col. 4, line 43-col. 5, line 16); and one or more processors in communication with said optical detection system (FIG. 1B: 32 in communication via arrows from 22 to 26 to 32) to: receive the at least one detected four-wave mixing signal or the at least one detected multi-wave mixing signal; and determine a geometric feature of the sample or a variation in a geometric feature of the sample based on the at least one detected four-wave mixing signal or the at least one detected multi-wave mixing signal (col. 5, lines 10-23: treating film thickness as the geometric feature).
The examiner notes the following with regards ‘to: receive the at least one detected four-wave mixing signal or the at least one detected multi-wave mixing signal; and determine a geometric feature of the sample or a variation in a geometric feature of the sample based on the at least one detected four-wave mixing signal or the at least one detected multi-wave mixing signal,’ it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987).
As for claim 2, Nelson discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Nelson discloses/suggests said first optical source comprises a pulsed optical source configured to output pulses (FIG. 1A: 16, 16’; col. 4, lines 37-42; col. 8, lines 6-29)
As for claim 3, Nelson discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Nelson discloses/suggests said second optical source comprises a pulsed optical source configured to output pulses (FIG. 1A: 18; col. 4, lines 39-43; col. 8, lines 30-57).
As for claim 5, Nelson discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Nelson discloses/suggests at least one of said first and second optical sources comprises a pulsed laser configured to output pulses (FIG. 1A: 16, 16’ and 18; col. 4, lines 37-43; col. 8, lines 6-57).
As for claim 6, Nelson discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 5). In addition, Nelson discloses/suggests the pulsed laser is selected from nanosecond, picosecond and femtosecond lasers (col. 4, lines 39-41; col. 8, lines 9-13).
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: please refer to the attached PTO-892.
Fax/Telephone Numbers
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gordon J. Stock, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-2431.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
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, Kara Geisel, can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/GORDON J STOCK JR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877