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
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, the applicant claims “the polarizer” without proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 9, the applicant claims, “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” however, this is not what the specification discloses. The specification discloses that the tunable filter (104) which performs this function is in the beam path of the excitation source whereas in the claim structure it’s in the beam path of the collection path. Thus, the claims language does not make sense in light of the specification and this should be fixed. For purposes of prosecution the examiner shall construe the applicant to mean a second filter (104) in the excitation beam path such as shown in fig. 2.
Further, In Claim 9, The applicant has confused the filter in the excitation beam path (104) with that of the filter in the collection path (111) (See fig. 2 of the instant application). The claim language makes it appear as if these are the same filters but in the disclosure they are not. Thus, the scope of the limitation is indefinite. For purposes of prosecution the examiner shall construe the filter to be a second filter in the excitation beam path.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cabib et al (PGPub 2005/0037615) (Cabib).
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, wherein the imaging uses an optical filter in an imaging path of the beam of light (Paragraph 89). The excitation-dichroic filters meet the limitation of using an optical filter; and
wherein the optical filter selects at least one wavelength from 300 nm to 900 nm (Paragraphs 91 & 92, Fig. 16).
Regarding Claim 2, Cabib 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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) 9-16 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cabib in view of Rupp et al (PGPub 2022/0252513) (Rupp).
Regarding Claim 9, Cabib 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 the 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;
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);
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.
Regarding Claim 18, Cabib as modified by Rupp discloses the aforementioned.
Cabib fails to explicitly disclose 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 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.
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
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 January 7, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877