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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/18/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/26 has been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-9, 16, 18-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wack et al. (Pub. No. 2004/0115843) in view of Miller et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7,471,382), further in view of Ng et al. (U.S. 2024/0110782), or JP 6053084 (JP 6053084). Hereafter “Wack”, “Miller”, “Ng ‘782”, “JP6053084”. (Please see attached files for reference of JP 6053084).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 16, 19, Wack teaches a system, comprising:
a radiation source configured to emit a radiation beam (figure 27, a radiation source 368);
a first optical sensor configured to detect a first intensity of a first portion of the radiation beam reflected from a surface of an object (the following figure 27, a first optical sensor 366-1, an object 370);
a second optical sensor configured to detect a second intensity of a second portion of the radiation beam scattered by the surface of the object (the following figure 27, a second optical sensor 366-2, an object 370);
a third optical sensor configured to detect a third intensity of a third portion of the radiation beam scattered by the surface of the object (the following figure 27, a third optical sensor 366-3, an object 370); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the first optical sensor, the second optical sensor, and the third optical sensor ([0502]; Figures 26, 27, processors 364, 378), wherein the processor is configured to determine at least one of a roughness of the surface of the object or an emissivity of the surface of the object ([0502]; 0557] lines 7-14; [0577]; [0578] lines 1-19).
However, Wack does not teach intensity of a portion of the radiation beam scattered by the surface of the object collected by an ellipsoidal mirror collector, and a comparison of two or more of the first intensity, the second intensity, or the third intensity. Miller teaches intensity of a portion of the radiation beam scattered by the surface of the object collected by an ellipsoidal mirror collector (figure 1, ellipsoidal collector 52), and a comparison of two or more of the first intensity, the second intensity, or the third intensity (column 1, lines 24-26, 50-55; Column 4, lines 42-45; Column 6, lines 21-25; Column 14, lines 33-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wack by having an ellipsoidal mirror collector, and a comparison of two or more of the first intensity, the second intensity, or the third intensity in order to provide potential anomalies, and locations corresponding intensities of the detector outputs, (Miller, Column 14, lines 33-50).
Wack in view of Miller do not teach intensity of a portion of the radiation beam scattered by the surface of the object collected by a Schwarzschild objective. Ng ‘782 teaches intensity of a portion of the radiation beam scattered by the surface of the object collected by a Schwarzschild objective ([0096]; Figure 1, element 120). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wack and Miller by having a Schwarzschild objective in order to direct scattered radiation toward the second optical sensor efficiently, (Ng ‘782, [0096]; Figure 1, element 120).
Moreover, JP6053084 also teaches intensity of a portion of the radiation beam scattered by the surface of the object collected by a Schwarzschild objective (figures 8, 9, the Schwarzschild optical system 904). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wack and Miller by having a Schwarzschild objective in order to direct scattered radiation toward the optical sensor efficiently, figures 8, 9, the Schwarzschild optical system 904).
[AltContent: textbox (366-4)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (366-3)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (366-2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (366-1)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
470
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Wack as modified by Miller, Ng ‘782 or JP6053084, teaches the system according to claim 1 as stated above except for a mid- infrared supercontinuum laser. Wack further teaches a mid-infrared supercontinuum laser ([0199], lines 3-5; [0469]. It is inherent that infrared light should include a mid-infrared supercontinuum laser). Ng ‘782 also teaches a mid-infrared supercontinuum laser, ([0094]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wack, Miller, JP6053084 by having a mid-infrared supercontinuum laser in order to a high-brightness pulsed laser source.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Wack as modified by Miller, Ng ‘782 or JP6053084, teaches the system according to claim 1 as stated above except for a mirror configured to direct the radiation beam towards the surface of the object; the objective configured to receive the second portion of the radiation beam scattered by the surface of the object and direct the second portion to the second optical sensor; and the ellipsoidal mirror collector configured to receive the third portion of the radiation beam scattered by the surface of the object and direct the third portion to the third optical sensor. Wack also teaches a mirror configured to direct the radiation beam towards the surface of the object ([0189]); a reflective objective configured to receive the second portion of the radiation beam scattered by the surface of the object and direct the second portion to the second optical sensor (figure 23, lens 242 is not different from a reflective objective, detectors 260, 262); and a collector configured to receive the third portion of the radiation beam scattered by the surface of the object and direct the third portion to the third optical sensor (figure 10, collector 88). (Ng ‘782 and JP6053084 teach the Schwarzschild objective as disclosed in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Wack, Miller, Ng ‘782, JP6053084 teach all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except for the Schwarzschild objective is positioned co-axial with the ellipsoidal mirror collector. Ng ‘782 teaches the Schwarzschild objective is positioned with the mirror collector (figure 1A-B, the Schwarzschild optical system 120, mirror 122). JP6053084 also teaches the Schwarzschild objective is positioned with the mirror collector (figures 8-9, the Schwarzschild optical system 904, the mirror collector 905). Miller teaches an ellipsoidal mirror collector (figure 1, ellipsoidal collector 52). Although the Wack, Miller, Ng ‘782, JP6053084 does not teach the Schwarzschild objective is positioned co-axial with the ellipsoidal mirror collector as that claimed by Applicant, the combination of the Schwarzschild objective of Ng ‘782 or JP6053084 device with the ellipsoidal mirror collector of Miller to have a co-axial position is obvious. Moreover, the shape differences are considered obvious and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Wack, Miller, Ng ‘782, JP6053084 teach all the limitations of claims 1, 3, as stated above except for a beam splitter disposed along an optical axis between the radiation source and the mirror, wherein the first portion of the radiation beam reflected off of the surface of the object is reflected off of the mirror and is directed by the beam splitter to the first optical sensor. Wack teaches a beam splitter disposed along an optical axis between the radiation source and the mirror, wherein the first portion of the radiation beam reflected off of the surface of the object is reflected off of the mirror and is directed by the beam splitter to the first optical sensor (figures 3, 5, 7, 12, 23, beam splitters 50, 259, detector 46).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Wack, Miller, Ng ‘782, JP6053084 teach all the limitations of claims 1, 3, 6, as stated above except for a polarizing filter disposed along the optical axis between the radiation source and the beam splitter, the polarizing filter configured to polarize the radiation beam emitted from the radiation source. Wack further teaches a polarizing filter disposed along the optical axis between the radiation source and the beam splitter, the polarizing filter configured to polarize the radiation beam emitted from the radiation source ([0171, 0172, 0178, 0436]).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Wack as modified by Miller, Ng ‘782 or JP6053084, teaches the system according to claim 1 as stated above except for one or more lenses configured to focus the radiation beam, wherein the radiation beam is focused to a spot size of less than approximately 200 microns in diameter on the surface of the object. Wack further teaches one or more lenses configured to focus the radiation beam, on the surface of the object (figure 4, lens 48; Figure 10, lens 86; Figure 23, lens 242). Although Wack does not teach the radiation beam is focused to a spot size of less than approximately 200 microns in diameter, selection of 200 microns in diameter or similar range is well known. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose appropriate spot size for the benefit of well operated inspection system. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Wack as modified by Miller, Ng ‘782 or JP6053084, teaches the system according to claim 16 as stated above except for inputting, into a model, data associated with at least one of the emissivity or the roughness of the surface of the chamber component; and receiving, from the model, an output comprising predicted substrate process results, wherein the predicted substrate process results correspond to future substrates to be processed using the chamber component. Wack further teaches inputting, into a model, data associated with at least one of the emissivity or the roughness of the surface of the chamber component; and receiving, from the model, an output comprising predicted substrate process results, wherein the predicted substrate process results correspond to future substrates to be processed using the chamber component ([0229, 0230, 0557, 0577, 0578]).
5. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wack et al. (Pub. No. 2004/0115843) in view of Miller et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7,471,382), further in view of Ng et al. (U.S. 2024/0110782), or JP 6053084 (JP 6053084), and further in view of Meeks et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0250610). Hereafter “Wack”, “Miller”, “Ng ‘782”, “JP6053084”, “Meeks”. (Please see attached files for reference of JP 6053084).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Wack, Miller, Ng ‘782, JP6053084 teach all the limitations of claims 1, 3, as stated above except for the Schwarzschild objective is configured to collect light scattered at a first range of angles relative to the surface of the object and the ellipsoidal mirror collector is configured to collect light scattered at a second range of angles relative to the surface of the object, and wherein the first range comprises between approximately 10 degrees and 25 degrees, and wherein the second range comprises between approximately 35 degrees and 75 degrees. Wack, Miller, Ng ‘782, JP6053084 have taught the ellipsoidal mirror collector and the Schwarzschild objective as indicated in claim 1 above. Meeks teaches the reflective objective is configured to collect light scattered at a first range of angles relative to the surface of the object (figure 4, objective 430) and the collector is configured to collect light scattered at a second range of angles relative to the surface of the object (figure 4, collector 436), and wherein the first range comprises between approximately 10 degrees and 25 degrees, and wherein the second range comprises between approximately 35 degrees and 75 degree, (Figures 4, collective angles of reflected light beam of ellipsoidal mirror 436 and of objective 430). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wack, Miller, Ng ‘782, JP6053084 by collecting light scattered at a first range of angles relative to the surface of the object and light scattered at a second range of angles in order to collect reflected light beams with different angles.
6. Claim(s) 7, 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wack et al. (Pub. No. 2004/0115843) in view of Miller et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7,471,382), further in view of Ng et al. (U.S. 2024/0110782), or JP 6053084 (JP 6053084), and further in view of Biellak et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2001/0052975). Hereafter “Wack”, “Miller”, “Ng ‘782”, “JP6053084”, “Biellak”. (Please see attached files for reference of JP 6053084).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, 17, Wack as modified by Miller, Ng ‘782 or JP6053084, teaches the system according to claims 1, 3, 6, or 16 as stated above except for detecting, via a fourth optical sensor, a fourth intensity of a fraction of the radiation beam emitted by the radiation source directed toward the fourth optical sensor by a beam splitter disposed along an optical axis between the radiation source and a mirror, wherein the mirror is configured to direct the radiation beam toward the surface of the chamber component; and normalizing the detected first intensity, the detected second intensity, and the detected third intensity based on the detected fourth intensity. Wack further teaches a fourth optical sensor, wherein the beam splitter is configured to direct a fraction of the radiation beam emitted by the radiation source toward the fourth optical sensor, wherein the fourth optical sensor is configured to detect a fourth intensity of the fraction of the radiation beam, and wherein the processor is configured to normalize the detected first intensity, the detected second intensity, and the detected third intensity based on the detected fourth intensity, (the above figure 27, detector 366-4; Figures 3, 5, 7, 12, 23, beam splitters 50. It is inherent that the beam splitter 50 being configured to direct a fraction of the radiation beam emitted by the radiation source toward the optical sensor 46).
Biellak also teaches this limitation (figure 8, detectors 210a-b, 211a-b; Column 13, lines 23-45). Further, Biellak teaches a beam splitter disposed along an optical axis between the radiation source and a mirror, wherein the mirror is configured to direct the radiation beam toward the surface of the chamber component, (figure 1, beam splitter 412, mirror 430, 424, radiation source 402). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wack, Miller, Ng ‘782, JP6053084 by having a beam splitter disposed along an optical axis between the radiation source and a mirror in order to redirect light beams with different angles for inspection.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 10-15, 20, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there was no prior art found by the examiner that suggested modification or combination with the cited art so as to satisfy the combination of all the limitations in claims 10, 20.
9. As claim 10, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a system, comprising a first optical sensor, a second optical sensor configured to detect a second intensity of a second portion of the radiation beam scattered by the surface of the object and collected by a Schwarzschild objective; a third optical sensor configured to detect a third intensity of a third portion of the radiation beam scattered by the surface of the object and collected by an ellipsoidal mirror collector; processor to determine at least one of a roughness of the surface of the object or an emissivity of the surface of the object based on a comparison of two or more of the first intensity, the second intensity, or the third intensity; wherein the radiation beam is focused to a spot size of less than approximately 200 microns in diameter on the surface of the object; wherein the rotatable mirror to cause the radiation beam to periodically move across the surface of the object responsive to periodic rotation of the rotatable mirror; and a moveable stage configured to move the object a first direction during a first scan pass while a first portion of the surface of the object is irradiated, to move the object an opposite second direction during a second scan pass while a second portion of the surface of the object is irradiated, and to move the object the first direction during a third scan pass while a third portion of the surface of the object is irradiated; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 9 and 10.
10. As claim 20, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method, processing the first sensor data, the second sensor data indicative of a second intensity of radiation scattered by the surface of the object and collected by a Schwarzschild objective; and the third sensor data indicative of a third intensity of radiation scattered by the surface of the object and collected by an ellipsoidal mirror collector, and determining at least one of a roughness of the surface of the object or an emissivity of the surface of the object based on a comparison of two or more of the first processed data, the second processed data, or the third processed data; wherein processing the first sensor data, the second sensor data, and the third sensor data to produce processed data comprises changing an orientation of one or more first data segments of sensor data collected when a rotatable mirror rotated a first direction from a first orientation to a second orientation corresponding to the orientation of one or more second data segments of sensor data collected when a rotatable mirror rotated a second direction opposite from the first direction; changing an order of data segments of a portion of sensor data to an opposite second order; and cropping first portions of the sensor data corresponding to one or more nonlinearities of motion of the rotatable mirror, wherein the rotatable mirror is configured to direct a radiation beam emitted by a radiation source along an optical axis toward the surface of the object; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 19 and 20.
Other references
11. Tegeder (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0253824), Van Boxmeer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10,488,765).
Tegeder also teaches a comparison of two or more of the first intensity, (abstract lines 10-13; [0014]; [0039], lines 13-17; [0056]). Van Boxmeer also teaches a comparison of two or more of the first intensity (column 2, lines 20-24; Column 12, lines 38-41).
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
July 6, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights