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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, it appears that “having X-ray source assembly” should perhaps be “having an X-ray source assembly”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, it appears that “generating X-ray Flux signal” should be “generating an X-ray Flux signal”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7, it appears that “a wafer” should be “the wafer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, it appears that “therefrom intensity value” should be “therefrom an intensity value”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, it appears that “electrons” should perhaps be “photo electrons”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, it appears that “in energy band” should perhaps be “in an energy band”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10, it appears that “electrons” should perhaps be “photo electrons”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 12-13, it appears that “of a third” should be “of the third”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, after “first and second” it appears that “materials” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, it appears that “and electron gun” should perhaps be “an electron gun”.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, after “electron gun emitting” it appears that “an” should be inserted (“an electron beam”).
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, it appears that “and monochromator” should be “and a monochromator”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the wafer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the detection signal" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the thickness" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the unintended layer" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites, in part (last line): “using a multi-material, multilayer thickness model and regression algorithm.” It is not known what the input parameters are and what the end result(s) are. The claim recitation before this recites: “to calculate a thickness of the unintended layer of the first material over the pattern of the third material.” It is not known what the essential structural cooperative relationships of elements are, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
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.
Claims 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson et al. (US 2019/0277783 A1) in view of Schueler et al. (US 2013/0077742 A1).
With respect to claim 22, Larson et al. disclose a system for monitoring a deposition process, comprising: an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) system (Fig. 5) having an X-ray source assembly (505) generating an X-ray beam radiating a wafer (500) over at least an area of the wafer having a first layer of a first material (Fig. 2 - 220) deposited over a second layer of a second material (215), the second layer having a pattern of a third material (205) therein (paragraphs 0029-0030 & 0050);
Larson et al. do not disclose an X-ray sensor intercepting part of the X-ray beam and generating an X-ray Flux signal; and the processor configured to normalize signal intensity using the X-ray Flux signal, to calculate a thickness of the unintended layer of the first material over the pattern of the third material. Schueler et al. disclose an X-ray sensor intercepting part of the X-ray beam and generating an X-ray Flux signal; and the processor configured to normalize signal intensity using the X-ray Flux signal, to calculate a thickness of the unintended layer of the first material over the pattern of the third material (abstract and Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0028 & 0032-0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was made to modify Larson et al. to have an X-ray sensor intercepting part of the X-ray beam and generating an X-ray Flux signal; and the processor configured to normalize signal intensity using the X-ray Flux signal, to calculate a thickness of the unintended layer of the first material over the pattern of the third material, to provide ease of XPS calibration for new film materials, as taught by Schueler et al. (paragraphs 0053-0054).
Larson et al. do not disclose: and using a multi-material, multilayer thickness model and regression algorithm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Larson et al. to use a multi-material, multilayer thickness model and regression algorithm, as a matter of design choice depending on the specific application being done. This rejection is made to the extent the claim is understood.
With respect to claim 23, Larson et al. disclose wherein the processor further calculates intensity values Il and I2, corresponding to photo electrons emitted from the first and second materials respectively (paragraphs 0029-0030 & 0035+ & 0050-0054).
With respect to claim 24, Larson et al. as modified above disclose wherein the processor further calculates modeled intensities I'l, I'2 and I'3, corresponding to photo electrons emitted from the first, second and third materials (paragraphs 0029-0030 & 0035+ & 0050-0054). This rejection is made to the extent the claim is understood.
With respect to claim 25, Larson et al. do not specifically disclose wherein the X-ray source assembly generating an X-ray beam includes an electron gun emitting an electron beam towards an anode emitting X-rays and a monochromator. Schueler et al. disclose an X-ray source assembly generating an X-ray beam includes an electron gun (102) emitting an electron beam (104) towards an anode (106) emitting X-rays (108) and a monochromator (109). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Larson et al. to have the X-ray source assembly generating an X-ray beam include an electron gun emitting an electron beam towards an anode emitting X-rays and a monochromator, as this is typical in XPS systems, as taught by Schueler et al. (paragraph 0004).
With respect to claim 26, Larson et al./Schueler et al. disclose wherein the anode emitting X-rays is made of Aluminum (Schueler et al. - paragraph 0004).
With respect to claims 27-28, Larson et al./Schueler et al. disclose wherein the monochromator is configured to focus Al Ka X-rays onto the wafer (Schueler et al. - paragraph 0004).
With respect to claims 29-30, Larson et al./Schueler et al. disclose wherein the monochromator is made of a crystal quartz (Schueler et al. - paragraph 0024).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JURIE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am - 7:30 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, David J Makiya can be reached at 571 272-2273. 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.
/JURIE YUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
November 19, 2025