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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 03/23/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manassen (US 20200333612 A1) in view of Lin (US 20230105145 A1), Fairly (US 5783814 A) and Dziura (US 8860937 B1).
With regards to claims 1, 9, 14, and 20, Manassen discloses a defect inspection [0023] apparatus (Figs. 7 and 8) and method comprising: a laser light source 102 configured to emit laser light; an optical fiber 302 coupled to the laser light source and configured to guide the laser light along an illumination path; an illumination optical assembly (Fig. 7) disposed in the illumination path and configured to direct the laser light on a workpiece 802 on a support 814 (Fig. 8), wherein the workpiece emits luminescent light along an emission path based on illumination from the laser light [0090]; a collection optical assembly disposed in the emission path (Fig. 8); and a detector disposed in the emission path and configured to generate one or more images based on the luminescent light [0086]. Manassen does not explicitly teach wherein the workpiece is a substrate comprising one or more structures having an aspect ratio greater than 1:1, directing the laser light between the structures, emitting and detecting fluorescent light and further wherein the collection optical assembly is configured to separate the fluorescent light from reflected laser light.
Lin also teaches an inspection system for detecting fluorescence generated by a sample to be inspected (Abstract) wherein a filter is provided to filter out excitation light from being detected in order to generate one or more images based on the fluorescent light [0026].
Fairly teaches it was known in semiconductor optical inspection systems that optical spots bay be positioned on substrate regions between adjacent semiconductor structures and within trench regions (column 2, lines 26-44).
Dziura teaches it was known to determine characteristics of HAR structures formed on a wafer (column 2, lines 9-23).
Depending upon the particular sample of interest, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Manassen with Lin since fluorescence detection provides improved contrast and enables detection of materials and/or features that may not be visible under reflectance of luminescence based measurements. Furthermore, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Manassen with the teachings of Fairly and Dziura since optical metrology and inspection of patterned substrates including HAR structures was known in the art, and because directing illumination onto substrate regions located between adjacent structures represented a known and conventional optical inspection environment for semiconductor analysis systems in order to improve inspection of recessed or densely patterned semiconductor regions.
With regards to claims 2 and 15, Manassen discloses wherein the illumination from the laser light is perpendicular to the workpiece (Fig. 8).
With regards to claim 3, Manassen does not specify the claimed power. However, Manassen does teach wherein the specific power may depend upon a desired brightness and/or the number of light sources [0027, 0048]. As such, in order to obtain the desired brightness, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Manassen with the claimed power range.
With regards to claims 4 and 16, Manassen discloses wherein the laser light source is a first laser light source, and the system further comprises: a second laser light source configured to emit laser light having at least one different wavelength and a different polarization from the first laser light source; and a fiber coupler configured to combine the laser light from the first laser light source and the laser light from the second laser light source in a single optical fiber along a common illumination path (Fig. 7) [0049-0052].
With regards to claims 5 and 17, Manassen discloses wherein the optical fiber comprises a plurality of optical fibers wherein light output from the fibers may be guided along different paths [0075], but does not specify wherein each optical fiber is configured to guide the laser light along separate illumination paths, and the illumination optical assembly is configured to direct the laser light in each of the separate illumination paths to illuminate separate areas of the workpiece. Nevertheless, such a modification would have been known and considered an obvious matter of design choice since Manassen already teaches illuminating different light paths. It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Manassen with the claimed configuration in order to inspect multiple areas of a sample simultaneously.
With regards to claim 6, Manassen discloses wherein the optical fiber is a non-circular optical fiber [0045-0048].
With regards to claims 7 and 18, Manassen discloses wherein the illumination optical assembly comprises: a collimation lens configured to collimate the laser light in the illumination path [0042]; a homogenizer configured to homogenize the laser light in the illumination path [0045-0048]; and an objective lens 812 configured to direct the laser light onto the workpiece [0088].
With regards to claims 10 and 11, Lin discloses the claimed wavelengths [0022].
With regards to claim 13, Manassen discloses wherein the laser light source is spatially separated from the illumination optical assembly by the optical fiber [0042-0048] (Fig. 8).
Claims 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manassen (US 20200333612 A1) in view of Lin (US 20230105145 A1), Fairly (US 5783814 A), Dziura (US 8860937 B1), and Van Dijk (US 20110068260 A1).
With regards to claims 8 and 19, Manassen discloses wherein the collection optical assembly comprises: a beam splitter 826 disposed in the emission path, but does not specify directing the fluorescent light toward the detector and direct the reflected laser light away from the detector. Nevertheless, such a modification would have been known and considered obvious in view of preventing interference. For example, Van Dijk teaches a fluorescence detection system including a dichroic beam splitter DBS configured such that reflected excitation laser light is reflected away while fluorescence emission passes through the beam splitter toward the detector 18 (Fig. 1). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Manassen with the claimed configuration in order to reduce interference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dave Porta can be reached on 571-272-2444. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights