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 24 July 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered. Therefore, the objections to claims 5-6 and 17-19 as being substantial duplicates of claims 2-3 and 8-10 have been withdrawn. Claims 2-3, 8-9, 12, 14, and 20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Kawashima fails to disclose that the first light receiving unit is disposed around the container portion 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3, 8, and 12 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, and Hunter (U.S. Patent No. 6,630,995 B1), hereinafter Hunter.
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; and a container portion that accommodates the semiconductor substrate, wherein the incidence rays are ultraviolet light rays, wherein the first light receiving unit is disposed around the container portion.
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).
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).
Alumot in view of Van Berkel fails to disclose a container portion that accommodates the semiconductor substrate, wherein the first light receiving unit is disposed around the container portion.
However, Hunter discloses a container portion (FIG. 12A, element 1101) that accommodates the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 12A, element 37),
wherein the first light receiving unit (FIG. 12A, element 1116) is disposed around the container portion (FIG. 12A, element 1101).
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 the first light receiving unit is disposed around the container portion, based on the teachings of Hunter that this enables better collection of light reflected only from the defect under inspection (Hunter, column 17, line 51 to column 18, line 8).
Regarding claim 3, Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Hunter 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 8, Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Hunter as applied to claim 2 discloses the analysis apparatus to claim 2.
In addition, Hunter discloses that an analysis of the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 12A, element 37) by the mass spectrometry device (FIG. 12A, element 1150) is performed in the container portion (FIG. 12A, element 1101).
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 Hunter to include that an analysis of the semiconductor substrate by the mass spectrometry device is performed in the container portion, based on the additional teachings of Hunter that this improves the efficiency of performing multiple process monitoring methods (Hunter, column 10, lines 56-65).
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 semiconductor substrate is accommodated in a container portion, wherein the incidence rays are ultraviolet light rays, and the first light receiving unit is disposed around the container portion; 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 semiconductor substrate is accommodated in a container portion, and the first light receiving unit is disposed around the container portion; wherein the radiated rays are condensed on the second light receiving unit.
However, Hunter discloses that the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 12A, element 37) is accommodated in a container portion (FIG. 12A, element 1101), and the first light receiving unit (FIG. 12A, element 1116) is disposed around the container portion (FIG. 12A, element 1101);
wherein the radiated rays are condensed (column 13, lines 34-38) on the second light receiving unit (FIG. 6, element 82).
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 semiconductor substrate is accommodated in a container portion, and the first light receiving unit is disposed around the container portion; wherein the radiated rays are condensed on the second light receiving unit, based on the teachings of Hunter that this enables better collection of light reflected only from the defect under inspection (Hunter, column 13, lines 15-38; and column 17, line 51 to column 18, line 8).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Hunter as applied to claim 8 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 9, Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Hunter as applied to claim 8 discloses the analysis apparatus according to claim 8.
Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Hunter fails to disclose 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.
However, 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 Hunter 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 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Hunter 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 Hunter as applied to claim 12 discloses the analysis method according to claim 12, including the step of performing the inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (see claim 12 supra).
In addition, Hunter discloses that the step of performing mass spectrometry is performed in the container portion (column 18, lines 39-51).
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 Hunter to include that the step of performing mass spectrometry is performed in the container portion, based on the additional teachings of Hunter that this improves the efficiency of performing multiple process monitoring methods (Hunter, column 10, lines 56-65).
Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Hunter fails to disclose that 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 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 Hunter to include that 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 Hunter 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 Hunter as applied to claim 12 discloses the analysis method according to claim 12.
Alumot in view of Van Berkel and Hunter 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 Hunter to meet the claimed range of the moisture content in the carrier gas.
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 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
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights