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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 4/27/2026.
No prior art is being applied to Claims 4-13 because the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “a control unit that controls a current flowing through the plurality of electromagnets, wherein the plurality of electromagnets are disposed on a surface of the sample that includes a wafer that has a front surface and a back surface, applies the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field to the sample from the surface of the sample, wherein each electromagnet of the plurality of electromagnets includes a yoke and a coil, and the control unit controls the direction and magnitude of the current that flows through each coil and applies to the sample the first magnetic field that saturates the vertical magnetization of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film, and the second magnetic field that obtains the extinction response,” as is currently claimed, in the current combination, and as best understood.
No prior art is being applied to Claim 36 because the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “wherein the plurality of electromagnets are disposed on a surface of the sample that includes a wafer that has a front surface and a back surface, and applies the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field to the sample from the surface of the sample, wherein each electromagnet includes a yoke and a plurality of coils, and wherein the detecting unit detects the extinction response of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film in the sample by applying the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field, to the sample by controlling a direction and a magnitude of current flowing in each coil” as currently claimed, in the current combination, and as best understood.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I in the reply filed on 4/27/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/27/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/30/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language.
Note that NPL Cite No. 5 to Meguro et al. has not been considered because no explanation of relevance in English has been provided.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 33 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. 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).
Note that the plurality of electromagnets feature of Claim 33 is being interpreted to be positively recited, and thus the entire scope of Claim 33, including all structural features, is the same as that of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13, 16, and 34-36,rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claims 1 and 33,
The phrase “a derivation unit that derives an anisotropic magnetic field of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film by extrapolating and fitting the detected extinction response” on the last two lines lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the derivation unit is able to or otherwise is used to derive a anisotropic magnetic field of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film by extrapolating and fitting the detected extinction response. No issue is raised regarding any extrapolation or fitting of the detected extinction response, but applicant then uses this extrapolated and fitting response to derive an anisotropic magnetic field of the film but where the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant makes such a derivation. The original disclosure does not provide any reasonable explanation, such as a formula, flow chart, or simple explanation describing such a process. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what applicant is doing to drive such a magnetic field as claimed from the extrapolated and fitted response, and thus such a person would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of this claim feature.
As to Claims 3 and 35,
The phrase “the derivation unit derives the anisotropic magnetic field from the second magnetic field whose magnetization magnitude is 0 by extrapolating and fitting the extinction response” on lines 1-3 lacks proper written description,
At issue here is that the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the derivation unit is able to or otherwise is used to derive a anisotropic magnetic field of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film by extrapolating and fitting the detected extinction response. No issue is raised regarding any extrapolation or fitting of the detected extinction response, but applicant then uses this extrapolated and fitting response to derive an anisotropic magnetic field of the film but where the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant makes such a derivation. The original disclosure does not provide any reasonable explanation, such as a formula, flow chart, or simple explanation describing such a process. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what applicant is doing to drive such a magnetic field as claimed from the extrapolated and fitted response, and thus such a person would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of this claim feature.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “a control unit that controls a current flowing through the plurality of electromagnets, wherein the plurality of electromagnets are disposed on a surface of the sample that includes a wafer that has a front surface and a back surface, applies the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field to the sample from the surface of the sample, wherein each electromagnet of the plurality of electromagnets includes a yoke and a coil, and the control unit controls the direction and magnitude of the current that flows through each coil and applies to the sample the first magnetic field that saturates the vertical magnetization of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film, and the second magnetic field that obtains the extinction response” on lines 2 to the end lacks proper written description.
Applicant claims “the control unit controls the direction and magnitude of the current that flows through each coil and applies to the sample the first magnetic field that saturates the vertical magnetization of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film, and the second magnetic field that obtains the extinction response,” but a control unit is not reasonably capable of applying any magnetic field as claimed. Instead, it is the coils that are capable of such a function. While the control unit can control the coils to generate the magnetic fields, the current claim is expressly claiming, as best understood, that the control unit is the device that applies the first and second magnetic fields to the sample. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which a control unit, as disclosed, is reasonably capable of such an ability, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of such a feature.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “wherein the stage includes additional heating and temperature measuring functions, and the derivation unit detects a thermal stability index from a relationship between a temperature of the sample and the anisotropic magnetic field” on lines 1-4 lacks proper written description.
1) A stage is well-known to be a physical object, such as a table, that provides support for a sample and can be moved. A stage, by itself, is not well-known to be able to perform any type of heating or temperature measurement. Here, applicant is claiming that the stage has a heating and temperature measurement function, but where a stage by itself, including the disclosed stage, does not reasonably have such a function. In paragraph [00119], applicant discloses that a heater can be attached to a wafer chuck on the stage, but this at most means that the added heater, a component distinct and separate from the stage itself, can perform a heating function. The stage does not have and is not disclosed to have any ability itself to perform a heating function, and applicant does not claim the heater from this paragraph. Furthermore, the stage is not disclosed to have any mechanism that can perform any type of temperature measurement. Instead, this paragraph further explains that any temperature measurement id measured in advance. A correction line is mentioned in this paragraph, but applicant does not provide any further explanation as to what this line is or how it enables the stage itself to perform any type of temperature measurement. A correction line is not a well-known temperature sensor or measurement device, and it is furthermore not disclosed to be part of the stage. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which the stage itself has the ability to perform any type of heating or temperature measurement function, and such a person would therefore not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim feature.
2) The recitation that the derivation unit “detects” a thermal stability index as claimed further raises an issue of proper written description. As best understood, the above index is not detected but determined by way of a formula (see paragraph [00121]). A processing device does not reasonably detect, as a detection is something done by a detector (sensor), and detecting and determining something are not the same thing. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably consider a processing device implementing a formula to determine a value as the same a detecting such a value, and applicant does not reasonably disclose that the derivation unit has any ability to actually sense or detect in the manner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand. This phrase therefore lacks proper written description.
As to Claim 34,
The phrase “the detecting unit: applies the first magnetic field to the sample, wherein a magnitude of the first magnetic field is greater than a coercivity of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film, and saturates vertical magnetization of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film; sets a magnitude of the first magnetic field to 0; switches to the second magnetic field; increases a magnitude of the second magnetic field from 0; performs a bipolar sweep that includes increasing and decreasing the magnitude of the second magnetic field a plurality of times; and detects an extinction response from the polar Kerr effect signal measured by the bipolar sweep” on lines 1 to the end lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that the above detection unit is not reasonably capable of applying a magnetic field, switching to the second magnetic field, and increasing or decreasing a magnitude of a magnetic field. As best understood and in light of the original disclosure (and for example Claims 1 and 2), it is the electromagnets that apply any magnetic field, and it is the control unit that controls the flow of current to the electromagnets, and thus any increasing or decreasing of the magnitude of the magnetic field. The control unit is not reasonably part of the detection unit, as again evidenced by Claims 1 and 2, and applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the detection unit itself is capable of performing the above claim features. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements such a claim feature, and would therefore not reasonably recognize that applicant had possession of the claim features.
As to Claim 36,
The phrase “wherein the plurality of electromagnets are disposed on a surface of the sample that includes a wafer that has a front surface and a back surface, and applies the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field to the sample from the surface of the sample, wherein each electromagnet includes a yoke and a plurality of coils, and wherein the detecting unit detects the extinction response of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film in the sample by applying the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field, to the sample by controlling a direction and a magnitude of current flowing in each coil” on lines 1 to the end lacks proper written description.
Applicant is claiming “the detecting unit detects the extinction response of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film in the sample by applying the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field, to the sample by controlling a direction and a magnitude of current flowing in each coil,” but where the original disclose does not reasonably explain the manner in which the detection unit detects the extinction response of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film, the manner in which it applies the first or second magnetic field, or the manner in which controls a direction and magnitude of the current flowing in each coil as claimed. As best understood, and using Claims 1 and 2 as evidence, the detection unit at most detects a signal, but it is the derivation unit that performs an detection of an extinction response, a control unit that controls the current, and the electromagnets that apply any magnetic field. The detection unit, as best understood, is not reasonably capable or disclosed to be capable of any of these functions. Applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which the detecting unit is reasonably capable of such functions, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which the detecting unit performs these functions in order to establish possession.
As to Claims 2-13, 16, and 34-36,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 4-13, 16, and 33-36 are 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.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “a control unit that controls a current that flows through the plurality of electromagnets, saturates a vertical magnetization of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film by applying to the sample the first magnetic field whose magnitude is greater than a coercivity of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film” on lines 3-6 is indefinite.
Applicant is claiming that the control unit “saturates a vertical magnetization of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film by applying to the sample the first magnetic field,” but where the control unit is not reasonably capable of such a function. While a control unit can control a coil to generate a magnetic field that saturates the film, the control unit itself cannot reasonably saturate or apply the claimed magnetic field as currently recited. It is therefore unclear whether it is the control unit, electromagnet, or a combination thereof that performs this function.
The phrase “sets the magnitude of the first magnetic field to be 0, switches to the second magnetic field, increases a magnitude of the second magnetic field from 0, and performs a bipolar sweep that includes increasing and decreasing the magnitude of the second magnetic field a plurality of times, and wherein the detection unit detects the extinction response from the polar Kerr effect signal measured by the bipolar sweep” on lines 7 to the end is indefinite.
1) Due to the spacing in the claim, it is unclear what component performs any of the above claim features, such as the “sets” or “switches” feature. It is unclear if applicant intends the control unit to perform these features, or some other element, either claimed or unclaimed. It is further unclear whether applicant intends these features to be an intended use of a component, such as the control unit, or if applicant intends these features to actively be performed. To the extent that the active function of these claim features is intended, the Examiner respectfully notes that such a recitation is indefinite in light of MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
2) Applicant is claiming that the detection unit “detects,” but as explained above, such a feature is indefinite because it is reciting an actual use of the detection unit, which is the same as reciting a method step of using the detection unit to detect. Reciting an active use of an apparatus feature inside an apparatus claim is indefinite (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)).
3) Applicant claims “the detection unit detects the extinction response from the polar Kerr effect signal measured by the bipolar sweep,” but where no polar Kerr effect signal was previously recited to be measured during the bipolar sweep. It is unclear what signal this phrase is referencing.
As to Claims 3 and 35,
The phrase “the derivation unit derives the anisotropic magnetic field from the second magnetic field whose magnetization magnitude is 0 by extrapolating and fitting the extinction response” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
Applicant is positively reciting that the derivation unit “derives” the anisotropic magnetic field, but where such a phrase is a method step of using the derivation unit to derive the magnetic field. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), a claim that recites an apparatus and method step of using that apparatus is indefinite. Here, reciting that the unit “derives” is reasonably a method step, because it is an active use of the derivation unit to perform the step of deriving the magnetic field. The same issue exists with reciting that the unit is performing “extrapolating and fitting” which are also method steps of extrapolating and fitting, and thus raise the same issue.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “a control unit that controls a current flowing through the plurality of electromagnets, wherein the plurality of electromagnets are disposed on a surface of the sample that includes a wafer that has a front surface and a back surface, applies the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field to the sample from the surface of the sample, wherein each electromagnet of the plurality of electromagnets includes a yoke and a coil, and the control unit controls the direction and magnitude of the current that flows through each coil and applies to the sample the first magnetic field that saturates the vertical magnetization of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film, and the second magnetic field that obtains the extinction response” on lines 2 to the end is indefinite.
1) Applicant claims “the plurality of electromagnets are disposed on a surface of the sample that includes a wafer that has a front surface and a back surface,” but the issue here is that the sample that includes a wafer is not part of the semiconductor manufacturing device. Instead, the sample that includes a wafer is the object under test, and not the test device. While claiming the plurality of electromagnets are placed on the sample during a method of manufacturing would be proper, claiming as such for the final product apparatus is not. Apparatus claims are intended to cover the final product, such that the claims would even cover this device if it were boxed up and in a warehouse waiting to be sold. No sample would be present in that circumstance. In light of the disclosure, the sample that includes a wafer is part of the manufacturing process, but it is not part of the final product manufacturing device that the claims are directed towards. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear how such a feature should be interpreted as it is unclear whether the sample that includes a wafer is actually required in the claim, and it is unclear if the electromagnets must actually be placed on the sample as claimed. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the electromagnets must actually be placed on the sample that includes a wafer as expressly claimed, and that the sample that includes a wafer is part of the final product and thus must be present in the claim.
2) Applicant claims “applies the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field to the sample from the surface of the sample,” but claiming that the electromagnets actually apply the first and second magnetic field is a method step of applying the field. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), it is indefinite to recite a method step of using an apparatus in an apparatus claim. Here, claiming that the electromagnets “applies” the magnetic fields is reasonably an active use of the electromagnets, which is therefore indefinite. This phrase is further indefinite because it is unclear whether applicant intends this phrase to mean that the electromagnets or the control unit applies the magnetic fields. A control unit is not reasonably capable of such an application of a magnetic field, but as worded, the control unit may be the intended device for such an application, rendering the phrase indefinite.
3) Applicant claims “the control unit controls the direction and magnitude of the current that flows through each coil and applies to the sample the first magnetic field that saturates the vertical magnetization of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film, and the second magnetic field that obtains the extinction response,” but where such a phrase is indefinite. First, as noted above, actually claiming a positive use (method) of an apparatus component in an apparatus claim is indefinite as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Here, applicant is actively claiming that the control unit “controls” the direction and magnitude and “applies” to the sample the first and second magnetic fields. The terms “controls” and “applies” are active verbs that reasonably include the active use of the control device to perform these actions. As such, these terms are reasonably method steps of using the control unit to implement these claim features, rendering the claim indefinite. Second, a control unit is reasonably capable of controlling current applies to the coils, but it is not reasonably capable of applying any magnetic field as claimed. Instead, it is the coils that are capable of such a function. It is therefore unclear what applicant means by this phrase, because a control unit cannot reasonably perform the function that it is being claimed to perform.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “based on the second magnetic field measured by the magnetic field direction measuring device, the control unit controls the current flowing in each coil such that the vertical component of the second magnetic field is minimized in a measurement position illuminated by an illumination light” on lines 1-5 is indefinite. As noted above, actually claiming a positive use (method) of an apparatus component in an apparatus claim is indefinite as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Here, applicant is actively claiming that the control unit “controls” the current flowing in each coil. The terms “controls” and “flowing” are active verbs that reasonably include the active use of the control device to perform these actions. As such, these terms are reasonably method steps of using the control unit to implement these claim features, rendering the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “wherein, based on the second magnetic field measured by the magnetic field direction measuring device, the stage controls a tilt of the sample such that the horizontal component of the second magnetic field is parallel to a sample surface in a measurement position illuminated by an illumination light” on lines 1-5 is indefinite. As noted above, actually claiming a positive use (method) of an apparatus component in an apparatus claim is indefinite as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Here, applicant is actively claiming that the stage “controls” a tilt. The term “controls” is an active verb that reasonably includes the active use of the stage to perform this action. As such, this term is reasonably a method step of using the stage to implement this claim feature, rendering the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “wherein, based on the second magnetic field measured by the magnetic field direction measuring device, the beam steering mechanism moves the spot position of the illumination light to a position in which a vertical component of the second magnetic field is minimized in a measurement position illuminated by the illumination light” on lines 4-7 is indefinite. As noted above, actually claiming a positive use (method) of an apparatus component in an apparatus claim is indefinite as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Here, applicant is actively claiming that the beam steering mechanism “moves” the spot position. The term “controls” is an active verb that reasonably includes the active use of the stage to perform this action. As such, this term is reasonably a method step of using the stage to implement this claim feature, rendering the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “wherein, based on the second magnetic field measured with the magnetic field direction measuring device, the control unit controls current flowing in each coil such that a vertical component of the second magnetic field is minimized in a measurement position illuminated by the illumination light, the stage controls a tilt of the sample such that a horizontal component of the second magnetic field is parallel to a sample surface in a measurement position illuminated with the illumination light, and the beam steering mechanism moves a spot position of the illumination light to a position in which the vertical component of the second magnetic field is minimized in a measurement position illuminated by the illumination light” on lines 4 to the end is indefinite.
As noted above, actually claiming a positive use (method) of an apparatus component in an apparatus claim is indefinite as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Here, applicant is actively claiming that the control unit “controls” the current flowing in each coil, the stage “controls” a tilt, and the beam steering mechanism “moves” a spot position. The terms “controls,” and “moves” are active verbs that reasonably include the active use of the control device, the stage, and the beam steering mechanism to perform these actions. As such, these terms are reasonably method steps of using the control unit, stage, and beam steering mechanism to implement these claim features, rendering the claim indefinite.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “the control unit controls current flowing in each coil such that the vertical component of the second magnetic field is minimized at predetermined intervals during continuous magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
1) As noted above, actually claiming a positive use (method) of an apparatus component in an apparatus claim is indefinite as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Here, applicant is actively claiming that the beam steering mechanism “moves” the spot position. The term “controls” is an active verb that reasonably includes the active use of the stage to perform this action. Additionally, the phrase “during continuous magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements” also reasonably requires active use to actively perform measurements, as current claimed, raising a similar indefiniteness issue. As such, this term is reasonably a method step of using the stage to implement this claim feature, rendering the claim indefinite.
2) The phrase “during continuous magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements” is indefinite because Claim 5 previous recites at least one measurement by way of the magnetic sensor, and Claim 1 recites “a magneto-optical Kerr effect measurement.” As best understood these measurements are not distinct from the above continuous measurements now claimed, but where these features are all distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “the beam steering mechanism moves the spot position of the illumination light to a position in which the vertical component of the second magnetic field is minimized at predetermined intervals during continuous magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
1) As noted above, actually claiming a positive use (method) of an apparatus component in an apparatus claim is indefinite as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Here, applicant is actively claiming that the beam steering mechanism “moves” the spot position. The term “controls” is an active verb that reasonably includes the active use of the stage to perform this action. As such, this term is reasonably a method step of using the stage to implement this claim feature, rendering the claim indefinite.
2) The phrase “during continuous magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements” is indefinite because Claim 5 previous recites at least one measurement by way of the magnetic sensor, and Claim 1 recites “a magneto-optical Kerr effect measurement.” As best understood these measurements are not distinct from the above continuous measurements now claimed, but where these features are all distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 13,
The phrase “a beam steering mechanism that moves a spot position of illumination light used for the magneto-optical Kerr effect measurement, wherein, based on the second magnetic field measured with the magnetic field direction measuring device, the control unit controls current flowing in each coil such that a vertical component of the second magnetic field is minimized in a measurement position illuminated with an illumination light at predetermined intervals during continuous magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements, the stage controls a tilt of the sample such that a horizontal component of the second magnetic field is parallel to a sample surface in a measurement position illuminated with the illumination light at predetermined intervals during continuous magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements, and the beam steering mechanism controls movement of a spot position of the illumination light to a position in which the vertical component of the second magnetic field is minimized in a measurement position illuminated by the illumination light at predetermined intervals during continuous magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements” on lines 2 to the end is indefinite.
1) As noted above, actually claiming a positive use (method) of an apparatus component in an apparatus claim is indefinite as explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Here, applicant is actively claiming that the control unit “controls” the current flowing in each coil, the stage “controls” a tilt, and the beam steering mechanism “controls” movement of a spot position. The term “controls” is an active verb that reasonably includes the active use of the control device, the stage, and the beam steering mechanism to perform these actions. As such, these terms are reasonably method steps of using the control unit, stage, and beam steering mechanism to implement these claim features, rendering the claim indefinite. Additionally, the phrase “during continuous magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements” also reasonably requires active use to actively perform measurements, as current claimed, raising a similar indefiniteness issue. As such, this term is reasonably a method step of using the stage to implement this claim feature, rendering the claim indefinite.
2) The phrase “during continuous magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements” is indefinite because Claim 5 previous recites at least one measurement by way of the magnetic sensor, and Claim 1 recites “a magneto-optical Kerr effect measurement.” As best understood these measurements are not distinct from the above continuous measurements now claimed, but where these features are all distinctly recited. The difference and relationship between these features are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “wherein the stage includes additional heating and temperature measuring functions, and the derivation unit detects a thermal stability index from a relationship between a temperature of the sample and the anisotropic magnetic field” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
1) A stage is well-known to be a physical object, such as a table, that provides support for a sample and can be moved. A stage, by itself, is not well-known to be able to perform any type of heating or temperature measurement. Here, applicant is claiming that the stage has a heating and temperature measurement function, but where a stage by itself, including the disclosed stage, does not reasonably have such a function. In paragraph [00119], applicant discloses that a heater can be attached to a wafer chuck on the stage, but this at most means that the added heater, a component distinct and separate from the stage itself, can perform a heating function. The stage does not have and is not disclosed to have any ability itself to perform a heating function, and applicant does not claim the heater from this paragraph. Furthermore, the stage is not disclosed to have any mechanism that can perform any type of temperature measurement. Instead, this paragraph further explains that any temperature measurement id measured in advance. A correction line is mentioned in this paragraph, but applicant does not provide any further explanation as to what this line is or how it enables the stage itself to perform any type of temperature measurement. A correction line is not a well-known temperature sensor or measurement device, and it is furthermore not disclosed to be part of the stage. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably understand what applicant means by claiming that the stage has a heating and temperature measurement function, as a stage is not well-known to include such an ability, and the original disclosure does not reasonably explain what applicant means by this feature.
2) Applicant expressly claims that the derivation unit “detects” a thermal stability index, but where such a feature is a method step of detecting. As explained above, and in light of MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), it is indefinite to recite a use of an apparatus in an apparatus claim, as such a feature reasonably amounts to a method of using the apparatus. This feature is therefore indefinite.
3) It is further unclear what applicant means by claiming that the derivation unit “detects” a thermal stability index as claimed. As best understood, the above index is not detected but determined by way of a formula (see paragraph [00121]). A processing device does not reasonably detect, as a detection is something done by a detector (sensor). The metes and bounds of what applicant means by detecting a thermal stability index as opposed to claiming determining a thermal stability index is therefore unclear, because detecting and determining are not the same thing, and no sensing or actual detection of such an index is reasonably disclosed.
As to Claim 33,
The phrase “a detecting unit that detects an extinction response of a perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film in a sample from a polar Kerr effect signal in a magneto-optical Kerr effect measurement that uses a plurality of electromagnets that electrically switch between applying a first magnetic field and a second magnetic field to the sample on a stage, wherein the magnetic field includes a vertical component normal to an upper surface of the stage and the second magnetic field includes a horizontal component parallel to the upper surface of the stage; and a derivation unit that derives an anisotropic magnetic field of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film by extrapolating and fitting the detected extinction response” on lines 3 to the end is indefinite.
At issue here is that applicant is claiming a detection unit “that uses” a plurality of electromagnets that electrically switch between applying a first magnetic field and a second magnetic field to the sample on a stage, wherein the magnetic field includes a vertical component normal to an upper surface of the stage and the second magnetic field includes a horizontal component parallel to the upper surface of the stage.
This phrase is indefinite because it is expressly reciting a use of a plurality of electromagnets, but where such a use is reasonably a method step of using the electromagnets, which is indefinite. As explained above, it is indefinite to recite a use of an apparatus feature inside an apparatus claim (see MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)).
This phrase is further indefinite because it is unclear whether the above claim features are or are not required in the claim. It is unclear if the plurality of electromagnets are positively recited, because Claim 33 is an apparatus claim, and thus directed towards a final product device, and it is unclear if the above use requires that the plurality of electromagnets are required. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that these electromagnets and their associated magnetic fields are required in the claim.
As to Claim 34,
The phrase “the detecting unit: applies the first magnetic field to the sample, wherein a magnitude of the first magnetic field is greater than a coercivity of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film, and saturates vertical magnetization of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film; sets a magnitude of the first magnetic field to 0; switches to the second magnetic field; increases a magnitude of the second magnetic field from 0; performs a bipolar sweep that includes increasing and decreasing the magnitude of the second magnetic field a plurality of times; and detects an extinction response from the polar Kerr effect signal measured by the bipolar sweep” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
1) The detection unit is not reasonably capable of applying a magnetic field, and it is therefore unclear how such a feature should be interpreted. While claim 33 recites that the detection field uses electromagnets to apply magnetic fields, the claim does not state that the detection unit includes such electromagnetics. In fact, these electromagnets are expressly disclosed to be distinct from the detection unit in Claim 1, further demonstrating their intended distinctiveness. As such, it is unclear how such a feature should be interpreted.
2) Applicant is positively claiming that the detection unit applies, saturates, switches, performs a bipolar sweep, and detects, but where each of these features are method steps of using the detection unit. As previously explained, method steps or active steps of using an apparatus inside on apparatus claim are indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)), and these features are therefore indefinite.
3) The phrase “detects an extinction response from the polar Kerr effect signal measured by the bipolar sweep” is indefinite, because a bipolar sweep cannot measure, and it is therefore unclear what this phrase is intended to mean. While a measurement can be made during such a sweep, the sweep itself, as claimed, does not reasonably perform any measurement. It is therefore unclear what this phrase is intended to mean. This phrase further refers to such a measurement in the past tense, but no such sweep measurement was previously claimed. It is therefore unclear what bipolar sweep measurement this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 36,
The phrase “wherein the plurality of electromagnets are disposed on a surface of the sample that includes a wafer that has a front surface and a back surface, and applies the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field to the sample from the surface of the sample, wherein each electromagnet includes a yoke and a plurality of coils, and wherein the detecting unit detects the extinction response of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film in the sample by applying the first magnetic field and the second magnetic field, to the sample by controlling a direction and a magnitude of current flowing in each coil” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
1) The detection unit is not reasonably capable of detecting the extinction response in light of the disclosure, as such a detection is actually a determination as best understood, and the detection unit is not reasonably capable of such a determination. Similarly, the detection unit is not reasonably disclosed to be able to control the current as claimed. Similarly, the detection unit is not reasonably capable of applying a magnetic field as claimed, as it is the electromagnets that apply such a field. As such, it is unclear how such a feature should be interpreted.
2) Applicant is positively claiming that the detection unit detects, applies a magnetic field, and controls a current, but where each of these features are method steps of using the detection unit. As previously explained, method steps or active steps of using an apparatus inside on apparatus claim are indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)), and these features are therefore indefinite.
3) Applicant claims “wherein the plurality of electromagnets are disposed on a surface of the sample that includes a wafer that has a front surface and a back surface,” but the issue here is that the sample that includes a wafer is not part of the semiconductor manufacturing device. Instead, the sample that includes a wafer is the object under test, and not the test device. While claiming the plurality of electromagnets are placed on the sample during a method of manufacturing would be proper, claiming as such for the final product apparatus is not. Apparatus claims are intended to cover the final product, such that the claims would even cover this device if it were boxed up and in a warehouse waiting to be sold. No sample would be present in that circumstance. In light of the disclosure, the sample that includes a wafer is part of the manufacturing process, but it is not part of the final product manufacturing device that the claims are directed towards. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear how such a feature should be interpreted as it is unclear whether the sample that includes a wafer is actually required in the claim, and it is unclear if the electromagnets must actually be placed on the sample as claimed. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the electromagnets must actually be placed on the sample that includes a wafer as expressly claimed, and that the sample that includes a wafer is part of the final product and thus must be present in the claim.
As to Claims 5-13, and 34-36,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
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 1, 2, 3, 16, 33, 34, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolniansky et al. (Wolniansky) (Magneto-optical measurements of hysteresis loop and anisotropy energy constants of amorphous TbxFe1-x alloys) in view of Heidmann (US 2010/0079908).
As to Claims 1, 2, 33, and 34,
Wolniansky discloses A semiconductor manufacturing device for a magneto-optical Kerr effect measurement, comprising: an electromagnet that provides a magnetic field that has a component parallel to an upper surface of a stage (plate) upon which a sample is placed (Figure 1), (Page 350, Left Column); a detecting unit that detects an extinction response of a perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film in the sample from a polar Kerr effect signal (Page 350, Left Column / note a detection unit must be present in order to monitor the magnetization as disclosed); and a derivation unit that derives an anisotropic magnetic field of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film by extrapolating and fitting the detected extinction response (Abstract), (Figures 12,13), (Page 350, Both Columns / note a derivation unit must be present to obtain the graphs in Figures 12 and 13, and note that these figures show extrapolated data between the points as well as a curve fit to the data), a control unit/detection unit that controls a current that flows through the electromagnet, a two-pole magnet saturates a vertical magnetization of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film by applying to the sample the first magnetic field whose magnitude is greater than a coercivity of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film (Page 305, Left Column), activates the second magnetic field, increases a magnitude of the second magnetic field from 0, and performs a bipolar sweep that includes increasing and decreasing the magnitude of the second magnetic field a plurality of times, and wherein the detection unit detects the extinction response from the polar Kerr effect signal measured by the bipolar sweep (Page 305 / note the bipolar sweep is implemented by way of the sinusoidal magnetic field which must inherently have an increasing and decreasing magnitude).
Wolniansky does not disclose a plurality of electromagnets that electrically switch between a first magnetic field that has a component perpendicular to an upper surface of a stage upon which a sample is placed, and a second magnetic field that has a component parallel to the upper surface of the stage, a control unit/detection unit that controls a current that flows through the plurality of electromagnets, saturates a vertical magnetization of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film by applying to the sample the first magnetic field whose magnitude is greater than a coercivity of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film, sets the magnitude of the first magnetic field to be 0, switches to the second magnetic field, increases a magnitude of the second magnetic field from 0 after switching to the second magnetic field.
Heidmann discloses a plurality of electromagnets (102,104) that electrically switch between a first magnetic field that has a component perpendicular to an upper surface of a stage upon which a sample is placed, and a second magnetic field that has a component parallel to the upper surface of the stage (Paragraphs [0042],[0048] / note the perpendicular and parallel fields are applied in sequence, and thus switched), (Figure 1A / note the stage is the object the wafer is located on), a control unit/detection unit (103,105,107) that controls a current that flows through the plurality of electromagnets, saturates a vertical magnetization of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film by applying to the sample the first magnetic field whose magnitude is greater than a coercivity of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film (Paragraphs [0040],[0050] / note the field has to be higher than the coercivity to saturate the film), sets the magnitude of the first magnetic field to be 0, switches to the second magnetic field, increases a magnitude of the second magnetic field from 0 after switching to the second magnetic field (Paragraphs [0042],[0048] / note the perpendicular and parallel fields are applied in sequence, and thus switched and where one field must be set to zero if the fields are applied in sequence).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wolniansky to include a plurality of electromagnets that electrically switch between a first magnetic field that has a component perpendicular to an upper surface of a stage upon which a sample is placed, and a second magnetic field that has a component parallel to the upper surface of the stage, a control unit/detection unit that controls a current that flows through the plurality of electromagnets, saturates a vertical magnetization of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film by applying to the sample the first magnetic field whose magnitude is greater than a coercivity of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy film, sets the magnitude of the first magnetic field to be 0, switches to the second magnetic field, increases a magnitude of the second magnetic field from 0 after switching to the second magnetic field as taught by Heidmann in order to advantageously be able to apply a magnetic field in more than one direction and thus be able to obtain additional information about the state of the sample, including being able to determine the magnetic stability of the sample (Paragraph [0076]).
As to Claims 3 and 35,
Wolniansky in view of Heidmann discloses the derivation unit derives the anisotropic magnetic field from the second magnetic field whose magnetization magnitude is 0 by extrapolating and fitting the extinction response (Page 305 / note the magnetization magnitude is zero when the sinusoid crosses zero).
As to Claim 16,
Wolniansky discloses the stage includes additional heating and temperature measuring functions, and the derivation unit detects a thermal stability index from a relationship between a temperature of the sample and the anisotropic magnetic field (Pages 347-348, Section III / note the laser is the heating mechanism and the measured values are correlated to temperature which is reasonably a temperature measurement function, and lastly the detection of thermal stability is being interpreted to mean that a detection of a temperature meets this claim as no actual determination of the index is required, and a detection of the index can be a detection of a temperature based on the above relationship).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2023/0125628 to Ueyama et al. which discloses an inspection device of a sample using magneto-optical Kerr measurements of the sample on a stage, and 2) US 2019/0295616 to NOH et al. which also disclose magneto-optical Kerr measurements of a sample.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights