DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1).
Claim(s) 2-5, 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 6-8 and 18 are objected to.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that the reference to Grimbergen fails to teach determining thickness differences between two spatial locations, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Attention is brought to column 1, line 59 to column 2, line 60, wherein a well-known endpoint measurement method known as interferometry is explicitly disclosed. Specifically, the method entails, a beam of light being focused onto a layer on a substrate that is being processed, wherein the beam of light is partially reflected from a top surface of the layer, and partially transmitted through and reflected by one or more underlayers. These beams then constructively or destructively interfere and form an interference pattern, which provides periodic maxima and minima depending upon the path length of the radiation through the thickness of the layer being processed. From the periodic maxima and minima of the interference pattern, a calculation of the change in thickness of the layer may be performed. The system disclosed by Grimbergen utilizes a scanning positioner (72), a plurality of lenses (66) and a scanning stage, to perform the above described interferometric thickness measurements on a plurality of spots of a substrate during processing, for the advantage of measuring a change in thickness with high resolution and low signal to noise ratio.
Further, Grimbergen explicitly discloses the system wherein the measured interference patterns are “continuously analyzed” to detect signal peaks, valleys or absolute slope change (col. 13, 37-41; col. 14, ll. 36-45). The disclosed peaks and valleys are known to be the measured change in thickness of the sample, and further the disclosed slope change is known to be a measurement of the direction of the change in thickness, i.e. either gaining or losing thickness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Patent 6,406,924 to Grimbergen et al.
In regards to claims 1, 9-11, 13-14 and 19-20, Grimbergen disclose and shows in Figures 1-14, a system and method for processing a substrate, comprising:
one or more processing chambers (26) to process a sample; and
an endpoint detection system (56) (applicant’s sample thickness metrology system) comprising:
an illumination system (58, 62, 69, 72, 74) (col. 6, ll. 29 to col. 7, ll. 60) to:
generate a first focused beam (col. 7, ll. 27-40; wherein a lens assembly 66 may be used to focus radiation on the substrate);
direct the first focused beam to a first location of a sample (col. 7, ll. 27-60; wherein the incident radiation is scanned across multiple points on a sample by a plurality of scanning mirrors or stages); and
direct the first focused beam to a second location of the sample (col. 7, ll. 27-60; wherein the incident radiation is scanned across multiple points on a sample by a plurality of scanning mirrors or stages; further each of the points include multiple reflections from multiple surfaces of the sample);
a detection system (col. 7, ll. 14-26) to:
detect a first interference pattern (IP) associated with a first light departing from the first location and generated upon interaction of the first focused beam with the sample (col. 13, ll. 37-55; col. 18, ll. 16 to col. 19, ll. 58; wherein a plurality of traces from the light reflected by the wafer are continuously analyzed, and each trace includes constructive or destructive interference based upon the thickness of the thin film);
detect a second IP associated with a second light departing from the second location and generated upon interaction of the first focused beam with the sample (col. 13, ll. 37-55; col. 18, ll. 16 to col. 19, ll. 58; wherein a plurality of traces from the light reflected by the wafer are continuously analyzed, and each trace includes constructive or destructive interference based upon the thickness of the thin film); and
a processing device (col. 12, ll. 23 to col. 13, ll. 15) to:
determine, based on the first IP and the second IP:
a magnitude of a difference between a first thickness of the sample at the first location and a second thickness of the sample at the second location, and a sign of the difference between the first thickness of the sample at the first location and the second thickness of the sample at the second location (col. 13, ll. 16-56; col. 14, ll. 35-45; wherein the traces are continuously analyzed to obtain changes in intensity or rate of change in intensity of the reflected radiation; and wherein “characteristic features” are determined through analysis of “peaks, valleys, or absolute slope change”);
[claim 9] wherein the sample comprises a wafer (col. 1, ll. 13-28; col. 5, ll. 41-64);
[claim 10] wherein the sample further comprises one or more films deposited on the wafer (col. 1, ll. 13-28; col. 5, ll. 41-64; col. 19, ll. 14-22);
[claims 11 and 19] wherein the first IP is detected by a plurality of spaced elements of a light detector, each of the plurality of spaced elements detecting a respective portion of the first IP (col. 7, ll. 14-27);
[claim 13] further comprising: configuring, responsive to the at least one of the magnitude of the difference or the sign of the difference, one or more processing operations on at least one of the sample or an additional sample (col. 2, ll. 47-59; col. 14, ll. 46-68; col. 18, ll. 16 to col. 19, ll. 13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimbergen.
In regards to claim 2, Grimbergen differs from the limitations in that it is silent to wherein the first focused beam has a Gaussian profile.
However, Gaussian beam profiles are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Grimbergen to include a Gaussian beam profile for the advantage of utilizing well-known beam profiles to obtain a desired system configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 3-5, 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimbergen, in view of US Patent 5,909,282 to Kulawiec.
In regards to claims 3-5, 12 and 15-17, Grimbergen discloses and shows the system and method wherein the first light departing from the first location comprises:
[claims 3, 12 and 15] a first reflected beam (104) caused by reflection of the first focused beam from a first surface of the sample at the first location, and a second reflected beam (109) caused by reflection of the first focused beam from a second surface of the sample at the first location (Figure 1) (col. 8, ll. 15 to col. 9, ll. 58; col. 18, ll. 16 to col. 19, ll. 13); and
[claim 4 and 16] wherein the second light departing from the second location comprises: a third reflected beam (104) caused by reflection of the first focused beam from the first surface of the sample at the second location, and a fourth reflected beam (109) caused by reflection of the first focused beam from the second surface of the sample at the second location (Figure 1) (col. 8, ll. 15 to col. 9, ll. 58; col. 18, ll. 16 to col. 19, ll. 13);
[claim 5 and 17] wherein determining the magnitude and the sign of the difference between the first thickness and the second thickness comprises: identifying a displacement of the second IP relative to the first IP (col. 13, ll. 16-56; col. 14, ll. 35-45; wherein the traces are continuously analyzed to obtain changes in intensity or rate of change in intensity of the reflected radiation; and wherein “characteristic features” are determined through analysis of “peaks, valleys, or absolute slope change”).
Grimbergen differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the system:
wherein the interference patterns are at least partially caused by curved wavefronts of the reflected beams.
However, Kulawiec teaches and shows an interferometry system for measuring thickness variations of a wafer, wherein spherical wavefronts (applicant’s curved wavefronts) are reflected from various surfaces of a wafer to measure thickness and flatness variations (col. 3, ll. 59-65; col. 5, ll. 1-27). Further, spherical wavefronts are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Grimbergen to include the spherical wavefronts discussed above for the advantage of utilizing well-known wavefronts to obtain a desired system configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 18 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 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 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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877