DETAILED ACTION
1. The response received on December 22, 2025 has been entered into the record.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (2024/0230314).
The applied reference has a common applicant and common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As for claim 1, Choi in a semiconductor measurement apparatus discloses/suggests the following: a semiconductor measurement apparatus (FIGS. 2-4: 10, 10A, 10B respectively) comprising: a lighting unit comprising a light source, and a light modulator configured to decompose a light output by the light source into a plurality of wavelength bands and generate output light in which at least two selected wavelength bands is arranged in one direction(FIGS. 2-4: 110, 120, 130 with paragraphs 0030 and 0082); a first optical unit comprising at least one illumination polarizing element disposed in a path of the output light (FIGS 2-4: 150, 151; 150A, 151A; and 150B, 151B, respectively) a second optical unit (FIGS. 2-4: 200, 200A, 200B) comprising a beam splitter (FIGS. 2-4: 210), an objective lens configured to allow light having passed through the first optical unit to be incident onto a sample (FIGS. 2-4: 220), and a self- interference generator disposed on a path of a reflected light from the sample (FIG. 2: 250 with 251-254; FIG. 3: 250A: 251A, 253A; FIG. 4: 250B: 251B, 253B with paragraphs 0037-0039, 0044, 0050); a sensor disposed on a rear end of the second optical unit and configured to output an original image representing an interference pattern of light having passed through the self-interference generator (FIGS. 2-4: 300 with paragraphs 0074, 0108, 0118) and a controller configured to process the original image and determine a selected critical dimension from among a plurality of critical dimensions of a structure included in the sample (FIGS. 2-4: 350 with FIG. 6: S11 and S16; FIG. 7: S22 and S28; paragraphs 0039, 0040, 0041, 0047, 0048).
As for claim 2, Choi discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Choi discloses/suggests the self- interference generator comprises a Nomarski prism and at least one polarizer sequentially disposed in the path of the reflected light (paragraphs 0037 with 0044: suggesting that polarizing elements may include a pair of beam displacers thereby a Nomarski prism).
As for claims 8-9, Choi discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Choi discloses/suggests wherein the original image represents the interference pattern generated from the light of the at least two selected wavelength bands and comprises a plurality of regions arranged along the one direction (FIG. 6: S11-S13; FIG. 7: S21-S24 with paragraphs 0040, 0041, 0047, 0052); wherein, the controller is further configured to convert each of the plurality of regions into a frequency domain and acquire spectral distribution data in which at least one peak appears due to interference of polarization components included in light of the at least two selected wavelength bands, and wherein the controller is further configured to obtain an intensity difference and a phase difference of the polarization components included in light of each of the at least two selected wavelength bands by inversely frequency transforming the spectral distribution data of each of the plurality of regions (FIG. 7: S22-S27; paragraphs 0069, 0080 with paragraphs 0040-0042).
As for claim 10, Choi discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Choi discloses/suggests wherein the objective lens has a numerical aperture of at least 0.8 and less than 1.0 (paragraph 0094).
As for claim 11, Choi discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Choi discloses/suggests wherein the sensor is an image sensor, and a surface of the image sensor is located in a conjugation position of a back focal plane of the objective lens (paragraphs 0034 with paragraph 0094).
As for claim 12, Choi discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Choi discloses/suggests wherein the light output from the light source comprises a wavelength band from ultraviolet to infrared (paragraph 0030).
5. Claims 1-2 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (2023/0400404)-previously cited.
The applied reference has a common applicant and common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As for claim 1, Choi in a semiconductor measurement apparatus discloses/suggests the following: a semiconductor measurement apparatus (Fig. 1: 10 being the apparatus for the practice of FIGS. 6-7) comprising: a lighting unit comprising a light source, and a light modulator configured to decompose a light output by the light source into a plurality of wavelength bands and generate output light in which at least two selected wavelength bands is arranged in one direction (FIG. 1: 110, 120, 130 with paragraphs 0025 and 0063); a first optical unit comprising at least one illumination polarizing element disposed in a path of the output light (FIG. 1: 150 with 151-153); a second optical unit (FIG. 1: 200) comprising a beam splitter (FIG. 1: 210), an objective lens configured to allow light having passed through the first optical unit to be incident onto a sample (FIG. 1: 220 noting 20), and a self- interference generator disposed on a path of a reflected light from the sample (FIG. 1: 250: 251-254 with paragraphs 0033, 0035 and noting paragraphs 0027 and 0028); a sensor disposed on a rear end of the second optical unit and configured to output an original image representing an interference pattern of light having passed through the self-interference generator (FIG. 1: 300 with paragraphs 0035, 0059 and FIG. 6: S10 and S11); and a controller configured to process the original image and determine a selected critical dimension from among a plurality of critical dimensions of a structure included in the sample (FIG. 1: 350 with paragraphs 0035, 0036, 0060, 0062-0069 with FIG. 7).
As for claim 2, Choi discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Choi discloses/suggests the self- interference generator comprises a Nomarski prism and at least one polarizer sequentially disposed in the path of the reflected light (paragraphs 0027, 0028 with 0033-0035: suggesting that polarizing elements may include a pair of beam displacers thereby a Nomarski prism).
As for claims 8-9, Choi discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Choi discloses/suggests wherein the original image represents the interference pattern generated from the light of the at least two selected wavelength bands and comprises a plurality of regions arranged along the one direction (claim 8)(FIG. 6: S10-S12; FIG. 7: S21-S23) wherein the controller is further configured to convert each of the plurality of regions into a frequency domain and acquire spectral distribution data in which at least one peak appears due to interference of polarization components included in light of the at least two selected wavelength bands, and wherein the controller is further configured to obtain an intensity difference and a phase difference of the polarization components included in light of each of the at least two selected wavelength bands by inversely frequency transforming the spectral distribution data of each of the plurality of regions (FIG. 7: S21-S25).
As for claim 10, Choi discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Choi discloses/suggests wherein the objective lens has a numerical aperture of at least 0.8 and less than 1.0 (paragraph 0074).
As for claim 11, Choi discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Choi discloses/suggests wherein the sensor is an image sensor, and a surface of the image sensor is located in a conjugation position of a back focal plane of the objective lens (paragraphs 0024 and 0074)
As for claim 12, Choi discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Choi discloses/suggests wherein the light output from the light source comprises a wavelength band from ultraviolet to infrared (paragraph 0025).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 2, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidaka (2021/0156790).
As for claim 1, Hidaka in an ellipsometer and inspection device for semiconductor device discloses/suggests the following: a semiconductor measurement apparatus (FIG. 1: 1 and FIG. 7: 2) comprising: a lighting unit comprising a light source, and a light modulator configured to decompose a light output by the light source into a plurality of wavelength bands and generate output light in which at least two selected wavelength bands is arranged in one direction (FIGS. 1 and 7: 11, 12, and 13 with paragraphs 0035, 0036, 0078, 0079: ‘various wavelengths’ suggest a plurality of wavelengths and therefore, wavelength bands); a first optical unit comprising at least one illumination polarizing element disposed in a path of the output light (FIG. 1: 15; FIG. 7: 18 ); a second optical unit (FIGS. 1 and 7: 20) comprising a beam splitter (FIGS. 1 and 7: 16), an objective lens configured to allow light having passed through the first optical unit to be incident onto a sample (FIGS. 1 and 7: 17), and a self- interference generator disposed on a path of a reflected light from the sample (FIG. 1: 31 and 41 and FIG. 7: 32 and 44); a sensor disposed on a rear end of the second optical unit and configured to output an original image representing an interference pattern of light having passed through the self- interference generator (FIGS. 1 and 7: 42 with paragraph 0050 ; and a controller configured to process the original image and determine a critical dimension (FIGS. 1 and 7: 43 with paragraphs 0052 and 0057, 0059, 0060: noting that the system is an OCD measuring device).
As for determining a selected critical dimension from among a plurality of critical dimensions of a structure included in the sample, Hidaka does not explicitly state this. However, he does mention that the system is an OCD measuring device (paragraphs 0057, 0059, 0060) and that critical dimensions such as thickness and line width can be determined (paragraph 0003). However, he notes that FinFETs and memories in logic semiconductors have progressed to three-dimensionalization and have become more complex structures wherein OCD is used (paragraph 0004). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller determine a selected critical dimension from among a plurality of dimensions of a structure included in the sample in order to perform OCD measuring on complex structures that have three dimensions such as FinFETS and memories in logic semiconductors in order determine their 3-D profile.
As for claim 2, Hidaka discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Hidaka discloses/suggests the following: wherein the self- interference generator comprises a Nomarski prism and at least one polarizer sequentially disposed in the path of the reflected light (FIG. 1: 31 and 41 and FIG. 7: 32 and 44; paragraphs 0047-0048 and 0062).
As for claim 8, Hidaka discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Hidaka discloses/suggests the following wherein the original image represents the interference pattern generated from the light of the at least two selected wavelength bands and comprises a plurality of regions arranged along the one direction (FIGS. 5, 9, 12, 15).
As for claim 10, Hidaka discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Hidaka suggests the objective lens has a numerical aperture of at least 0.8 and less than 1.0 (paragraph 0059: refers to a ‘relatively large numerical aperture’).
As for claim 11, Hidaka discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Hidaka discloses/suggests wherein the sensor is an image sensor, and a surface of the image sensor is located in a conjugation position of a back focal plane of the objective lens (paragraph 0050 and 0059).
As for claim 12, Hidaka discloses/suggests everything as above (see claim 1). In addition, Hidaka discloses/suggests wherein the light output from the light source comprises a wavelength band from ultraviolet to infrared (paragraph 0100).
Double Patenting
8. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
9. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,222,282 to Jeong et al.-previously cited. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it appears that claim 9 of ‘282 anticipates claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 3-7 and 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 appears to be allowable if the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 11-12, filed December 22, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2 and 8-13 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) and claims 13 and 18-20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection have been made in view of 35 USC 102(a)(2) and 35 USC 103. Please see above.
The examiner welcomes an interview in response to this office action.
Conclusion
12. 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
Prosecution Insights