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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6-15-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the concept of using a tunable filter in the collection arm the applicant argues that first the stated wavelength range (400 nm to 900 nm) would be critical to the invention. The examiner does not agree. The applicant argues that it is critical because the type of sample, a low-k dielectric material, would be best monitored in this range for fluorescence emissions because they provide additional signals for defects on layers, monitor the k value for uniformity, and used to differentiate low-k dielectric materials. However, it’s well-known that the type of materials one uses affects the fluorescence emission peaks used to monitor it for various factors. Further, Cabib discloses that the sample is a low-k material. Given this, the range of wavelengths the filter would tune to in the combination of Cabib with Rupp would be known or in the least as examiner states in the rejection it would be a matter of mere routine investigation to figure out.
Further, in regard to claim 10 this argument verges upon claiming that the Article worked upon is essential the structure of the Apparatus. The examiner reminds the applicant that in the MPEP Section 2115 the MPEP states “Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).” Which is another reason the examiner finds this argument unconvincing.
Secondly, the applicant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success when performing this hypothetical optimization. This is not convincing either. One of ordinary skill in this art has a PhD and well knows that the sample has emissions determined by the sample properties and the excitation wavelength. Further, they’d know filtering the emission light for specific peaks would provide the benefit as the examiner stated. Finding such ranges and peaks would be a matter of trivial experimentation.
For these reasons the rejection will be maintained with changes to account for applicant’s amendments.
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.
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.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabib et al (PGPub 2005/0037615) (Cabib) in view of Rupp et al (PGPub 2022/0252513) (Rupp).
Regarding Claim 1, Cabib discloses a method comprising:
disposing a workpiece on a stage in an optical inspection system (See fig. 11). The wafer (12) is disposed on something thus it is on a stage;
wherein the workpiece includes a low-k dielectric material (14, Paragraph 79);
generating a beam of light with a wavelength from 190 nm to 900 nm (Paragraph 89). The xenon lamp meets this limitation;
directing the beam of light at the workpiece thereby causing fluorescence emission from the low-k dielectric material (Paragraph 89);
imaging the workpiece during fluorescence emission with a detector (Spectrograph 36);
Cabib fails to explicitly disclose wherein the imaging uses a collection optical filter in an imaging path of the beam of light between the workpiece and the detector, and wherein the collection optical filter selects at least one wavelength from 400 nm to 900 nm;
However, Rupp discloses a collection filter (130), which is tunable (Paragraph 43);
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to use or combine Rupp in the range as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cabib with a collection optical filter in a path of the beam of light between the stage and the detector, wherein the collection optical filter is configured to be tunable between 400 nm and 900 nm because as disclosed that in conjunction with a tunable filter in the detection arm (Paragraph 17) the fluorescence emissions can be sequentially detected which allows for detecting specific fluorescence peaks caused by different excitation wavelength bands rapidly without the fluorescence lights interfering with each other and creating noise. Further, it reduces the noise from unneeded excitation light scattering from the sample.
Regarding Claim 2, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cabib discloses wherein the workpiece is a semiconductor wafer (Paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Cabib discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cabib discloses wherein the low-k dielectric material is a dielectric oxide (Paragraph 89). SiCOH meets this limitation.
Regarding Claim 4, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cabib discloses quantifying a k-value of the low-k dielectric material based on a spectral shape and/or intensity level of the fluorescence emission using a processor (Paragraphs 89 & 92).
Regarding Claim 5, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cabib discloses determining uniformity of a k-value of the low-k dielectric material using a processor (Paragraph 93). Getting emission spectra from a plurality of locations on the sample is a measurement of uniformity as described.
Regarding Claim 6, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cabib discloses inspecting the low-k dielectric material for defects using a processor (Paragraph 93). The cracks in the low-K dielectric layer that are detected meets this limitation.
Regarding Claim 7, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cabib discloses wherein the workpiece further includes a metal (Paragraph 2, aluminum or copper), and wherein all of the signal used for the inspecting is from the low-k dielectric material. As disclosed the filter is to attenuate scattered excitation light (Paragraph 89) and let through the excitation light. Thus, the limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 8, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cabib discloses wherein the metal does not have fluorescence emission during the directing. This limitation is met because copper and aluminum do not fluoresce or at least not at the wavelengths they are being exposed to.
Regarding Claim 9, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising tuning the wavelength between a first value from 190 nm to 700 nm and a second value from 300 nm to 900 nm using a tunable optical filter;
However, Rupp a fluorescence based detection method (Paragraph 2) which teaches using a filter (125, Fig. 1, Paragraph 35) for filtering the light source (105) and that filter can be a filter wheel (Paragraph 52) for use with a white light source (Paragraph 54) for selectively allowing light in different wavelength ranges (Paragraph 19);
Further, the specific wavelength ranges of 190 nm to 700 nm and a second value from 300 nm to 900 would obviously be chosen based upon the material being inspected excitation wavelength ranges;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cabib with tuning the wavelength between a first value from 190 nm to 700 nm and a second value from 300 nm to 900 nm using the optical filter because as disclosed that in conjunction with a tunable filter in the detection arm (Paragraph 17) the fluorescence emissions can be sequentially detected which allows for detecting specific fluorescence peaks caused by different excitation wavelength bands rapidly without the fluorescence lights interfering with each other and creating noise. Further, it reduces the noise from unneeded excitation light scattering from the sample.
Regarding Claim 10, Cabib discloses a system (Fig. 11) comprising:
a light source configured to generate a beam of light at a wavelength from 190 nm to 900 nm (Paragraph 89). The xenon lamp meets this limitation;
a stage configured to hold a workpiece in a path of the beam of light (See fig. 11). The wafer (12) is disposed on something thus it is on a stage;
wherein the workpiece includes a low-k dielectric material (14, Paragraph 79);
wherein the beam of light causes fluorescence emission from the low-k dielectric material (Paragraph 89);
a detector that receives the beam of light reflected from the workpiece (Fig. 11, 36); and
a processor (38) in electronic communication with the detector, wherein the processor is configured to generate an image of the workpiece that includes the fluorescence emission (Paragraph 89, fig. 18).
Cabib fails to explicitly disclose a tunable optical filter in the path of the beam of light; and a collection optical filter in a path of the beam of light between the stage and the detector, wherein the collection optical filter is configured to be tunable between 400 nm and 900 nm;
However, Rupp a fluorescence based detection method (Paragraph 2) which teaches using a filter (125, Fig. 1, Paragraph 35) for filtering the light source (105) and that filter can be a filter wheel (Paragraph 52) for use with a white light source (Paragraph 54) for selectively allowing light in different wavelength ranges (Paragraph 19); and
However, Rupp discloses a collection filter (130), which is tunable (Paragraph 43);
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to use or combine Rupp in the range as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cabib with a tunable optical filter in the path of the beam of light because as disclosed that in conjunction with a tunable filter in the detection arm (Paragraph 17) the fluorescence emissions can be sequentially detected which allows for detecting specific fluorescence peaks caused by different excitation wavelength bands rapidly without the fluorescence lights interfering with each other and creating noise. Further, it reduces the noise from unneeded excitation light scattering from the sample.
Regarding Claim 11, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cabib discloses wherein the workpiece is a semiconductor wafer (Paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cabib discloses wherein the low-k dielectric material is a dielectric oxide (Paragraph 89). SiCOH meets this limitation.
Regarding Claim 13, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cabib discloses quantifying a k-value of the low-k dielectric material based on a spectral shape and/or intensity level of the fluorescence emission using a processor (Paragraphs 89 & 92).
Regarding Claim 14, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cabib discloses determining uniformity of a k-value of the low-k dielectric material using a processor (Paragraph 93). Getting emission spectra from a plurality of locations on the sample is a measurement of uniformity as described.
Regarding Claim 15, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cabib discloses inspecting the low-k dielectric material for defects using a processor (Paragraph 93). The cracks in the low-K dielectric layer that are detected meets this limitation.
Regarding Claim 16, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to use or combine Rupp in the range as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cabib with the tunable optical filter is configured to tune the wavelength between a first value from 190 nm to 700 nm and a second value from 300 nm to 900 nm using the optical filter because as disclosed that in conjunction with a tunable filter in the detection arm (Paragraph 17) the fluorescence emissions can be sequentially detected which allows for detecting specific fluorescence peaks caused by different excitation wavelength bands rapidly without the fluorescence lights interfering with each other and creating noise. Further, it reduces the noise from unneeded excitation light scattering from the sample.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabib in view of Rupp and further in view of Shirakawa et al (PGPub 2020/0408700) (Shirakawa).
Regarding Claim 17, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose a polarizer in the path of the beam of light, wherein the polarizer is configured to tune a polarization of the beam of light;
However, Shirakawa discloses a tunable polarizer (12) in the beam path of an excitation light source (11) for tuning the polarization of the light (Paragraphs 20);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cabib as modified by Rupp with a polarizer in the path of the beam of light, wherein the polarizer is configured to tune a polarization of the beam of light because this can be used to control the penetration depth of the light into the sample (Paragraph 37, Shirakawa) which allows for the inspection of the sample throughout its depth which can be useful for finding defects that are under the surface.
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 JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 August 24, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights