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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 23 March 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. Therefore, the rejection of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12, 14, and 17-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 be found allowable, claims 5, 6, 17, 18, and 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alumot et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0039436 A1), hereinafter Alumot, in view of Van Berkel et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0079894 A1), hereinafter Van Berkel.
Regarding claim 2, Alumot discloses an analysis apparatus comprising:
a surface defect measurement device that measures presence or absence of a defect (paragraph 0058) on a surface of a semiconductor substrate (paragraph 0006), and obtains positional information of the defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (paragraph 0058); and
irradiating the defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate with laser light (FIG. 4, laser 3) based on the positional information of the defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate obtained by the surface defect measurement device (paragraph 0059),
wherein the surface defect measurement device includes an incidence unit configured to emit incidence rays (FIG. 4, laser 3) to be incident on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 7, wafer W), a light receiving unit configured to receive radiated rays radiated by reflection or scattering of the incidence rays due to the defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (paragraph 0078), and a condenser lens (FIG. 4, element 39) configured to condense the radiated rays (paragraph 0073: the lens 39 focuses, i.e., condenses the radiated laser beam),
wherein the light receiving unit has a first light receiving unit disposed around the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 4, elements 42) and a second light receiving unit disposed above the surface of the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 4, element 41),
wherein the condenser lens is disposed above the surface of the semiconductor substrate and between the first light receiving unit and the second light receiving unit (FIGs. 4, 7: lens 39 is above the wafer W and between light receiving units 42 and 41).
Alumot fails to disclose a mass spectrometry device that performs inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, and collecting an analysis sample obtained by the irradiation using a carrier gas, wherein the incidence rays are ultraviolet light rays.
However, Van Berkel discloses a mass spectrometry device that performs inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (paragraph 0105), and collecting an analysis sample obtained by the irradiation using a carrier gas (paragraph 0109, gas stream 136),
wherein the incidence rays are ultraviolet light rays (paragraph 0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alumot to include a mass spectrometry device that performs inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, and collecting an analysis sample obtained by the irradiation using a carrier gas, based on the teachings of Van Berkel that this advantageously enables simultaneous analysis of multiple samples with high efficiency (Van Berkel, paragraph 0107).
Furthermore, the disclosure of Van Berkel demonstrates that the function of ultraviolet light rays is known in the art of mass spectrometry. Van Berkel also shows that substituting ultraviolet light rays for another wavelength of incident light in a mass spectrometry device yields the predictable result of facilitating energy absorption by different types of specimen target sites (Van Berkel, paragraph 0061). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alumot to include that the incidence rays are ultraviolet light rays because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 3, Alumot in view of Van Berkel as applied to claim 2 discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 2.
In addition, Alumot discloses that the surface defect measurement device includes a storage unit that stores the positional information (paragraph 0058, last sentence).
Regarding claim 5, Alumot discloses an analysis apparatus comprising:
a surface defect measurement unit that measures presence or absence of a defect (paragraph 0058) on a surface of a semiconductor substrate (paragraph 0006), and obtains positional information on the surface of the semiconductor substrate for the defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (paragraph 0058); and
irradiating the defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate with laser light (FIG. 4, laser 3) based on the positional information of the defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (paragraph 0059),
wherein the surface defect measurement unit includes an incidence unit configured to emit incidence rays (FIG. 4, laser 3) to be incident on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 7, wafer W), a light receiving unit configured to receive radiated rays radiated by reflection or scattering of the incidence rays due to the defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (paragraph 0078), and a condenser lens (FIG. 4, element 39) configured to condense the radiated rays (paragraph 0073: the lens 39 focuses, i.e., condenses the radiated laser beam),
wherein the light receiving unit has a first light receiving unit disposed around the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 4, elements 42) and a second light receiving unit disposed above the surface of the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 4, element 41),
wherein the condenser lens is disposed above the surface of the semiconductor substrate and between the first light receiving unit and the second light receiving unit (FIGs. 4, 7: lens 39 is above the wafer W and between light receiving units 42 and 41).
Alumot fails to disclose an analysis section that performs inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, and collecting an analysis sample obtained by the irradiation using a carrier gas, wherein the incidence rays are ultraviolet light rays.
However, Van Berkel discloses an analysis section that performs inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (paragraph 0105), and collecting an analysis sample obtained by the irradiation using a carrier gas (paragraph 0109, gas stream 136),
wherein the incidence rays are ultraviolet light rays (paragraph 0075).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alumot to include an analysis section that performs inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, and collecting an analysis sample obtained by the irradiation using a carrier gas, based on the teachings of Van Berkel that this advantageously enables simultaneous analysis of multiple samples with high efficiency (Van Berkel, paragraph 0107).
Furthermore, the disclosure of Van Berkel demonstrates that the function of ultraviolet light rays is known in the art of mass spectrometry. Van Berkel also shows that substituting ultraviolet light rays for another wavelength of incident light in a mass spectrometry device yields the predictable result of facilitating energy absorption by different types of specimen target sites (Van Berkel, paragraph 0061). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alumot to include that the incidence rays are ultraviolet light rays because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 6, Alumot in view of Van Berkel as applied to claim 5 discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 5.
In addition, Alumot discloses that the surface defect measurement unit includes a storage unit that stores the positional information (paragraph 0058, last sentence).
Regarding claim 10, Alumot in view of Van Berkel as applied to claim 5 discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 5.
In addition, Alumot discloses an introduction portion in which an accommodation container that accommodates the semiconductor substrate is installed (FIG. 3, element 27); and
a transport device (FIG. 3, element 25) that transports the semiconductor substrate from the introduction portion to the surface defect measurement unit (paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 19, Alumot in view of Van Berkel as applied to claim 6 discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 6.
In addition, Alumot discloses an introduction portion in which an accommodation container that accommodates the semiconductor substrate is installed (FIG. 3, element 27); and
a transport device (FIG. 3, element 25) that transports the semiconductor substrate from the introduction portion to the surface defect measurement unit (paragraph 0070).
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alumot in view of Van Berkel as respectively applied to claims 2 and 5 above, and further in view of Kawashima et al. (JP Patent No. 2006153762 A), hereinafter Kawashima (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 8, Alumot in view of Van Berkel as applied to claim 2 discloses the analysis apparatus to claim 2.
Alumot in view of Van Berkel fails to disclose a container portion that accommodates the semiconductor substrate, wherein an analysis of the semiconductor substrate by the mass spectrometry device is performed in the container portion.
However, Kawashima discloses a container portion (FIG. 1, element 5) that accommodates the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 1, element 4),
wherein an analysis of the semiconductor substrate by the mass spectrometry device is performed in the container portion (page 4, ‘Best-Mode’ paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alumot in view of Van Berkel to include a container portion that accommodates the semiconductor substrate, wherein an analysis of the semiconductor substrate by the mass spectrometry device is performed in the container portion, based on the teachings of Kawashima that the container portion provides an easily-cleanable volume to ensure analysis accuracy is maintained over time (Kawashima, page 7, third paragraph from last).
Regarding claim 9, Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Kawashima as applied to claim 8 discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 8.
In addition, Kawashima discloses a cleaning gas supply unit that supplies a cleaning gas to an inside of the container portion (page 3, paragraph 3, lines 6-7); and
an outflow unit that allows the cleaning gas to flow out from the inside of the container portion (page 3, paragraph 4, lines 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Kawashima to include a cleaning gas supply unit that supplies a cleaning gas to an inside of the container portion; and an outflow unit that allows the cleaning gas to flow out from the inside of the container portion, based on the additional teachings of Kawashima that this provides the benefit of efficiently removing contaminants on the container portion wall without causing a damage to the analysis unit (Kawashima, page 3, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 17, Alumot in view of Van Berkel as applied to claim 5 discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 5.
Alumot in view of Van Berkel fails to disclose a container portion that accommodates the semiconductor substrate, wherein an analysis of the semiconductor substrate by the analysis section is performed in the container portion.
However, Kawashima discloses (FIG. 1, element 5) that accommodates the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 1, element 4),
wherein an analysis of the semiconductor substrate by the analysis section is performed in the container portion (page 4, ‘Best-Mode’ paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alumot in view of Van Berkel to include a container portion that accommodates the semiconductor substrate, wherein an analysis of the semiconductor substrate by the analysis section is performed in the container portion, based on the teachings of Kawashima that the container portion provides an easily-cleanable volume to ensure analysis accuracy is maintained over time (Kawashima, page 7, third paragraph from last).
Regarding claim 18, Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Kawashima as applied to claim 17 discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 17.
In addition, Kawashima discloses a cleaning gas supply unit that supplies a cleaning gas to an inside of the container portion (page 3, paragraph 3, lines 6-7); and
an outflow unit that allows the cleaning gas to flow out from the inside of the container portion (page 3, paragraph 4, lines 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Kawashima to include a cleaning gas supply unit that supplies a cleaning gas to an inside of the container portion; and an outflow unit that allows the cleaning gas to flow out from the inside of the container portion, based on the additional teachings of Kawashima that this provides the benefit of efficiently removing contaminants on the container portion wall without causing a damage to the analysis unit (Kawashima, page 3, paragraph 4).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Tanaka (U.S. Patent No. 7,372,062 B2), hereinafter Tanaka.
Regarding claim 12, Alumot discloses an analysis method comprising:
a step of emitting incidence rays to be incident on a surface of a semiconductor substrate (paragraph 0058), and receiving radiated rays radiated by reflection or scattering of the incidence rays due to a defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (paragraph 0058), and the radiated rays are received by a first light receiving unit disposed around the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 4, elements 42) and a second light receiving unit disposed above the surface of the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 4, element 41);
a step of condensing the radiated rays by a condenser lens (paragraph 0073: the lens 39 focuses, i.e., condenses the radiated laser beam) disposed above the surface of the semiconductor substrate and between the first light receiving unit and the second light receiving unit (FIGs. 4, 7: lens 39 is above the wafer W and between light receiving units 42 and 41);
a step of measuring presence or absence of the defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate, and obtaining positional information on the surface of the semiconductor substrate for the defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (paragraphs 0058-0059); and
a step of irradiating the defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate with laser light based on the positional information of the defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate (paragraphs 0058-0059).
Alumot fails to disclose that the incidence rays are ultraviolet light rays, the radiated rays are condensed on the second light receiving unit, a step of performing inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, and collecting an analysis sample obtained by the irradiation using a carrier gas.
However, Van Berkel discloses that the incidence rays are ultraviolet light rays (paragraph 0075), and
a step of performing inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (paragraph 0105), and collecting an analysis sample obtained by the irradiation using a carrier gas (paragraph 0109, gas stream 136).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alumot to include a step of performing inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, and collecting an analysis sample obtained by the irradiation using a carrier gas, based on the teachings of Van Berkel that this advantageously enables simultaneous analysis of multiple samples with high efficiency (Van Berkel, paragraph 0107).
Furthermore, the disclosure of Van Berkel demonstrates that the function of ultraviolet light rays is known in the art of mass spectrometry. Van Berkel also shows that substituting ultraviolet light rays for another wavelength of incident light in a mass spectrometry device yields the predictable result of facilitating energy absorption by different types of specimen target sites (Van Berkel, paragraph 0061). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alumot to include that the incidence rays are ultraviolet light rays because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
Alumot in view of Van Berkel fails to disclose that the radiated rays are condensed on the second light receiving unit.
However, Tanaka discloses that the radiated rays are condensed (column 4, lines 59-67) on the second light receiving unit (FIG. 1, light receiving unit 401).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alumot in view of Van Berkel to include that the radiated rays are condensed on the second light receiving unit, based on the teachings of Tanaka that this provides the benefit of providing uniform light to the light receiving unit, the beam of light having a desired width (Tanaka, column 4, lines 34-46).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Tanaka as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN Patent No. 106226138 A), hereinafter Zhou (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 14, Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Tanaka as applied to claim 12 discloses the analysis method according to claim 12.
Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Tanaka fails to disclose that the step of performing the inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry is performed in a container portion that accommodates the semiconductor substrate, and the analysis method further comprises a step of cleaning an inside of the container portion with a cleaning gas, which is performed before the step of performing the inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.
However, Zhou discloses that the step of performing the inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry is performed in a container portion that accommodates the semiconductor substrate (page 3, third paragraph from last, the sixth step), and the analysis method further comprises a step of cleaning an inside of the container portion with a cleaning gas (page 3, paragraph 11, the first step), which is performed before the step of performing the inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (page 3, third paragraph from last, the sixth step).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Tanaka to include that the step of performing the inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry is performed in a container portion that accommodates the semiconductor substrate, and the analysis method further comprises a step of cleaning an inside of the container portion with a cleaning gas, which is performed before the step of performing the inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, based on the teachings of Zhou that performing the steps in this order helps reduce contaminants in the final product (Zhou, page 2, ‘Background technology’ section, paragraph 1).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Tanaka as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Shirakawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0178437 A1), hereinafter Shirakawa.
Regarding claim 20, Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Tanaka as applied to claim 12 discloses the analysis method according to claim 12.
Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Tanaka fails to disclose that the carrier gas has a moisture content being equal to or more than 0.00001 ppm by volume and equal to or less than 0.1 ppm by volume.
However, Shirakawa discloses that the carrier gas has a moisture content being equal to or more than 0.00001 ppm by volume and equal to or less than 0.1 ppm by volume (paragraph 0088 discloses that concentrations in the carrier gas are defined by volume; paragraph 0102: the disclosed range of less than 1 PPB and greater than 0.83 PPT is equivalent to less than 0.001 PPM and greater than 0.00000083 PPM).
When a claimed range “overlap[s] or lie[s] inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I; In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the case at hand, Shirakawa teaches a range of greater than 0.00000083 PPM and less than 0.001 PPM, which overlaps with the claimed range of equal to or more than 0.00001 ppm and equal to or less than 0.1 ppm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Tanaka to meet the claimed range of the moisture content in the carrier gas.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0092656 A1), hereinafter Nakao, teaches a first light receiving unit disposed around a semiconductor substrate and a second light receiving unit disposed above the surface of the semiconductor substrate.
Jingu (U.S. Patent No. 9.791,380 B2), hereinafter Jingu, teaches an analysis apparatus comprising: a surface defect measurement device that measures a defect on a surface of a semiconductor substrate, and obtains positional information of the defect on the surface of the semiconductor substrate.
Yamada (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0088100 A1), hereinafter Yamada, teaches a mass spectrometry device that performs inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry by irradiating a defect on a surface of a semiconductor substrate with incidence rays, wherein the incidence rays are ultraviolet light rays.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights