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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the amendments filed on 07/20/2026. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-20 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-20 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. KR10-2023-0105272, filed on 08/11/2023, has been filed in this matter.
Claim Interpretation
Generally: 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.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant's arguments, remarks, and amendments.
Regarding the amendments and remarks, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 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
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20230028347 A1) in view of Kaplan (US 20080020938 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses:
A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device using a semiconductor measurement apparatus comprises:
extracting an interference pattern using a microsphere (Park, FIG. 3, [0064], “the controller 180 may acquire first position information on a pre-calculated focal point F in response to the first wavelength of the received first light L1. The first position information may include position information of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3 and position information of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 so that the pre-calculated focal point F is formed on the surface of the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 in response to the first wavelength of the first light L1”), …
… measuring a distance between the specimen and the microsphere, based on the interference pattern (Park, FIG. 3, [0064], “the controller 180 may acquire first position information on a pre-calculated focal point F in response to the first wavelength of the received first light L1. The first position information may include position information of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3 and position information of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 so that the pre-calculated focal point F is formed on the surface of the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 in response to the first wavelength of the first light L1”).
Park discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… the interference pattern based on constructive and destructive interference of light reflected from a specimen; and …
However, Kaplan, in a similar field of endeavor (METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FAST THREE-DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURED-ILLUMINATION-MICROSCOPY IMAGING), discloses:
… the interference pattern based on constructive and destructive interference of light reflected from a specimen (Kaplan, FIG. 4B, [0130], “As those of ordinary skill will appreciate light acts as waves that diffract (represented by cones 420A and 420B) from each of waveguides 410A and 410B that constructively and destructively interfere with each other creating an interference pattern as described by what is referred to as "Youngs double slit experiment"”); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park with the interference patterns of Kaplan. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of interference patterns as disclosed by Kaplan and how to use them to modify Park. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of interference patterns in analyzing samples.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 1, and Park further discloses:
… further comprising: setting a measurement position of a microsphere-objective lens (Park, FIG. 3, [0064], “The first position information may include position information of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3 and position information of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 so that the pre-calculated focal point F is formed on the surface of the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 in response to the first wavelength of the first light L1”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 1, and Park further discloses:
… wherein the extracting the interference pattern includes:
measuring a first spectrum (Park, FIG. 1, [0067], reflected light RL detected by detector 150 at first position);
moving a microsphere-objective lens structure including the microsphere and an objective lens in a direction that is perpendicular to a surface of the specimen (Parl, FIG. 3, [0066], “the controller 180 may adjust the position of each of the objective lens 130 and the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 by using the first position information (S123). In detail, the controller 180 may control the objective lens driving unit 135 to adjust the position of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3. Further, the controller 180 may control the microsphere driving unit 145 to adjust the position of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3”);
measuring a second spectrum (Park, FIG. 1, [0067], reflected light RL detected by detector 150 at second position);
calculating a spectral difference between the first spectrum and the second spectrum (Park, FIG. 5, [0065], “the controller 180 may adjust the position of each of the objective lens 130 and the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 by using the first position information (S123). In detail, the controller 180 may control the objective lens driving unit 135 to adjust the position of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3. Further, the controller 180 may control the microsphere driving unit 145 to adjust the position of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3”); and
calculating the interference pattern corresponding to the spectral difference (Park, [0073], “the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 may be inspected by sequentially using three or more kinds of light, which have different wavelengths extracted from the light source 110”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the moving the microsphere-objective lens includes moving the microsphere-objective lens with a lead zirconate titanate (PZT) actuator by 10 nm or less.
The material used for the actuator or the precise distance moved are result-effective variables. In that, if the material is not proper for the purpose or the precision of the movement is not proper, the device would not function properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before Applicant’s filing date to include “wherein the moving the microsphere-objective lens includes moving the microsphere-objective lens with a lead zirconate titanate (PZT) actuator by 10 nm or less,” since determining the optimum material and precision is based on result effective variables and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 1, and Park further discloses:
… wherein the measuring the distance includes:
comparing the calculated interference pattern and a reference pattern to each other (Park, [0073], “the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 may be inspected by sequentially using three or more kinds of light, which have different wavelengths extracted from the light source 110”); and
calculating the distance between the microsphere and the specimen corresponding to a comparison result (Park, [0073], “the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 may be inspected by sequentially using three or more kinds of light, which have different wavelengths extracted from the light source 110”).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 5, and Park further discloses:
… further comprising: setting the reference pattern (Park, FIG. 3, ]0040], “The focal point F may be formed on a surface of the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10”).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 1, and Park further discloses:
… wherein the microsphere has a form of at least one of a sphere, a hemisphere, or a rod (Park, FIG. 3, see figure).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 1, and Park further discloses:
…wherein the microsphere is fixed to a lower portion of an objective lens by a fixed distance (Parl, FIG. 3, [0066], “the controller 180 may adjust the position of each of the objective lens 130 and the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 by using the first position information (S123). In detail, the controller 180 may control the objective lens driving unit 135 to adjust the position of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3. Further, the controller 180 may control the microsphere driving unit 145 to adjust the position of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 1, and Park further discloses:
… further comprising: performing a spot scanning operation while maintaining a height of a microsphere- objective lens that includes the microsphere and an objective lens (Parl, FIG. 3, [0066], “the controller 180 may adjust the position of each of the objective lens 130 and the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 by using the first position information (S123). In detail, the controller 180 may control the objective lens driving unit 135 to adjust the position of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3. Further, the controller 180 may control the microsphere driving unit 145 to adjust the position of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 9, and Park further discloses:
… further comprising:
measuring a position of a scanner and a microsphere-specimen distance in the spot scanning operation (Park, FIG. 3, [0064], “the controller 180 may acquire first position information on a pre-calculated focal point F in response to the first wavelength of the received first light L1. The first position information may include position information of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3 and position information of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 so that the pre-calculated focal point F is formed on the surface of the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 in response to the first wavelength of the first light L1”); and
compensating for an error in the microsphere-specimen distance corresponding to the position of the scanner (Parl, FIG. 3, [0066], “the controller 180 may adjust the position of each of the objective lens 130 and the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 by using the first position information (S123). In detail, the controller 180 may control the objective lens driving unit 135 to adjust the position of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3. Further, the controller 180 may control the microsphere driving unit 145 to adjust the position of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3”).
Regarding Claim 11, Park discloses:
A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device using a semiconductor measurement apparatus, the method comprising:
performing a spot scanning operation on a specimen while moving a scanner having a microsphere-objective lens (Park, FIG. 3, [0064], “the controller 180 may acquire first position information on a pre-calculated focal point F in response to the first wavelength of the received first light L1. The first position information may include position information of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3 and position information of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 so that the pre-calculated focal point F is formed on the surface of the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 in response to the first wavelength of the first light L1”);
measuring a microsphere-to-specimen distance, based on an interference pattern generated in the spot scanning operation (Park, FIG. 3, [0064], “the controller 180 may acquire first position information on a pre-calculated focal point F in response to the first wavelength of the received first light L1. The first position information may include position information of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3 and position information of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 so that the pre-calculated focal point F is formed on the surface of the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 in response to the first wavelength of the first light L1”), …
… compensating for an error of the scanner in the microsphere-to-specimen distance (Parl, FIG. 3, [0066], “the controller 180 may adjust the position of each of the objective lens 130 and the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 by using the first position information (S123). In detail, the controller 180 may control the objective lens driving unit 135 to adjust the position of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3. Further, the controller 180 may control the microsphere driving unit 145 to adjust the position of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3”).
Park discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… the interference pattern based on constructive and destructive interference of light reflected from the specimen; and …
However, Kaplan, in a similar field of endeavor (METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FAST THREE-DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURED-ILLUMINATION-MICROSCOPY IMAGING), discloses:
… the interference pattern based on constructive and destructive interference of light reflected from the specimen (Kaplan, FIG. 4B, [0130], “As those of ordinary skill will appreciate light acts as waves that diffract (represented by cones 420A and 420B) from each of waveguides 410A and 410B that constructively and destructively interfere with each other creating an interference pattern as described by what is referred to as "Youngs double slit experiment"”); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park with the interference patterns of Kaplan. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of interference patterns as disclosed by Kaplan and how to use them to modify Park. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of interference patterns in analyzing samples.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the performing the spot scanning operation includes moving the scanner using a lead zirconate titanate (PZT) actuator.
The material used for the actuator is a result-effective variables. In that, if the material is not proper for the purpose, the device would not function properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before Applicant’s filing date to include “wherein the performing the spot scanning operation includes moving the scanner using a lead zirconate titanate (PZT) actuator,” since determining the optimum material is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 11, and Park further discloses:
… wherein the measuring the microsphere-to-specimen distance includes:
measuring a spectrum of light reflected from a surface of the specimen (Park, FIG. 1, [0067], reflected light RL detected by detector 150 at first position);
extracting an interference pattern from the measured spectrum (Park, FIG. 3, [0064], “The first position information may include position information of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3 and position information of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 so that the pre-calculated focal point F is formed on the surface of the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 in response to the first wavelength of the first light L1”);
comparing a reference pattern and the extracted interference pattern to each other (Park, [0073], “the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 may be inspected by sequentially using three or more kinds of light, which have different wavelengths extracted from the light source 110”); and
calculating the microsphere-to-specimen distance, based on a comparison result (Park, FIG. 5, [0065], “the controller 180 may adjust the position of each of the objective lens 130 and the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 by using the first position information (S123). In detail, the controller 180 may control the objective lens driving unit 135 to adjust the position of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3. Further, the controller 180 may control the microsphere driving unit 145 to adjust the position of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 11, and Park further discloses:
… wherein real-time distance measurement reduces collision with the specimen due to at least one of a stage vibration or a change in specimen height (Park, [0073], “the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 may be inspected by sequentially using three or more kinds of light, which have different wavelengths extracted from the light source 110,” and [0054], stage 100).
Examiner notes that measuring the height and the change in height is patentable, but to ascribe “reduces collision” is suggestive of use and non-limiting.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the spot scanning operation has a resolution corresponding to a spot of 100 nm or less.
The resolution is a result-effective variables. In that, if the resolution is not proper for the purpose, the device would not function properly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before Applicant’s filing date to include “wherein the spot scanning operation has a resolution corresponding to a spot of 100 nm or less,” since determining the optimum resolution is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 16, Park discloses:
A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device using a semiconductor measurement apparatus, the method comprising:
extracting an interference pattern for light reflected from a specimen by using a microsphere (Park, FIG. 3, [0064], “the controller 180 may acquire first position information on a pre-calculated focal point F in response to the first wavelength of the received first light L1. The first position information may include position information of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3 and position information of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 so that the pre-calculated focal point F is formed on the surface of the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 in response to the first wavelength of the first light L1”), the interference pattern based on constructive and destructive interference of light reflected from a specimen; and
determining at least one of a distance to the specimen, a height of the specimen, or a thickness of the specimen, based on a spectrum through a microsphere-objective lens corresponding to the interference pattern (Park, FIG. 3, [0064], “the controller 180 may acquire first position information on a pre-calculated focal point F in response to the first wavelength of the received first light L1. The first position information may include position information of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3 and position information of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 so that the pre-calculated focal point F is formed on the surface of the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 in response to the first wavelength of the first light L1”).
Park discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… the interference pattern based on constructive and destructive interference of light reflected from a specimen; and …
However, Kaplan, in a similar field of endeavor (METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FAST THREE-DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURED-ILLUMINATION-MICROSCOPY IMAGING), discloses:
… the interference pattern based on constructive and destructive interference of light reflected from a specimen (Kaplan, FIG. 4B, [0130], “As those of ordinary skill will appreciate light acts as waves that diffract (represented by cones 420A and 420B) from each of waveguides 410A and 410B that constructively and destructively interfere with each other creating an interference pattern as described by what is referred to as "Youngs double slit experiment"”); and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park with the interference patterns of Kaplan. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of interference patterns as disclosed by Kaplan and how to use them to modify Park. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of interference patterns in analyzing samples.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 16, and Park further discloses:
… further comprising: determining a focal position, based on the spectrum measured on a surface of the specimen (Park, FIG. 3, [0064], “the controller 180 may acquire first position information on a pre-calculated focal point F in response to the first wavelength of the received first light L1. The first position information may include position information of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3 and position information of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 so that the pre-calculated focal point F is formed on the surface of the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 in response to the first wavelength of the first light L1”).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 16, and Park further discloses:
… further comprising: comparing the interference pattern and a reference pattern to each other (Park, [0073], “the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 may be inspected by sequentially using three or more kinds of light, which have different wavelengths extracted from the light source 110”).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 18, and Park further discloses:
… further comprising: obtaining the reference pattern, based on data measured to reflect properties of at least one of an optical system, a spectrometer, or a stage (Park, [0073], “the semiconductor pattern P formed on the substrate 10 may be inspected by sequentially using three or more kinds of light, which have different wavelengths extracted from the light source 110,” and [0054], stage 100).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Park and Kaplan discloses Claim 16, and Park further discloses:
… further comprising: compensating for an error in an microsphere-to-specimen distance to correspond to a position of a scanner (Park, FIG. 5, [0065], “the controller 180 may adjust the position of each of the objective lens 130 and the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3 by using the first position information (S123). In detail, the controller 180 may control the objective lens driving unit 135 to adjust the position of the objective lens 130 in the vertical direction DR3. Further, the controller 180 may control the microsphere driving unit 145 to adjust the position of the microsphere 140 in the vertical direction DR3”).
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 CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 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, 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights