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, see Pages 2-11, filed 28 October 2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the §102/103 rejections of claims 1-2, 6-11, and 15-16 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the change in scope of the claims due to the amendment to claim 1. Zawaideh (US 5,889,592) discloses an examining method for a coating layer on a wafer (13) (using apparatus 10 of Fig. 1), in which a spectroscope (11/12) both provides the incident light and receives the reflecting light, wherein the spectroscope (11/12) is disposed directly above and perpendicular to the upper surface of the wafer (13) (Col. 3, Lines 16-19).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zawaideh (US 5,889,592), hereinafter Zawaideh, in view of Solomon et al. (US 5,900,633), hereinafter Solomon.
Claim 1: Zawaideh discloses an examining method for a coating layer on a wafer (13) (using apparatus 10 of Fig. 1), which is applicable to the wafer (13) which includes the coating layer disposed on an upper surface of the wafer (13), the examining method comprising:
providing (via 11/12) an incident light to the coating layer on the wafer (13), and generating a reflecting light after the coating layer receives the incident light, wherein the incident light is provided by a spectroscope (11/12), the reflecting light is received by the spectroscope (11/12), and the spectroscope (11/12) is disposed directly above and perpendicular to the upper surface of the wafer (13) such that optical paths of the incident light and the reflecting light are perpendicular to the coating layer disposed on the upper surface of the wafer (13) (Col. 3, Lines 16-19);
receiving the reflecting light and generating a spectral analysis of the reflecting light according to the reflecting light (Fig. 5; Col. 6, Lines 11-17); and
comparing the spectral analysis with a first reference waveform (“modeled optical constants”; Col. 3, Lines 51-56).
Zawaideh does not explicitly disclose determining a material of the coating layer using the spectral analysis.
Solomon, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical thin film measurements, discloses an examining method for a coating layer on a wafer (20) (using apparatus 10 of Fig. 1), which is applicable to the wafer (20) which includes the coating layer disposed on an upper surface of the wafer (20) (“determines the thickness and composition of layers fabricated during manufacture”, Abstract), the examining method comprising:
receiving (at 26) reflecting light (R) from the wafer (20) and generating a spectral analysis of the reflecting light (R) according to the reflecting light (R) (“measuring radiation emanating from the irradiated spot to obtain spectral data”, Col. 3, Lines 44-45);
comparing the spectral analysis with a first reference waveform (“comparing the reference spectrum (or spectra) to the measured spectral data”, Col. 3, Lines 50-51); and
determining a material (composition) of the coating layer (“a method for evaluation of the thickness and/or the composition of at least one layer of a patterned sample”, Col. 3, Lines 34-35) when the spectral analysis is identical to the first reference waveform (“achieve a substantial fit to the measured spectral data; and using the result to evaluate the parameters of the layers of the sample being analyzed”, Col. 3, Lines 52-54) and a consistent outcome is provided (inherent in “substantial fit”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zawaideh’s method by using the spectral analysis to determine a material of the coating layer for the purpose of fully characterizing the wafer for its suitability in semiconductor applications.
Claim 2: Zawaideh, in view of Solomon, further discloses establishing a new reference waveform when the spectral analysis of the reflecting light is different from the first reference waveform (implicit in “An iterative comparison routine will be employed in many instances”; Solomon, Col. 3, Lines 54-56).
Claim 10: Zawaideh, in view of Solomon, further discloses:
comparing the spectral analysis with a second reference waveform (“comparing the reference spectrum (or spectra) to the measured spectral data”; Solomon, Col. 3, Lines 50-51); and
determining a thickness (“a method for evaluation of the thickness and/or the composition of at least one layer of a patterned sample”; Solomon, Col. 3, Lines 34-35) of the coating layer when the spectral analysis is identical to the second reference waveform (“achieve a substantial fit to the measured spectral data; and using the result to evaluate the parameters of the layers of the sample being analyzed”; Solomon, Col. 3, Lines 52-54).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zawaideh, in view of Solomon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ibuki et al. (US 2015/0253466), hereinafter Ibuki.
Claim 6: Zawaideh, in view of Solomon further discloses:
entering the first reference waveform into the spectroscope (“the reference spectrum or spectra… may comprise a library of spectra indicative of the layer parameters”; Solomon, Col. 3, Line 67 - Col. 4, Line 3).
Zawaideh is silent with respect to a spectral reflection index.
Ibuki, however, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of spectrally analyzing films. Ibuki discloses setting a spectral reflection index to a surface of a film [0395].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zawaideh’s method by using the first reference waveform to obtain and preset a reference spectral reflection index for the purpose of normalizing the waveform to allow for ease in comparison.
Claims 7-8: Zawaideh does not explicitly disclose wherein the material of the coating layer is determined as metal when the spectral analysis shows that a spectral reflection index of the reflecting light is greater than the reference spectral reflection index of the first reference waveform.
However, the Examiner takes Official notice that it is well known for metallic surfaces to be highly reflective. Furthermore, a spectral reflection index is inherently a spectral reflectance at a given wavelength. That is, it is the ratio of reflected energy to incident energy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zawaideh’s method by determining the material of the coating layer to be metal when a measured spectral reflection index is greater than the reference spectral reflection index for the purpose of providing accurate characterization of the coating layer composition. It would then follow that this modified method would determine the material to the coating layer to be non-metal when a measured spectral reflection index is less than than the reference spectral reflection index.
Claim 9: Zawaideh does not explicitly disclose wherein the reference spectral reflection index of the first reference waveform is 1.
However, a spectral reflection index is inherently a spectral reflectance at a given wavelength. That is, it is the ratio of reflected energy to incident energy. Furthermore, the Examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to normalize a parameter for ease of comparison with other values.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zawaideh’s method by setting the reference spectral reflection index of the first reference waveform to be 1 for the purpose of providing a normalized value that allows for accurate characterization of the coating layer composition.
Claims 11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solomon as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 2021/0107112), hereinafter Kimura.
Claim 11: Zawaideh, in view of Solomon further discloses:
entering the second reference waveform into a spectroscope (“the reference spectrum or spectra… may comprise a library of spectra indicative of the layer parameters”; Solomon Col. 3, Line 67 - Col. 4, Line 3).
Zawaideh is silent with respect to a spectral recognition thickness.
Kimura, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical thickness measurements, discloses setting a reference spectral recognition thickness according to a reference waveform (“The thickness output unit includes a reference waveform recording section in which spectral interference waveforms corresponding to plural thicknesses are recorded as reference waveforms”, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zawaideh’s method by using the second reference waveform to obtain and preset a reference spectral recognition thickness for the purpose of determining the wafer thickness by comparison of waveforms.
Claim 15: Zawaideh is silent with respect to wherein the reference spectral recognition thickness of the second reference waveform is between 900 and 1000 nanometers.
However, Applicant has provided no criticality for this wavelength range, disclosing only that “the reference spectral recognition thickness of the second reference waveform can be determined, for instance, in a range of between 900 and 1000 nanometers” (Page 8, Line 21 - Page 9, Line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Zawaideh’s method by using a specific wavelength range for the reference spectral recognition thickness for the purpose of providing a standard range for more accurate comparison of measured and reference values. Furthermore, “[d]etermining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995)).
Claim 16: Zawaideh, in view of Solomon, further discloses wherein a computer unit (“a Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) spectrometer 22 (including a computer, usual optics, interferometer, and all of the other conventional components thereof)”; Solomon, Col. 6, Lines 41-44) is adopted for alternatively classifying the coating layer by the material according to the first reference waveform or by the thickness according to the second reference waveform (“A fast and practical method for the analysis of patterned samples of semiconductor integrated circuits, and other materials, determines the thickness and composition of layers fabricated during manufacture”; Solomon, Abstract).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. 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.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877