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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 10-14 are pending.
Regarding the interpretation of a liquid supply unit and a liquid discharge unit, the examiner finds the amendments made to claim 1 regarding these limitations are sufficient. The interpretation of these limitations under 35 USC 112(f) is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b), the amendments made to the claim are sufficient to overcome the rejection made in the previous Office action. The rejection of these claims under 35 USC 112(b) is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble of claim 1 recites “A film thickness measurement device that measures system for measuring a film thickness” and claims 3 and 5 recite “The film thickness measurement device according to system of claim 1”. However, the newly added claims 10-13 recite “The system of claim 1”. The examiner is interpreting the amendment to the preamble of claim 1 is meant to recite “A film thickness measurement system”, while the amendment to the preamble of claims 3 and 5 is meant to recite “The system…” in order to remain consistent with the newly added claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
For the reasons given in the Office action mailed October 19, 2025, the following limitations remain interpreted under 35 USC 112(f):
“measurement unit” in claim 1.
“control unit” in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finarov (US20080297794A1) in view of Ito (WO2021181944A1) and Nagasaka (US20190121244A1).
Regarding claim 1, Finarov teaches a film thickness measurement device that measures system for measuring a film thickness of a substrate (paragraph [0006]; Fig. 13),
a stage including a bottom surface made of a transparent material (140, Fig. 13) and configured to support a liquid (136, Fig. 13), and an annular member extending from the bottom surface (168, Fig. 13);
a measurement unit configured to be placed on a side opposite to the head across the stage disposed on an opposite side of the stage with respect to the top ring (134, Fig. 13) and configured to optically measure the film thickness on the surface of the substrate that is placed across the stage (see the optical system in Fig. 9; paragraph [0032]); and
moving at least one of the stage and the top holder to move toward the other and immerse the surface of the substrate in a liquid (see Figs. 3-8, which depicts a gripper moving towards the stage and immersing the substrate in a water bath), and
driving the measurement unit to measure the film thickness on the surface of the substrate irradiate the substrate with light while the surface of the substrate is immersed in the liquid (paragraphs [0032]-[0038] discloses the measurement).
Finarov fails to teach the substrate is held by a movable head, the device comprising:
a top ring including a top ring main body, a membrane configured to hold a substrate, and a retainer ring attached under the top ring main body, surrounding an outer periphery of the substrate, and being movable in a vertical direction relative to the top ring main body;
a liquid supply configured to supply liquid onto the stage;
a liquid discharge configured to discharge the liquid on the stage to the outside; and
a control unit.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor of film thickness measurement device (paragraph [0009] discloses a film thickness measurement step is taken during the polishing; paragraph [0010] discloses the device which does this measurement), teaches a device which includes a movable head holding a substrate (1, Fig. 1; paragraph [0019] discloses this head is movable), including a main body (21, Fig. 4), a membrane (65, Fig. 4) for holding the substrate (paragraph [0039]) and a retainer ring (60, Fig. 4) which surrounds the substrate (paragraph [0040]) and is configured to move in a vertical direction relative to the main body (paragraph [0039]).
The thickness measurement of Finarov is done in conjunction with polishing of a substrate (paragraph [0006]). The moveable head, membrane and movable retainer ring taught in Ito have the advantage of ensuring the film on the surface of the substrate is flat (Ito: paragraph [0010]), preventing unevenness of the film. The thickness measurement of Finarov is only done in one measurement spot (Finarov: paragraph [0038]), meaning uneven polishing would result in inaccurate film measurement. Further, the displacement of the retainer ring taught in Ito would naturally follow contact with the annular ring taught in Finarov as the retainer ring in Ito is designed to be displaced to enable contact with a bottom surface (Ito: paragraphs [0043]-[0046]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious prior to the effective filing date to combine the gripper taught in Finarov with the movable head, membrane and retaining ring taught in Ito to prevent inaccurate film measurement.
Finarov as modified by Ito fails to teach a liquid supply configured to supply liquid onto the stage;
a liquid discharge configured to discharge the liquid on the stage to the outside; and
a control unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid immersion of a substrate for measurement purposes, Nagasaka teaches a liquid supply configured to supply liquid to a stage and a liquid discharge to remove the liquid (paragraphs [0028] and [0029]). Nagasaka further teaches a control unit which moves the stage (paragraph [0102]) and controls the optical system (paragraph [0095]).
The liquid bath of Finarov as modified by Ito (Finarov: 136, Fig. 13) would need some sort of mechanism to supply and remove the necessary liquid from the stage area. Nagasaka teaches the liquid supply and discharge allow for the liquid to be smoothly supplied and removed from the stage area (paragraph [0037]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the liquid bath of Finarov and Ito with the liquid supply and discharge taught in Nagasaka in order to smoothly supply and discharge the necessary liquid.
Further, Finarov as modified by Ito does not explicitly disclose a control unit to perform the operations of moving the top ring and substrate to the liquid bath and controlling the measurement unit. However, it is the position of the examiner that there would have to be some sort of control mechanism which dictated these operations. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to perform the operations taught in Finarov as modified by Ito with the control unit which performs the same operations in Nagasaka as a control unit is necessary to dictate the operations.
Regarding claim 3, Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the top ring is configured to be rotatable (Ito: paragraph [0019]), and
the control unit is configured to
cause the top ring to rotate while the surface of the substrate is immersed in the liquid (Ito: paragraph [0019] discloses the rotation of the top ring is done by a motor) and
cause the measurement unit to measure the film thickness on the surface of the substrate while rotating the top ring (Nagasaka: paragraph [0095]).
The top ring of Ito rotates in order to facilitate the even polishing (paragraph [0020]). The device of Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka is meant to measure a film thickness during polishing. As discussed above in claim 1, an even polishing surface enhances the film thickness measurement. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device of Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka with the rotating top ring taught in Ito in order to further enhance the film thickness measurement.
As explained above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to perform the operations taught in Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka with the control unit which performs the same operations in Nagasaka as a control unit is necessary to dictate the operations.
Regarding claim 5, Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the stage including a pair of ridges provided on the bottom surface, the pair of ridges defining a region for holding the liquid and being provided at a height lower than that of the annular member (Finarov: Fig. 13 depicts the annular member, 168, as a step-like shape. The examiner is interpreting "a pair of ridges on the bottom surface" to be the lower portion of this step-like shape).
Regarding claim 10, Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches
a liquid supply line connected to the stage and configured to supply the liquid to the stage (Nagasaka: 11A, Fig. 2)
a liquid discharge line connected to the stage and configured to discharge the liquid from the stage (Nagasaka: 21A, Fig. 2).
As discussed above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the liquid bath of Finarov as modified Ito and Nagasaka with the liquid supply and discharge taught in Nagasaka in order to smoothly supply and discharge the necessary liquid.
Regarding claim 11, Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka teaches the invention as explained above in claim 10, and further teaches a liquid supply (Nagasaka: 11, Fig. 2) connected to the liquid supply line (Nagasaka: 11A, Fig. 2),
a liquid discharge (Nagasaka: 21, Fig. 2) connected to the liquid discharge line (Nagasaka: 21A, Fig. 2), and
wherein the control unit is configured to cause the liquid supply to continuously supply a liquid to the stage (Nagasaka: paragraph [0064]) and cause the liquid discharge to continuously discharge the liquid from the stage while the measurement unit is measuring the film thickness on the surface of the substrate (Nagasaka: paragraph [0142]).
Nagasaka discloses the continuous supply and discharge of the liquid alleviates some problems caused by the stop and start of the liquid (paragraph [0140]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device of Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka with the liquid supply and discharge being continuous as taught by Nagasaka in order to alleviate problems caused by the liquid supply and discharge stopping and starting.
Regarding claim 12, Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the measurement unit includes a light emitting unit configured to irradiate light toward the surface of the substrate (Finarov: 12, Fig. 9) and a light receiving unit configured to receive reflected light from the surface of the substrate (Finarov: 116, Fig. 9).
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finarov (US20080297794A1) in view of Ito (WO2021181944A1) and Nagasaka (US20190121244A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iizumi (US20140017824A1).
Regarding claim 6, Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the control unit is configured to cause the measurement unit to measure the film thickness on the surface of the substrate (Nagasaka: paragraph [0095]).
As explained above in claim 1, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to perform the operations taught in Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka with the control unit which performs the same operations in Nagasaka as a control unit is necessary to dictate the operations.
Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka fails to teach the measurement unit is configured to be movable relative to the stage.
However, in the same field of endeavor of measuring thickness of a substrate, Iizumi teaches a thickness measurement unit (84, Fig. 6A) which moves relative to the stage (paragraph [0077]).
Iizumi discloses that by moving the measurement unit relative to the stage, multiple measurement points are able to be measured making the film thickness measurement more accurate (paragraph [0077]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the measurement unit taught in Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka with the moveable measurement unit taught in Iizumi in order to get more accurate thickness measurements.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finarov (US20080297794A1) in view of Ito (WO2021181944A1) and Nagasaka (US20190121244A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Iizumi (US20140017824A1) and Havener (US20200271591A1).
Regarding claim 13, Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka teaches the invention as explain above in claim 12, but fails to teach the light emitting unit is a light source configured to emit light having multiple wavelengths, and
the light receiving unit is a hyperspectral camera.
However, Iizumi teaches a light source which has multiple wavelengths (paragraphs [0154] and [0180] refer to the light source as being multiwavelength).
Iizumi discloses having a range of wavelengths ultimately leads to a more thorough thickness measurement (paragraph [0160]). Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the light source of Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka with the multiwavelength light source taught in Iizumi in order to perform a more thorough thickness measurement.
Finarov as modified by Ito and Nagasaka fails to teach the light receiving unit is a hyperspectral camera.
However, in the same field of endeavor for film inspection of a substrate, Havener teaches a hyperspectral camera being used for film inspected (paragraph [0037]).
Havener discloses that a hyperspectral camera enables multiple wavelengths to be captured simultaneously (paragraph [0102]). Capturing the multiple wavelengths taught in Finarov as modified by Ito, Nagasaka and Iizumi simultaneously would speed up the measurement system. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the measurement unit taught in Finarov as modified by Ito, Nagasaka and Iizumi with the hyperspectral camera taught in Havener in order to speed up the measurement.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finarov (US20080297794A1) in view of Ito (WO2021181944A1).
Regarding claim 14, Finarov teaches a method for measuring a film thickness of a substrate (see claim 7, which discloses the apparatus performs an associated method), comprising:
moving at least one of a stage and the top holder toward the other (Figs. 3-8 depicts the top gripper moving towards the stage), the stage including a bottom surface made of a transparent material (140, Fig. 13) and configured to hold a liquid (136, Fig. 13), and an annular member extending from the bottom surface (168, Fig. 13), and
measuring a film thickness of the substrate by a measurement unit disposed on an opposite side of the stage with respect to the top ring (134, Fig. 13; paragraphs [0032]-[0038] discloses the measurement).
Finarov fails to teach holding the substrate by a top ring having a retainer ring attached under a top ring main body and surrounding an outer periphery of the substrate; and bringing the annular member into contact with the retainer ring so as to displace the retainer ring and immerse a surface of the substrate in the liquid.
Ito, in the same field of endeavor of film thickness measurement (paragraph [0009] discloses a film thickness measurement step is taken during the polishing), teaches a movable head holding a substrate (1, Fig. 1; paragraph [0019] discloses this head is movable), including a main body (21, Fig. 4) and a retainer ring (60, Fig. 4) which surrounds the substrate (paragraph [0040]) and is able to move in a vertical direction relative to the main body (paragraph [0039]).
The thickness measurement of Finarov is done in conjunction with polishing of a substrate (paragraph [0006]). The moveable head, membrane and movable retainer ring taught in Ito have the advantage of ensuring the film on the surface of the substrate is flat (Ito: paragraph [0010]), preventing unevenness of the film. The thickness measurement of Finarov is only done in one measurement spot (Finarov: paragraph [0038]), meaning uneven polishing would result in inaccurate film thickness measurement. Further, the displacement of the retainer ring taught in Ito would naturally follow contact with the annular ring taught in Finarov as the retainer ring in Ito is designed to be displaced to enable contact with a bottom surface (Ito: paragraphs [0043]-[0046]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious prior to the effective filing date to combine the gripper taught in Finarov with the movable head, membrane and retaining ring taught in Ito to prevent inaccurate film measurement.
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 Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 11:00-8:00 ET.
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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights