CTNF 18/517,486 CTNF 96837 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 May 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment The amendments filed 28 April 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-19 and 21-23 remain pending in the application (claims 19 and 21-22 have been withdrawn from consideration and claim 20 has been cancelled), as well as newly added claim 24. The Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the previous rejections as written, however, they fail to overcome some of the previous combinations of references. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 28 April 2026 have been fully considered but some are not persuasive. On pages 7-8, the Applicant argues against the combination of Tuitje, Chou, and Matsudo to teach the limitations of claim 1, however, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, the Applicant states that each of the above three references each have fundamentally different purposes and therefore they cannot be combined. The Examiner disagrees with this argument because each reference uses light emission and subsequent detection to inspect a wafer. While each reference may be inspecting different information about the wafers, the core concept is shared amongst all references. It should also be noted that Chou is only brought in to teach the splitting of light towards multiple wafers which has nothing to do with so-called different detection purposes. Additionally, Matsudo is only brought in to teach a plurality of chambers which, again, has nothing to do with so-called different detection purposes. Each of the combinations has been explained in the previous rejections and will be repeated again here for clarity purposes. Additionally, on pages 8-9, the Applicant argues that incorporating the multi-chamber architecture of Matsudo into Tuitje would require a substantial redesign of Tuitje’s measurement system, however, the examiner disagrees. First, the combination of Tuitje and Chou is what is modified by the additional reference Matsudo. The combination of Tuitje and Chou already teaches a plurality of wafers being inspected simultaneously as well as a wafer being inspected while located in a processing chamber. The main part of the Applicant’s argument is the addition of Matsudo’s optical path structure, which is not being added to the above combination. The only thing Matsudo is being used to teach is that each wafer is located in its own, respective, chamber which creates precise and controlled conditions for wafer manufacturing. Additionally, the reason for modifying Tuitje to incorporate the teachings of Chou is to improve wafer inspection efficiency by inspecting a plurality of wafers simultaneously which thereby increases yield. On page 10, the Applicant argues against the addition of the Gagnon reference, stating that the claims state “adjusting one or more of the plurality of light adjustment systems ” while Gagnon only teaches adjustment of the light source itself, and the examiner agrees. The rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn. On page 10, the Applicant additionally argues that independent claim 15 is allowable due to Chou being the primary reference and having no need for end-point detection. The Examiner agrees and therefore claim 15 is being rejected under Tuitje as modified by Chou, Hill, and Matsudo. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuitje et al. (USPGPub 20180286643 A1) in view of Chou (USPGPub 20210033541 A1) and Matsudo et al. (USPGPub 20120243572 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Tuitje teaches a method for monitoring a process chamber (112), the method comprising: generating an optical beam (110) at a light source (108) (see figure 1, light source 108 emitting light beam 110 into processing chamber 112); providing the light beam (110) to the process chamber (112) (see figure 1, light beam 110 entering processing chamber 112); receiving the light beam at the process chamber (112) (see figure 1, light beam 110 entering processing chamber 112); and measuring the light beam (118) after being reflected within the process chamber (112) (see figure 1, reflected light beam 118; and ¶30, The incident light beam 110 is being reflected from the substrate 116 to form a reflected light beam 118. The optical sensor 102 also includes a detector such as spectrometers 120 (e.g., measurement spectrometer) for measuring the spectral intensity of the reflected light beam 118, for example, an ultra-broad band (UBB) spectrometer (i.e., 180 nm-1080 nm) ); and determining that processing within the processing chamber (112) has reached an end-point based on the light beam (118) measured at the process chamber (112) (see figure 8; and see ¶¶55-60 for details). However, Tuitje fails to explicitly teach wherein the method is for monitoring a plurality of wafer processing units; dividing the optical beam from the light source into a plurality of light beams having different optical paths; and wherein each of the plurality of light beams enter a respective process chamber. However, Chou teaches wherein the method is for monitoring a plurality of wafer processing units (160/360) (see figure 3, plurality of wafer holders, 160 and 360); and dividing the optical beam (L) from the light source (110) into a plurality of light beams (L’/L’’) having different optical paths (see figure 3, beam splitter 333 splitting beam L into separate beams L’ and L’’; directing light beams L’ and L’’ towards wafer processing units; optical sensors 171, 172, 371, 372, etc.; and ¶34, The optical sensors 171, 172 are configured to receive the light beams reflected by the wafers W1, W2, and generate the inspection results (e.g. images) of the wafers W1, W2) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tuitje to incorporate the teachings of Chou to further provide a plurality of wafer processing units because [a]s such, the wafer inspection efficiency is improved, and the yield is thus improved (Chou, ¶95). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of light beams enter a respective process chamber. However, Matsudo teaches wherein each of the plurality of light beams enter a respective process chamber (PC) (see figure 1, processing chambers PC1-PC6; and see ¶¶23-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tuitje and Chou to incorporate the teachings of Matsudo to include a plurality of process chambers each including a wafer in order to create precise and controlled conditions for wafer manufacturing, as well as reducing the time spent on wafer inspection (Matsudo, ¶37). Regarding claim 2 , Tuitje as modified by Chou and Matsudo teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: loading a first substrate (Tuitje 116 | Chou W1 | Matsudo W) into a first chamber (Tuitje 112 | Chou 160 | Matsudo PC1) of the plurality of process chambers (Chou 160/360 | Matsudo PC1-PC6), wherein the measuring comprises measuring a reflected beam (Tuitje 118) of the plurality of light beams (Tuitje 110 | Chou L’/L’’) after being reflected by a major surface of the first substrate (Tuitje 116 | Chou W1) (Tuitje, ¶8, an illumination system configured to illuminate an area on a substrate deposited in the plasma processing chamber ; and ¶27, The optical sensor 102 is configured for measuring the reflected light from an illuminated area 114 on a substrate 116 ); and measuring a property of the first substrate (Tuitje 116 | Chou W1 | Matsudo W) from a measured reflected beam (Tuitje 118) (Tuitje, ¶50, the controller 126 may process the collected intensities (e.g., subtract plasma intensity) in order to determine the feature dimension (e.g., thickness) from the reflected light intensity ; and see remainder of ¶50 for further details). Regarding claim 3 , Tuitje as modified by Chou and Matsudo teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising loading a plurality of substrates (Tuitje 116 | Chou W1-W4 | Matsudo W) into the plurality of process chambers (Tuitje 112 | Chou 160/360 | Matsudo PC1-PC6), and simultaneously processing the plurality of substrates (Tuitje 116 | Chou W1-W4 | Matsudo W), wherein the measuring is performed during the simultaneous processing (Chou, ¶37, the wafers W1, W2 are loaded to the inspection apparatus to be inspected, so as to determine whether the wafers have defect. In some embodiments, the wafer holder includes a plurality of wafer stages, and multiple wafers carried by multiple wafer stages are inspected simultaneously ). Regarding claim 4 , Tuitje as modified by Chou and Matsudo teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the measuring comprises: collecting the reflected beam (Tuitje 118) from the first substrate (Tuitje 116 | Chou W1 | Matsudo W) (Tuitje, ¶30, The incident light beam 110 is being reflected from the substrate 116 to form a reflected light beam 118. The optical sensor 102 also includes a detector such as spectrometers 120 (e.g., measurement spectrometer) for measuring the spectral intensity of the reflected light beam 118 ); sensing an intensity of the reflected beam (Tuitje 118); and based on the intensity of the reflected beam (Tuitje 118), determining the property (Tuitje, ¶50, the controller 126 may process the collected intensities (e.g., subtract plasma intensity) in order to determine the feature dimension (e.g., thickness) from the reflected light intensity ). Regarding claim 5 , Tuitje as modified by Chou and Matsudo teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising: comparing the intensity of the reflected beam (Tuitje 118) with a reference light beam, the reference light beam being one of the plurality of light beams obtained after dividing the optical beam (Tuitje, ¶31, A percentage of the incident light beam 110 is directed to a reference channel of spectrometers 120 (i.e., reference spectrometer). Its purpose is to monitor the spectral intensity of the incident light beam 110 so any changes of the intensity of incident light beam 110 can be accounted for in the measurement process ; and ¶34, The measured spectral intensity of the reflected light beam 118 and the measured spectral intensity of the reference light beam are provided to a controller 126 that process the measured spectral intensity of the reflected light beam 118 to suppress the light background and uses special algorithms such as machine learning methods to determine a layer of interest properties (e.g., feature dimension, optical properties) to control the plasma etching process as described further below ; and Chou, see figure 3, beam splitter 333). Regarding claim 6 , Tuitje as modified by Chou and Matsudo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the measuring comprises: measuring each reflected beam of the plurality of light beams at a different spectrometer (Tuitje 120 | Chou 171/172/371/372 | Matsudo 190) (Tuitje, ¶30, The optical sensor 102 also includes a detector such as spectrometers 120 (e.g., measurement spectrometer) for measuring the spectral intensity of the reflected light beam 118 ; and Chou, see figure 3, optical sensors 171, 172, 371, 372 for measuring reflected beams from each wafer W1-W4). Regarding claim 7 , Tuitje as modified by Chou and Matsudo teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: loading a plurality of substrates (Tuitje 116 | Chou W1-W4 | Matsudo W) into the plurality of process chambers (Tuitje 112 | Chou 160/360 | Matsudo PC1-PC6), and processing the plurality of substrates (Tuitje 116 | Chou W1-W4 | Matsudo W) (Chou, ¶37, the wafers may be loaded to the inspection apparatus before or after the processing of wafer(s) ); and determining a value of a property of each of the plurality of the substrates (Tuitje 116 | Chou W1-W4 | Matsudo W) based on the measuring (Tuitje, abstract, The processing circuitry is configured to process the reflected light beam to suppress background light, determine a property value from the processed light, and control an etch process based on the determined property value ). Regarding claim 8 , Tuitje as modified by Chou and Matsudo teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising: based on the determined property, identifying one of the plurality of process chambers (Tuitje 112 | Chou 160/360 | Matsudo PC1-PC6) to be operating outside of a target process window (Tuitje, abstract, The processing circuitry is configured to process the reflected light beam to suppress background light, determine a property value from the processed light, and control an etch process based on the determined property value ; and Chou, ¶51, the light beams L 1, L2 reflected by the wafers W1, W2 are received by the optical sensors 171, 172, so as to generate the inspection results of the wafers W1, W2 ; ¶52, The optical sensor 171 receives the first light beam L1 reflected from the wafer W1, and generates an inspection result of the wafer W1. The optical sensor 172 receives the second light beam L2 reflected from the wafer W2, and generates an inspection result of the wafer W2 ; and see ¶¶51-54 for further details); and altering a process parameter for the one of the plurality of process chambers (Tuitje 112 | Chou 160/360 | Matsudo PC1-PC6) identified as being operating outside of the target process window (Chou, ¶53, if any difference (which may be a defect) is found, the difference is noted and the die having the difference is marked ; and ¶54, If the wafer is determined to have a defect, appropriate processes may be performed to eliminate the defect before performing further semiconductor fabrication process ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuitje et al. (USPGPub 20180286643 A1) in view of Chou (USPGPub 20210033541 A1), Matsudo et al. (USPGPub 20120243572 A1), and Hill et al. (USPGPub 20180052099 A1) . Regarding claim 15 , Tuitje teaches a light source (108) outputting a light beam (110) (see figure 1, light source 108 emitting light beam 110); an illumination system (104) optically coupled to the light source (108), the illumination system (104) being associated with a process chamber (112) (see figure 1, illumination system 104 coupled to the output of light source 108 and associated with process chamber 112); a collection system (106) associated with the process chamber (112), the collection system (106) being optically coupled to the illumination system (104) through the process chamber (112) (see figure 2, collection system 106 associated with light source 108 through process chamber 112), and the collection system (106) being configured to collect a reflected beam (118) for end-point detection (see figure 2, collection system 106 detecting reflected beam 118; ¶30, measurement spectrometer of spectrometers 120 may be fiber coupled to the collection system 106 ; see figure 8; and see ¶¶55-60 for details). However, Tuitje fails to explicitly teach a light divider optically coupled to the light source, the light divider having a single input and a plurality of optical outputs; a plurality of illumination systems optically coupled to the light divider through optical filters, each of the illumination systems optically coupled to one of the plurality of optical outputs and each of the illumination systems being associated with one of a plurality of process chambers, and each optical filter comprising a filter wheel for changing an intensity of light beams before they reach the corresponding illumination system; and a plurality of collection systems, each of the collection systems being associated with one of the plurality of process chambers. However, Chou teaches a light divider (333) optically coupled to the light source (110), the light divider (333) having a single optical input (L) and a plurality of optical outputs (L’/L’’) (see figure 3, beam splitter 333 coupled to light source 110, the beam splitter 333 having an input of light L and an output of lights L’ and L’’); a plurality of illumination systems (140/340/151/152/351/352) optically coupled to the light divider (333) through optical filters (¶92, the integrated optical element 520 includes a plurality of optical components which are combined to fulfill some complex functions. Such optical components, for example, may be optical filters, modulators, amplifiers, splitters or the like ; ¶90, the optical splitting element 140 is replaced by an integrated optical element 520. The integrated optical element 520 is configured to split the light from the light source 110 into a plurality of light beams for inspecting multiple wafers ; and see figure 3), each of the illumination systems (140/340/151/152/351/352) optically coupled to one of the plurality of optical outputs (L’/L’’) and each of the illumination systems (140/340/151/152/351/352) being associated with one of a plurality of wafer processing units (160/360) (see figure 3, illumination systems comprising beam splitters 140 and 340, as well as one-way mirrors 151, 152, 351, and 352 associated with each split light beam L’ and L’’); and collection systems (151/152/351/352), each of the collection systems (151/152/351/352) being associated with one of the plurality of wafer processing units (160/360), each of the collection systems (151/152/351/352) being optically coupled to one of the illumination systems (140/340/151/152/351/352) through an associated wafer processing unit (160/360) (see figure 3, one-way mirrors 151, 152, 351, and 352 also acting as collection systems as they receive light reflected from the wafers W1-W4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tuitje to incorporate the teachings of Chou to further provide a plurality of wafer processing units because [a]s such, the wafer inspection efficiency is improved, and the yield is thus improved (Chou, ¶95). Additionally, it would have been obvious to further include an optical filter in the system in order to isolate specific wavelengths, block unwanted ambient light, and enhance image contrast, achieving high-resolution detection. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of light beams enter a respective process chamber; and each optical filter comprising a filter wheel for changing an intensity of light beams before they reach the corresponding illumination system. However, Matsudo teaches wherein each of the plurality of light beams enter a respective process chamber (PC) (see figure 1, processing chambers PC1-PC6; and see ¶¶23-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tuitje and Chou to incorporate the teachings of Matsudo to include a plurality of process chambers each including a wafer in order to create precise and controlled conditions for wafer manufacturing, as well as reducing the time spent on wafer inspection (Matsudo, ¶37). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach each optical filter comprising a filter wheel for changing an intensity of light beams before they reach the corresponding illumination system. However, Hill teaches each optical filter (110a/110b) comprising a filter wheel (206/208) for changing an intensity of light beams before they reach the corresponding illumination system (112 and others) (see figure 2, intensity filters 206 and 208 located prior to subsequent illumination systems 112 and others shown in figure 1B; and ¶54, the intensity filter may include one or more filter changers (e.g. filter wheels, or the like) ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tuitje, Chou, and Matsudo to incorporate the teachings of Hill to have the filters be filter wheels in order to adjust the intensity of the device, allowing for a plurality of different intensities of light to be used during the wafer inspection process, allowing the device to detect different kinds of defects as well as adjust due to the types of wafer surfaces being inspected. Regarding claim 16 , Tuitje as modified by Chou, Matsudo, and Hill teaches the system of claim 15, further comprising: mechanical drive systems (Hill 210/212) to position the optical filters (Hill 206/208) in an optical path between the light divider (Chou 333 | Matsudo 130/140) and the illumination systems (Tuitje 220/204/210/128 | Chou 140/340/151/152/351/352) (Chou, ¶92, the integrated optical element 520 includes a plurality of optical components which are combined to fulfill some complex functions. Such optical components, for example, may be optical filters, modulators, amplifiers, splitters or the like ; ¶90, the optical splitting element 140 is replaced by an integrated optical element 520. The integrated optical element 520 is configured to split the light from the light source 110 into a plurality of light beams for inspecting multiple wafers ; and see figure 3; and Hill, ¶54, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the intensity filter may be a circular gradient filter mounted to a rotational stage (e.g. rotational stage 210 or rotational stage 212) in which the transmissivity (or reflectivity) of the intensity filter may be controllable by actuating the rotational position of the intensity filter with respect to the channel beam 108 ). Regarding claim 17 , Tuitje as modified by Chou, Matsudo, and Hill teaches the system of claim 16, wherein each of the optical filters comprise: a shutter (Tuitje 128) for modulating the light beams produced by the light source (Tuitje 108) after passing through the light divider (Tuitje, see figure 1, shutter 128; and ¶28, The light source 108 may be fiber coupled to the illumination system 104 after being modulated by a shutter 128 ; and Hill, see figure 2, intensity filters 206 and 208 located after beamsplitter 119). Regarding claim 18 , Tuitje as modified by Chou, Matsudo, and Hill teaches the system of claim 15, further comprising: a plurality of spectrometers (Tuitje 102/120 | Chou 171/172/371/372 | Matsudo 190), each of the plurality of spectrometers (Tuitje 102/120 | Chou 171/172/371/372 | Matsudo 190) being optically coupled to an output of one of the collection systems (Tuitje 106 | Chou 151/152/351/352) (Chou, see figure 3, optical sensors 171, 172, 371, 372 for measuring reflected beams from each wafer W1-W4; and Tuitje, ¶30, The optical sensor 102 also includes a detector such as spectrometers 120 (e.g., measurement spectrometer) for measuring the spectral intensity of the reflected light beam 118 ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuitje et al. (USPGPub 20180286643 A1) in view of Chou (USPGPub 20210033541 A1), Matsudo et al. (USPGPub 20120243572 A1), and Hill et al. (USPGPub 20180052099 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Samsoondar et al. (USPGPub 20240060957 A1) . Regarding claim 23 , Tuitje as modified by Chou, Matsudo, and Hill teaches the light divider (Chou 333 | Matsudo 130/140) (Chou, see figure 3). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach a bifurcated optical cable, the illumination systems being optically coupled to the light divider through the bifurcated optical cable. However, Samsoondar teaches a bifurcated optical cable (16), the illumination systems being optically coupled to the light divider through the bifurcated optical cable (16) (see figure 15, bifurcated optical fiber 16 splitting light beam towards different optical elements; and ¶275, the beam splitter of system 70 (a bifurcated fiber optic cable 16 shown as an example) ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tuitje, Chou, Matsudo, and Hill to incorporate the teachings of Samsoondar to have the beam splitter be a bifurcated optical fiber as they are merely equivalents known for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06 II) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuitje et al. (USPGPub 20180286643 A1) in view of Chou (USPGPub 20210033541 A1) and Matsudo et al. (USPGPub 20120243572 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hill et al. (USPGPub 20180052099 A1) . Regarding claim 24 , Tuitje as modified by Chou and Matsuda teaches the plurality of light beams (Chou L’/L”) (Chou, see figure 3). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach adjusting an intensity of one or more of the plurality of light beams using a corresponding plurality of light adjustment systems without adjusting the light source, the plurality of light adjustment systems comprising a light adjustment system for each of the plurality of light beams. However, Hill teaches adjusting an intensity of one or more of the plurality of light beams (108) using a corresponding plurality of light adjustment systems (206/208) without adjusting the light source (102), the plurality of light adjustment systems (206/208) comprising a light adjustment system for each of the plurality of light beams (108) (see figure 2, intensity filters 206 and 208 located after beamsplitter 119; and ¶54, the intensity filter may include one or more filter changers (e.g. filter wheels, or the like) ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Tuitje, Chou, and Matsudo to incorporate the teachings of Hill to further include light adjustment systems in order to adjust the intensity of the device, allowing for a plurality of different intensities of light to be used during the wafer inspection process, allowing the device to detect different kinds of defects as well as adjust due to the types of wafer surfaces being inspected . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 9-14 are allowed. 13-03 AIA The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 9 , the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach a method as claimed comprising: dividing an optical beam into a plurality of light beams having different optical paths; transmitting the plurality of light beams through a plurality of light adjustment systems into a plurality of process chambers; reflecting one of the plurality of light beams off one of a plurality of calibration wafers for each of the plurality of calibration wafers to measure a property of each of the plurality of calibration wafers, each of the plurality of calibration wafers having a known surface reflectance; determining, in a controller, whether the property of each of the plurality of calibration wafers is within a process window; and more specifically in combination with adjusting one or more of the plurality of light adjustment systems based on the determining to adjust an intensity of the associated light beam transmitting through the corresponding plurality of light adjustment systems . Claims 10-14 are allowed for their dependency on claim 9 . Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730. 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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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. /ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878 Application/Control Number: 18/517,486 Page 2 Art Unit: 2878 Application/Control Number: 18/517,486 Page 3 Art Unit: 2878 Application/Control Number: 18/517,486 Page 4 Art Unit: 2878 Application/Control Number: 18/517,486 Page 5 Art Unit: 2878
Prosecution Insights