DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The claims are being interpreted as holding that the substrates (samples) are not present in the system. The claims are drawn to a system capable of use with the substrates.
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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higashijima (2018/0090306).
Higashijima teaches a system, see Fig. 1 and related text,
- the system being a “wet etch process system” is intended use, the system as claimed must at least be capable of holding a liquid of some amount but is not limited to an etch system or any particular process. It has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Also, a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
- the system is configured to be filled with a liquid, see wherein 70 is a liquid supply system [0043], there are no specific limits to “filled” and at least the portion holding the wafer is operably filled to some level as part of the described process/apparatus, but in any case the system includes supplying a liquid to some level,
- in regard to the “configured for one or more semiconductor samples” this is again is intended use, the initial clause of the claim does not actively require the samples and therefore also does not require the arrangement, since the samples are not required
- the teachings include a first sensor configured to measure a first temperature – temperature sensor 80 meets the claim limitations as it is a sensor that creates an illumination beam to determine the temperature. In regard to the specifics about the illumination and how measurement is made, that is again intended use because it is based on the use of the substrate. It is further noted that the teachings include a substrate, see wafer W, and the prior art system would be generally capable of holding multiple substrates wherein such is an intended use,
- the teachings include that the first sensor 80 is arranged such that it directs illumin-ation into the bath – the sensor receives the illumination beam in order to determine the temperature. The sensor is generally described in [0054-56] and is capable of directing illumination onto a substrate. The last claim requirement is again intended use.
Regarding claim 14, the use of any liquid wherein the system is “configured” to be filled with liquid is intended use and met by the capability of the system to hold such.
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.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashijima (2018/0090306).
Regarding claim 2, the teachings do not include such elements, but such a modification of the system would have been a rearrangement of parts, which is obvious as per MEP 2144.04 VI. C. and a selection of materials, further obvious per MPEP 2144.07. In this case, light passing through different materials is well known wherein a chamber or portion needs to be enclosed and is not inventive.
Regarding claims 4 - 6, the teachings do not include a second sensor, but as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. a duplication of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case, to have another sensor would either allow for a different location or perspective and/or an averaging for improved accuracy. Further to claims 5 and 6, as per above, the semiconductor samples are not actively claimed and such a configuration is usable in the prior art wherein more than one sample is applied.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashijima (2018/0090306) in view of Garcia (2018/0306650).
The teachings of Higashijima are described above and won’t be repeated, the Office initially holds that the use of the specific METHOD of determining the temperature in the claims is intended us, but, if it were determined that there is a particular structural element to such a sensor and measurement system, the further teachings of Garcia are applied. Garcia teaches that a bandgap energy is one method of detecting the temperature of an element in a semiconductor processing system based on applying a light source, see particularly [0048-51]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the bandgap energy method of temperature measurement taught by Garcia in the system and implementation of Higashijima as Higashijima teaches a light source temperature measurement system for use in semiconductor manufacturing and Garcia teaches that the bandgap method is a known structure and method of carrying out such a temperature measurement.
Regarding claims 2, 4-6 and 14, they are rejected in the same manner as above and will not be repeated.
Regarding claim 7, while Higashijima necessarily teaches a light source and receiver in order to carry out the measurements, Garcia further teaches:
- a light source, see discussion particularly in [0030-31],
- focusing optics – see wherein there is an optical lens 234 that can control the sport size of the beam,
- collection optics – the optical lens also includes collection optics and a photosensitive array 304, while intended use, the bandgap PL light is addressed above,
- the teachings also include a photodetector [0030], the teachings further explain that the intensity is used to determine the temperature [0050-53], and
- the teachings further include a transmission element 306 [0034] to transmit the light/signal between different elements.
Regarding claim 8, the teachings do not include a filter but Examiner takes Official Notice that applying filters in optical systems is well known and would have been an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 9, Garcia teaches a mirror [0034].
Regarding claim 10, Garcia teaches the same lens (234).
Regarding claim 11, the teachings are silent on the light source – however, as per MPEP 2144.07 the selection of a known material for its intended use is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case, wherein a light source is taught, to select one of the claimed ones would have been obvious based on being known sources.
Regarding claim 12, Garcia does not teach an illumination beam of 785nm, but generally teaches that the wavelength is a result effective variable based on the conditions including the expected temperature of the substrate [0048]. As such, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to select any wavelength of illumination beam such as 785nm if that met the conditions of the process being performed and process conditions.
Regarding claim 15, the elements of claim 15 are addressed as per claim 1 above, the only difference between claims 1 and 15 are the presence of the optical fiber of claim 15, but the teachings of Garcia further include the teachings of Garcia further include such an fiber optic cable as a transfer element 306 [0034].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashijima (alone and/or with Garcia) in view of Poy (2023/0123633).
The teachings of Higashijima are described above. The Office takes the initial position that the use of transparent chamber parts is obvious and to have light pass through part of the system walls would have been an obvious rearrangement, but Poy is further applied to further the concept. oy teaches that upper walls of a process chamber are made transparent for the purpose of temperature measurements [0005]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the transparent portions as taught by oy in the system and method of Higashijima as such parts are known and the use of transparent materials through which light passes through would have been an obvious rearrangement.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashijima and Garcia (2018/0306650) in view of Johnson (2021/0055210).
The teachings of Higashijima and Garcia are described above, the teachings do not include a prism or grating spectrometer. Johnson however teaches that when determining characteristics of light in a semiconductor system, it is useful to use an optical spectrometer such as when determining values of bandgap energy (abstract, [0008-09]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the spectrometer of Johnson in the system and optical measurement of Higashijima and Garcia as the teachings are generally open to various known optical / transmission parts and Johnson teaches that such a spectrometer is known to be useful. In regard to the “grating spectrometer”, Johnson teaches an optical spectrometer without limit. To select a grating spectrometer would have been inclusive particularly under MPEP 2144.07 as addressed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 16-20 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.
Regarding claim 3, while generally transparent materials are known, there would be no particular reason to modify the teachings as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, the system of the combined art does not have multiple-sample slots. Tokoshima (2014/0230908) includes that multiple substrates are handled by a particular carrier for wet processing at the same time [0004], but would not include an embedded optical fiber nor would that be obvious or a natural derivative of such combination of the teachings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights