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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-6 and 8-12 are presented in color without acceptance of a petition for color drawings along with the required statement in the specification. Additional information can be found below. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As for claim 3, in lines 1-2 of the claim, the phrase “a plurality of measurements in information received from the detector” should be amended to read “a plurality of measurements of information received from the detector”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPlante et al (2023/0213334) in view of Nakaune et al (JPH0755970).
Regarding claim 1, LaPlante (Fig. 1 and 2) discloses an interferometer comprising: a light source 18 that generates a beam of light (see paragraph 0063); a beam splitter 8 in a path of the beam of light; a reference flat 56 (see Fig. 2; the tilt stage 10 in Fig. 1 features a reference flat 56 as shown in paragraph 0066) in a path of the beam of light from the beam splitter; a stage (see paragraph 0067 – the test object is mounted to opto-mechanical mounting, tilt, and positional control components which can be reasonably, yet broadly, interpreted as a stage) configured to hold a workpiece (test surface 16) in a path of the beam of light from the beam splitter (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0063); detector 12 configured to receive light from the workpiece (see paragraph 0063); a processor 24 in electronic communication with the detector (see paragraph 0065), and a tilt motor 54 that is connected with the tilt stage 10 holding the reference flat to move the reference flat in two dimensions before a measurement (the examiner interprets tilting the reference surface “in one angular direction” (see paragraph 0066) to be a two dimensional tilting of the surface).
LaPlante fails that the tilt motor is connected with the stage that is holding the workpiece, and that the tilt motor is configured to randomly move the stage in those two dimensions before a measurement. In LaPlante, the tilt components for the test surface in paragraph 0067 (the embodiment associated with Figs. 1 and 2 discussed above) are only disclosed as for use in aligning the test surface.
As discussed above, the examiner notes that in Figs. 1 and 2, LaPlante discloses the tilt stage 10 that is controlled by microcontroller 22 holds an optical reference surface 56 that is configured to move the stage in two dimensions before a measurement (see paragraph 0065 and 0066). The measurement in LaPlante can be set up to be made while the piezo of the stage is off (see paragraph 0068), meaning the stage is moved before the measurement. Additionally, LaPlante teaches that the tilt stage can be retrofitted to adjust the test surface rather than the reference surface (see paragraph 0070), meaning that the test surface instead is tilted while the reference surface remains stationary.
While LaPlante does not teach random movement of the stage in two dimensions, Nakaune, which is concerned with the location of the test object before measurement, particularly using a measurement device that measures dimensions of a workpiece involved in semiconductor processing (see paragraph 0006), discloses a sample 4 on a sample holder 3 that is carried by a pair of stages 1, 2, which are randomly and forcibly moved prior to measurement (see paragraph 0009). These stages are not limited to just X and Y stages, but can include a Z stage and a θ table (see paragraph 0010) which can be interpreted as allowing for tilting of the stage in two dimensions before measurement (as an example, moving the X and Z stages together would tilt the sample).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interferometer of LaPlante to have the tilt stage of the interferometer hold the workpiece rather than the reference flat, as LaPlante teaches that the same functionality can be achieved by tilting the test surface rather than tilting the reference surface (see paragraph 0070), and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japkise, 86 USPQ 70. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to randomly move the stage holding the test surface in two dimensions in the interferometer of LaPlante before a measurement as taught by Nakaune, the motivation being random movement of the object in advance of measurement allows for any initial positional fluctuations due to mechanical issues with the sample holder and the sample to be corrected in advance of measurement, allowing for the position of the sample to be properly stabilized before initial measurement, and allowing for the stage to be moved again so high precision measurement can be performed without positional errors due to movement (see paragraph 0009).
As for claim 2, Nakaune further discloses a second tilt motor connected with the stage, wherein the second tilt motor works in conjunction with the tilt motor to randomly move the stage in two dimensions before the measurement (as discussed above, Nakaune discloses multiple stages in paragraphs 0009 and 0010 that would each have a tilt motor to move the sample in two dimensions).
As for claim 3, LaPlante discloses that the processor is configured to average a plurality of measurements of information received from the detector, and wherein each of the measurements uses a different position of the stage in the two dimensions (see paragraph 0019, which discloses obtaining a plurality of measurements at a plurality of tilt angles (with the tilt of the object happening for the reasons set forth above in claim 1) and overlaying, or averaging, the plurality of wavefront measurements to subtract out short retrace errors, see also paragraph 0065, which states that the processor processes images together).
As for claim 4, LaPlante discloses that the tilt of the workpiece is less than 1 mm (in paragraph 0073, LaPlante discloses piezo displacement of 2.8 µm, which is an angular displacement of ~8 arcsec; this is less than the claimed 1 mm).
Regarding claim 6, LaPlante (Figs. 1 and 2) discloses a method comprising disposing a workpiece (test object 16) on a stage (see paragraph 0067 – the test object is mounted to opto-mechanical mounting, tilt, and positional control components which can be reasonably, yet broadly, interpreted as a stage) in an interferometer 2; and taking a plurality of measurements of the workpiece using the interferometer (see paragraph 0065, for instance, which discloses that a plurality of images are captured), where a two-dimensional tilt is applied to the reference surface 56 before each of the measurements using at least one tilt motor (see Fig. 2; the tilt stage 10 in Fig. 1 features a reference flat 56 as shown in paragraph 0066, where the examiner interprets tilting the reference surface “in one angular direction” to be a two dimensional tilting of the surface; see also paragraph 0065, which discloses that the tilt stage controls movement between the interferometer reference surface along a single mechanical tilt axis coaxial with the input wave, and paragraph 0068, which states that the camera can capture a plurality of images while the tilt actuator is oscillating, with the plurality of images captured at different angles relative to the input wave).
LaPlante, however, fails to disclose that a random two-dimensional tilt is applied to the workpiece before each of the measurements. In LaPlante, the tilt components for the test surface in paragraph 0067 (the embodiment associated with Figs. 1 and 2 discussed above) are only disclosed as for use in aligning the test surface.
As discussed above, the examiner notes that in Figs. 1 and 2, LaPlante discloses the tilt stage 10 that is controlled by microcontroller 22 holds an optical reference surface 56 that is configured to move the stage in two dimensions before a measurement (see paragraph 0065 and 0066). Additionally, LaPlante teaches that the tilt stage can be retrofitted to adjust the test surface rather than the reference surface (see paragraph 0070), meaning that the test surface instead is tilted while the reference surface remains stationary.
While LaPlante does not teach random movement of the stage in two dimensions, Nakaune, which is concerned with the location of the test object before measurement, particularly using a measurement device that measures dimensions of a workpiece involved in semiconductor processing (see paragraph 0006), discloses a sample 4 on a sample holder 3 that is carried by a pair of stages 1, 2, which are randomly and forcibly moved prior to measurement (see paragraph 0009). These stages are not limited to just X and Y stages, but can include a Z stage and a θ table (see paragraph 0010) which can be interpreted as allowing for tilting of the stage in two dimensions before measurement (as an example, moving the X and Z stages together would tilt the sample).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of LaPlante to have the tilt stage of the interferometer hold the workpiece rather than the reference flat for applying a two-dimensional tilt to the workpiece, as LaPlante teaches that the same functionality can be achieved by tilting the test surface rather than tilting the reference surface (see paragraph 0070). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to randomly move the stage holding the test surface in two dimensions in the method of LaPlante as taught by Nakaune, the motivation being random movement of the object in advance of measurement allows for any initial positional fluctuations due to mechanical issues with the sample holder and the sample to be corrected in advance of measurement, allowing for the position of the sample to be properly stabilized before initial measurement, and allowing for the stage to be moved again so high precision measurement can be repeatedly performed without positional errors due to movement (see paragraph 0009; see also paragraph 0010, which states that before starting a predetermined operation, such as a measurement, the stages are forced to move randomly in each axial direction).
As for claim 7, Nakaune further discloses a second tilt motor connected with the stage, wherein the second tilt motor works in conjunction with the tilt motor to randomly move the stage in two dimensions before the measurement (as discussed above, Nakaune discloses multiple stages in paragraphs 0009 and 0010 that would each have a tilt motor to move the sample in two dimensions).
As for claim 8, LaPlante discloses averaging the measurements using a processor 24 (see paragraph 0019, which discloses obtaining a plurality of measurements at a plurality of tilt angles (with the tilt of the object happening for the reasons set forth above in claim 6) and overlaying, or averaging, the plurality of wavefront measurements to subtract out short retrace errors; see also paragraph 0065, which states that the processor processes images together).
As for claim 9, LaPlante discloses that the tilt of the workpiece is less than 1 mm (in paragraph 0073, LaPlante discloses piezo displacement of 2.8 µm, which is an angular displacement of ~8 arcsec; this is less than the claimed 1 mm).
Regarding claim 11, LaPlante (Figs. 1 and 2) discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising one or more programs for executing the following steps on one or more computing devices 24 (computer 24 would inherently include a storage medium containing programs for executing the method executed by the device of LaPlante), comprising, in a first step, sending instructions via microcontroller 22 (see paragraph 0065, stating that microcontroller 22 has firmware and/or software which controls movement to tilt stage 10) to at least one tilt motor (tilt stage 10 includes tilt actuator 54 as per paragraph 0066) to apply two-dimensional tilt to tilt stage 10 with a reference surface 56 disposed thereon (the examiner interprets tilting the reference surface “in one angular direction” to be a two dimensional tilting of the surface; see also paragraph 0065); in a second step, sending instructions to measure the workpiece16 using an interferometer 2 after the tilt is applied to the reference surface (the measurement in LaPlante can be set up to be made while the piezo of the stage is off (see paragraph 0068), meaning the stage is moved before the measurement); and repeating the first and second steps to generate a plurality of the measurements (the examiner interprets the ability of LaPlante to capture a plurality of images while the tilt actuator is oscillating in paragraph 0068 to be the capability of repeating the first and second steps as set forth above).
LaPlante fails to disclose that the tilt motor applies a random two-dimensional tilt to a stage with the workpiece disposed thereon. In LaPlante, the tilt components for the test surface in paragraph 0067 (the embodiment associated with Figs. 1 and 2 discussed above) are only disclosed as for use in aligning the test surface.
As discussed above, the examiner notes that in Figs. 1 and 2, LaPlante discloses the tilt stage 10 that is controlled by microcontroller 22 holds an optical reference surface 56 that is configured to move the stage in two dimensions before a measurement (see paragraph 0065 and 0066). Additionally, LaPlante teaches that the tilt stage can be retrofitted to adjust the test surface rather than the reference surface (see paragraph 0070), meaning that the test surface instead is tilted while the reference surface remains stationary.
While LaPlante does not teach random movement of the stage in two dimensions, Nakaune, which is concerned with the location of the test object before measurement, particularly using a measurement device that measures dimensions of a workpiece involved in semiconductor processing (see paragraph 0006), discloses a sample 4 on a sample holder 3 that is carried by a pair of stages 1, 2, which are randomly and forcibly moved prior to measurement (see paragraph 0009). These stages are not limited to just X and Y stages, but can include a Z stage and a θ table (see paragraph 0010) which can be interpreted as allowing for tilting of the stage in two dimensions before measurement (as an example, moving the X and Z stages together would tilt the sample).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of LaPlante to have the tilt stage of the interferometer hold the workpiece rather than the reference flat for applying a two-dimensional tilt to the workpiece, as LaPlante teaches that the same functionality can be achieved by tilting the test surface rather than tilting the reference surface (see paragraph 0070). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to randomly move the stage holding the test surface in two dimensions in the method of LaPlante as taught by Nakaune, the motivation being random movement of the object in advance of measurement allows for any initial positional fluctuations due to mechanical issues with the sample holder and the sample to be corrected in advance of measurement, allowing for the position of the sample to be properly stabilized before initial measurement, and allowing for the stage to be moved again so high precision measurement can be repeatedly performed without positional errors due to movement (see paragraph 0009; see also paragraph 0010, which states that before starting a predetermined operation, such as a measurement, the stages are forced to move randomly in each axial direction).
As for claim 12, LaPlante discloses averaging the measurements (see paragraph 0019, which discloses obtaining a plurality of measurements at a plurality of tilt angles (with the tilt of the object happening for the reasons set forth above in claim 1) and overlaying, or averaging, the plurality of wavefront measurements to subtract out short retrace errors, see also paragraph 0065, which states that the processor processes images together).
As for claim 13, Nakaune further discloses a second tilt motor connected with the stage, wherein the second tilt motor works in conjunction with the tilt motor to randomly move the stage in two dimensions before the measurement (as discussed above, Nakaune discloses multiple stages in paragraphs 0009 and 0010 that would each have a tilt motor to move the sample in two dimensions).
As for claim 14, LaPlante discloses that the tilt of the workpiece is less than 1 mm (in paragraph 0073, LaPlante discloses piezo displacement of 2.8 µm, which is an angular displacement of ~8 arcsec; this is less than the claimed 1 mm).
Claims 5, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPlante et al (2023/0213334) in view of Nakaune et al (JPH0755970) and in further view of Nakamura (2016/0161730).
As for claims 5, 10, and 15, the combination of LaPlante and Nakaune discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claims 1, 6, and 11, respectively, but while Nakaune discloses measurement of a photomask that is used during the manufacturing process of semiconductor products, the combination fails to disclose that the workpiece is a semiconductor wafer.
Nakamura discloses, in an interferometric measurement of a sample 35 that can be placed on a stage 34 that is placed on a tilting mechanism in the form of pins 36 (see Fig. 7 and paragraph 0082), that the sample can be a semiconductor substrate such as a silicon wafer (see paragraph 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the combination of LaPlante and Nakaune to measure a semiconductor wafer interferometrically as taught by Nakamura, the motivation being that Nakamura shows that interferometry can be used to accurately measure a semiconductor wafer as a typical sample that has been tilted relative to the optical axis of the interferometer (see paragraph 0055).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0058174 to Hill discloses an interferometer for error compensation where a reference object 62 is tilted using transducers 150, 152 to maintain a spot on the reference object and a corresponding spot on the measurement object (see Fig. 1B and the abstract); US Pat. 7,616,324 to Yamauchi et al. teaches a precision profile measuring system with tilt stages 4 and 5 to adjust the positions of plane mirror 2 and curved mirror 3 that are being measured in an interferometer (see Fig. 2); US 2004/0263840 to Segall et al. teaches calibration of an inspection machine where random errors can be generated by non-zero clearance between the carriage 56 and rails 57 of motion stage 40 during movement of the stage (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0054); US 2017/0003120 to Bean et al. teaches an interferometric measurement where a substrate holder tilts the substrate away from normal incidence to record fringe patterns (see abstract); and US Pat. 5,729,343 to Aiyer teaches a film thickness measurement apparatus where wafer 22 resting on stage 14 is tilted via movable wafer support 36 during measurement (see Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 November 14, 2025