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 .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, where Claim 1 has been amended.
Telephonic Interview Attempts
2- The Examiner attempted multiple times, on 2/23 and 2/24/2026 to contact attorneys J-C Yuan and E. Garlepp to discuss the application and its amendments and seek a ground of agreement about possible amendment leading to a potential allowability. Unfortunately, the attempts failed and the subsequent voicemails that were left on the voicemails have not been even responded to.
Response to Arguments
3- Examiner has considered Applicants’ proposed amendments and acknowledges they moot/overcome the 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation of claim 2 as set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 11/03/2025. The above interpretation is therefore withdrawn.
4- Moreover, Applicant’s amendments and their corresponding arguments, with respect to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over the prior art used in the previous office action in view of Gharib et al. (PGPUB 20080278570).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5- 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
6- Claims 1-11, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (PGPUB No. 2007/0146685, of which the US Patent 7440094 is cited by Applicants) in view of Sugihara (PGPUB 20170046854), further in view of Gharib et al. (PGPUB 20080278570)
As to amended claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, Yoo teaches a metrology system for measuring wafer bow of a wafer (Abstract, Figs. 6-10), the metrology system comprising: a wafer support (stage 605) configured to position a wafer (610) for wafer bow measurement (¶58-66); a first light source (620) configured to illuminate a first side of the wafer during the wafer bow measurement (Figs. 6-7, ¶58 for ex.); a first mask (¶ 18-20, 58, claim 8 for ex; pattern generating mask 609/690 with mask transmitting patterns therein) disposed between the first light source and the wafer support (Figs. 6-7), the first mask including a plurality of first patterns that are arranged to pass first light from the first light source and project onto the first side of the wafer a plurality of first dots that correspond to the first pattern in the first mask (Fig. 8 and ¶ 58, 63 for ex); and a first camera (618 or 718) arranged to capture an image of the first dots from the first side of the wafer during the wafer bow measurement (¶ 61-64 for ex.); wherein the first mask has a projection area on the wafer that covers the entire wafer, and (Claim 2) wherein the first mask has a projection area on the wafer that covers the entire wafer (¶ 22 for ex).
Yoo does not teach expressly (Claim 1) wherein the first mask being a pinhole mask including a plurality of first pinholes that are arranged to pass first light from the first light source and the plurality of first dots correspond to the first pinholes in the first pinhole mask, even though it is suggested by Yoo in ¶ 18-20 that the mask is a plate with selective transmission, i.e. holes for ex., nor does it teach expressly the first pinhole mask further includes a first opening for passing first reflected light from the first side of the wafer to the first camera, without passing the first light from the first light source, or the metrology system further includes: a second light source configured to illuminate a second side of the wafer during the wafer bow measurement, the second side opposite the first side of the wafer a second pinhole mask disposed between the second light source and the wafer support, the second pinhole mask including a plurality of second pinholes that are arranged to pass second light from the second light source and project onto the second side of the wafer a plurality of second dots that correspond to the second pinholes in the second pinhole mask; and a second camera configured to capture an image of the second dots from the second side of the wafer during the wafer bow measurement; (Claim 4) wherein the first pinholes in the first pinhole mask are arranged according to a rectilinear pattern; (claim 5) wherein the first pinholes are spaced equally in a first direction of the rectilinear pattern and spaced equally in a second direction of the rectilinear pattern, the second direction orthogonal to the first direction, even though Fig. 8, 2D display rectilinear arrangement of light dots; (claim 9) wherein the wafer support orients the wafer in a vertical position relative to a direction of gravity; (claim 10) wherein the wafer is oriented at an oblique inclination relative to vertical; (claim 11) wherein the oblique inclination is within 15 degrees off vertical orientation.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Sugihara teaches a light projection device (Abstract, ¶ 11-13, 16 and Figs. 1-11) wherein a mask with pinholes is used to project arrays/lattices of light dots on measurement objects to measure the shape thereof (Figs. 5-7 and ¶ 48, 58-68 for ex.) Moreover, Sugihara teaches, in Figs. 1-2, 5-7, ¶ 48, arrangements of equidistant dots, i.e. pinholes or images corresponding to the pinholes. As to the orientation of the support, Yoo teaches a horizontal direction of the support (see rejection of claim 8). Sugihara proposes rather the illumination system to correspond to target that are held vertically (Figs. 1, 5) or at arbitrary angles (Fig. 9). One PHOSITA would find it obvious to adjust the illumination system and supporting stage at any arbitrary angle that fits the target to be measured and optimizes its measurement since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Yoo in view of Sugihara’s suggestions so that the first mask being a pinhole mask including a plurality of first pinholes that are arranged to pass first light from the first light source and the plurality of first dots correspond to the first pinholes in the first pinhole mask; wherein the first pinholes in the first pinhole mask are arranged according to a rectilinear pattern; wherein the first pinholes are spaced equally in a first direction of the rectilinear pattern and spaced equally in a second direction of the rectilinear pattern, the second direction orthogonal to the first direction, even though Fig. 8, 2D rectilinear arrangement of light dots; wherein the wafer support orients the wafer in a vertical position relative to a direction of gravity; wherein the wafer is oriented at an oblique inclination relative to vertical; wherein the oblique inclination is within 15 degrees off vertical orientation, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the spatial imaging and measurement of target objects.
The combination of Yoo and Sugihara still does not teach expressly the first pinhole mask further includes a first opening for passing first reflected light from the first side of the wafer to the first camera, without passing the first light from the first light source, or the metrology system further includes: a second light source configured to illuminate a second side of the wafer during the wafer bow measurement, the second side opposite the first side of the wafer a second pinhole mask disposed between the second light source and the wafer support, the second pinhole mask including a plurality of second pinholes that are arranged to pass second light from the second light source and project onto the second side of the wafer a plurality of second dots that correspond to the second pinholes in the second pinhole mask; and a second camera configured to capture an image of the second dots from the second side of the wafer during the wafer bow measurement
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Gharib teaches an imaging device with dot projections on objects to determine 3D structure (Abstract, Figs. 1-11) wherein a mask (Fig. 5H and ¶ 114-116 for ex.; mask with apertures 556/558) used in conjunction with the dot pattern device within projector 564, presenting an aperture 556, i.e. first opening, that passes reflected light from object 561 to the sensor surface 562, without passing direct light from the projector, i.e. light source, 564, for obvious advantages of filtering direct light from the source and increasing the SNR of the reflected light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Yoo and Sughihara in view of Gharib’s suggestions so that the first pinhole mask further includes a first opening for passing first reflected light from the first side of the wafer to the first camera, without passing the first light from the first light source, with the advantage of effectively filtering direct light from the source and increase the SNR of the reflected light.
(claims 6-7) wherein the first pinhole mask includes a first opening for passing first reflected light from the first side of the wafer to the first camera without passing the first light from the first light source; wherein the first opening is centrally located relative to the wafer and the first dots in the first pinhole mask (see rejection of claim 1 and teachings of Gharib).
Moreover, Yoo teaches:
(claim 3) further comprising: a measurement control system (130/140) coupled to the first light source and the first camera (Fig. 1), the measurement control system configured to measure wafer bow of a target wafer by comparing an image of target dots captured for the target wafer with an image of reference dots captured for a reference wafer (¶ 61, claim 27 for ex.)
(claim 8) wherein the wafer support orients the wafer in a horizontal position relative to a direction of gravity (Figs. 1, 6-7; stage 605 orients the sample in a horizontal direction).
(claims 15-16) which is configured to perform the wafer bow measurement in less than 10 seconds; (claim 16) which is configured to compute the wafer bow of the wafer from the image of the first dots captured by the first camera in less than 30 seconds (obvious from Yoo’s Fig. 10, ¶ 12-13, 45-46, 54, 66 and reference therein, with a set of processor(s) calculating the wafer’s characteristics in a given time. One PHOSITA would find it obvious to optimize the calculation time given the robotic handling speeds in Fig. 10. Since it has been held that where thegeneral condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum orworking ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.)
(claim 17) wherein the wafer support supports the wafer at a center of the wafer (Figs. 1, 6-7).
(claim 20) further comprising: an alignment system configured to align the wafer on the wafer support for the wafer bow measurement (¶ 21, 66 for ex.)
9- Claim 12-14, 18-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo, Sugihara and Gharib, and further in view of Toshiba (JP 2007057502, cited by Applicants).
As to claim 12, the combination of Yoo, Sugihara and Gharib teaches the metrology system of claim 1.
The combination does not teach expressly further comprising: a second light source configured to illuminate a second side of the wafer during the wafer bow measurement, the second side opposite the first side of the wafer; a second pinhole mask disposed between the second light source and the wafer support, the second pinhole mask including a plurality of second pinholes that are arranged to pass second light from the second light source and project onto the second side of the wafer a plurality of second dots that correspond to the second pinholes in the second pinhole mask; and a second camera configured to capture an image of the second dots from the second side of the wafer during the wafer bow measurement, even though this structure appears as a mere duplication of parts for the same intended use of measuring the profile of the target substrate and this should obvious since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Moreover, Toshiba in a similar field of endeavor clearly discloses using second light source/detector (39) to measure the surface of a wafer P, in addition to a similar system (38) for measuring the first surface of the wafer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Yoo, Sugihara and Gharib in view of Toshiba’s suggestions so that the system further comprises: a second light source configured to illuminate a second side of the wafer during the wafer bow measurement, the second side opposite the first side of the wafer; a second pinhole mask disposed between the second light source and the wafer support, the second pinhole mask including a plurality of second pinholes that are arranged to pass second light from the second light source and project onto the second side of the wafer a plurality of second dots that correspond to the second pinholes in the second pinhole mask; and a second camera configured to capture an image of the second dots from the second side of the wafer during the wafer bow measurement, with the advantage of effectively and thoroughly measure the target wafer.
(claims 13-14, 19) further comprising: a wafer flipper configured to receive the wafer from the wafer support, flip the wafer, and return the wafer to the wafer support for the wafer bow measurement on a second side of the wafer, the second side opposite the first side of the wafer; (claim 14) wherein the wafer support is configured to flip the wafer and reposition the wafer for the wafer bow measurement on a second side of the wafer, the second side opposite the first side of the wafer; (claim 19) wherein the first light source is further configured to illuminate a second side of the wafer during the wafer bow measurement, the second side opposite the first side of the wafer, the first pinholes of the first pinhole mask are further arranged to pass second light from the first light source and project onto the second side of the wafer a plurality of second dots that corresponds to the first pinholes, the first camera is further arranged to capture an image of the second dots from the second side of the wafer, and the wafer bow measurement is performed on the first side and the second side of the wafer to correct for effects of gravity (in addition to Toshiba’s teachings of measuring both surfaces of a substrate, these claims appear obvious from Yoo’s Fig. 10, ¶ 66 and reference therein, with a wafer system robot handling system therein wherein a sample handler robot 1110 acquires substrate 610 from delivery cassette system 1120 and deposits and manipulates on support 605. One PHOSITA would find it obvious to use the arm to flip, return, adjusts the wafer for measuring all its surface. See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
As to claim 18, the combination of Yoo and Sugihara teaches the metrology system of claim 1.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein the wafer support supports the wafer at an edge of the wafer.
Moreover, Toshiba in a similar field of endeavor clearly discloses using a substrate holding mechanism 5 that supports substrate P at its edge (Fig. 2, ¶ 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Yoo and Sugihara in view of Toshiba’s suggestions so that the wafer support supports the wafer at an edge of the wafer, with the advantage of effectively and thoroughly measure the target wafer.
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).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. The fax phone 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877