DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
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) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikenaga et al. (JP 2012-222225) in view of Sakai et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2005/140975 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Ikenaga et al. teach a method comprising:
providing at least part of a transparent crystal embedded within a wall and a liner (item 17) of a processing chamber (Fig. 2),
the transparent crystal having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 2),
the distal end having a distal surface that is exposed to an interior of the processing chamber (Fig. 2);
depositing, on the distal surface of the transparent crystal, a transparent thin film comprising chemical properties substantially matching those of the liner (Film 37) (See Paragraph 0033 - [0033] The window member 33 which is one of the components of the fluorination sensor 30 is a plate-like member made of a light-transmitting material such as quartz, and is disposed on the side wall of the cylindrical portion of the vacuum vessel 1. It is installed inside the through hole so as to face the inside of the processing chamber 7. Further, on the surface of the window member 33 on the side where plasma is generated, a film 37 made of a material such as yttria similar to the inner wall member of the processing chamber 7 has a thickness of 10 nm to 10 μm. Etc. are coated and arranged. In the region of the outer surface opposite to the region of the surface on which the film 37 of the window member 33 is disposed, the reflecting plate 34 is installed in contact therewith.)
depositing, on the transparent thin film within the processing chamber, a process film layer (Fig. 4 – item 40; Paragraph 0039 -[0039] As a result, as shown in FIG. 4, a fluoride layer 40 is formed on the surface of the film 17 after the etching process is completed. Further, a CFx film or the like is deposited (not shown) on a specific surface of the inner wall of the processing chamber 7.
transmitting light, from a light source, through the proximal end of the transparent crystal (Paragraph 0034, 0035 -
[0034] The fluorination sensor 30 is provided with a light source 31 for generating infrared light or the like on the atmosphere side portion outside the window member 33, and is irradiated from the light source 31 toward the window member 33. The incident light 35 incident on the inside of the window is incident on the film 37 coated on the inner surface of the window member 33 and is reflected when it slightly penetrates into the inside of the window 37. The incident light 35 is incident on the reflector 34 and reflected again. Incident incident light 35 is thus incident and reflected a plurality of times between the film 37 and the reflecting plate 34 and moves in the window member 33, and then finally is reflected light 36 that is emitted from the outer surface of the window member 33. And enters the detector 32 disposed on the atmosphere side portion outside the window member 33.
[0035] The reflected light 36 is detected by the detector 32, and the spectrum detected from the output and the spectrum of the incident light 35 are compared by a control unit (not shown) to obtain an absorption spectrum such as a change in intensity for each wavelength of the coating 37. The composition / bonding state of the film 37 can be detected from the absorption spectrum. The S / N ratio of the absorption spectrum can be improved by increasing the number of reflections that occur between the film 37 and the reflecting plate 34.)
the light received is reflected back from a combination of the distal surface, a surface of the transparent thin film, and a surface of the process film layer (Figs. 2, 4);
detecting, a first spectrum that is representative of the process film layer.(Paragraphs 0036, 0043)
The difference between Ikenaga et al. and claim 1 is that a light coupling device is not discussed (Claim1), focusing, by the light coupling device into a fiber optic cable, received light is not discussed (Claim 1), receiving, by a spectrometer, the focused light from a fiber optic cable is not discussed (Claim 1) and detecting, by the spectrometer within the focused light, a first spectrum is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding a light coupling device (Claim 1), Sakai et al. teach a light coupling device. (Paragraph 0035)
Regarding focusing, by the light coupling device into a fiber optic cable, received light (Claim 1), Sakai et al. teach focusing, by the light coupling device into a fiber optic cable, received light. (Paragraph 0035, 0039)
Regarding receiving, by a spectrometer, the focused light from a fiber optic cable (Claim 1), Sakai et al. teach receiving, by a spectrometer, the focused light from a fiber optic cable. (Paragraphs 0039, 0044)
Regarding detecting, by the spectrometer within the focused light, a first spectrum (Claim 1), Sakai et al. teach detecting, by the spectrometer within the focused light, a first spectrum. (Paragraph 0044)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Sakai et al. is that it allows for detecting and monitoring light from an object. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Ikenaga et al. by utilizing the features of Sakai et al. because it allows for detecting and monitoring light reflected from an object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 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.
Claims 7-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2-6 are indicated as being allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed subject matter including detecting, by the spectrometer, a second spectrum from the focused light when the light source is off; receiving, by a processing device, the first spectrum and the second spectrum; subtracting, by the processing device, the second spectrum from the first spectrum to generate a reflectometry data; dividing, by the processing device, the reflectometry data by a reference spectrum to generate a reflectometry signal; and fitting, by the processing device, the reflectometry signal to a thin film optical model to determine information comprising one or more optical film property of the process film layer.
Claims 7-16 are allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach providing at least part of a transparent crystal embedded within a wall and a liner of a processing chamber; depositing a transparent thin film on a surface of the transparent crystal that is exposed to an interior of the processing chamber; depositing a process film layer on the transparent thin film; receiving light reflected back from a surface of the transparent thin film and a surface of the process film layer; detecting, by a spectrometer within the received light, a first spectrum that is representative of the process film layer; and calculating, by a processing device coupled to the spectrometer, a process drift of the processing chamber based at least in part on the first spectrum.
Claims 17-20 are allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach providing at least part of a transparent crystal embedded within a wall and a liner of a processing chamber; depositing, on a surface of the transparent crystal that is exposed to an interior of the processing chamber, a transparent thin film comprising chemical properties substantially matching those of the liner; receiving, by a spectrometer, light reflected from a surface of the transparent thin film and a surface of a process film layer deposited on the transparent thin film; detecting, by the spectrometer, a first spectrum within the received light that is representative of the process film layer; detecting, by the spectrometer, a second spectrum when a source of light is off; generating, by a processing device, a reflectometry signal based on a reference spectrum and a difference between the second spectrum and the first spectrum; and fitting, by the processing device, the reflectometry signal to a thin film optical model to determine information comprising one or more optical film property of the process film layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RMAugust 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights