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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of the claim, the phrase “humidify measurer” should be amended to read “humidity measurer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are
“An etching device configured to etch the substrate” in claims 9 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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 1-3, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ookawa (2021/0280429) in view of Togawa (JP 2020-034291).
The examiner notes that all paragraph number citations for Togawa, and any other Japanese references cited below, come from the English translation of those references provided by the applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Ookawa (Figs. 3-5) discloses a substrate thickness measuring device comprising a substrate holder 110 configured to hold a substrate T (which is a combined wafter including the processing target wafer W and the support wafer S as per paragraph 0035); a thickness measurer 150 (this is part of supply nozzle 122 in Fig. 3; see Fig. 5 for details) configured to measure a thickness of the substrate held by the substrate holder (see paragraph 0044); a housing 100 accommodating therein the substrate holder and at least a part of the thickness measurer; a temperature measurer 123 configured to measure a temperature inside the housing (see paragraph 0039); and a thickness corrector 151 configured to correct the thickness measured by the thickness measurer (see paragraph 0053, which states that the operation unit 151 corrects the thickness of the processing target wafer W based on temperature measurement data).
Ookawa fails to disclose that the thickness corrector calculates, as a corrected thickness, a product of the thickness measured by the thickness measurer and a preset correction coefficient, and changes a setting of the correction coefficient when the temperature measured by the temperature measurer falls outside of a preset allowable range.
Togawa discloses a system for optically measuring an object in three axis dimensions orthogonal to each other, which would inherently include the thickness of the object. Paragraphs 0052-0068 disclose determining a preset correction coefficient to be applied to the measurement values that involves a comparison of design values of a master workpiece Wm and actual measurement values of that master workpiece at a plurality of temperatures (see paragraph 0059) to generate a workpiece temperature correction file. A correction coefficient is then calculated via the process shown in paragraphs 0061-0068. Paragraph 0070 then states that the correction coefficient is updated as needed in accordance with the measured temperature; this would be able to meet the limitation of changing a setting of the correction coefficient when the temperature measured by the temperature measurer falls outside of a preset allowable range. The correction coefficient is used to correct the calculated thickness by multiplying the correction coefficient by measured values in the z-axis, or thickness, direction (see paragraph 0072-0077 and expression 10 in paragraph 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness corrector of Ookawa calculate, as a corrected thickness, a product of the thickness measured by the thickness measurer and a preset correction coefficient, and change a setting of the correction coefficient when the temperature measured by the temperature measurer falls out of a preset allowable range as per Togawa, the motivation being to allow for appropriate correction of the thickness of the substrate being measured in accordance with the temperature of the measurement target (see paragraph 0018), even at high temperatures (see paragraph 0077), thereby enabling accurate measurement of a substrate being manufactured.
As for claim 2, as noted above regarding claim 1, Togawa discloses that the thickness corrector sets, as the correction coefficient, a ratio t0/t1 of a previously stored standard thickness t0 of a calibration substrate to a thickness t1 of the calibration substrate measured by the thickness measurer (see paragraph 0068, specifically Formula 7, which disclose that the correction coefficient is the design values divided by measurement values of the master workpiece).
As for claim 3, as noted above regarding claim 1, Togawa discloses that when the temperature of measured by the temperature measurer falls out of the preset allowable range, the thickness corrector changes the setting of the correction coefficient by re-measuring the thickness t1 of the calibration substrate with the thickness measurer (see paragraph 0077, which states that the correction coefficient is updated as needed in accordance with the measured temperature; if that temperature falls outside of the preset allowable range, Togawa will naturally update the correction coefficient appropriately for that temperature).
As for claim 9, the combination of Ookawa and Togawa discloses a substrate processing system comprising a substrate thickness measuring device as set forth above regarding claim 1; an etching device 40, 41 configured to etch the substrate (see paragraph 0028); and a transfer device 32 configured to transfer the substrate to the substrate thickness measuring device and the etching device (see paragraph 0028 for a discussion of the wafer transfer device that transfers the wafer to the etching device, while paragraph 0034 discloses that the wafer can be carried into the housing 100 of the processing vessel shown in Fig. 3 for instance); wherein the transfer device transfers the substrate after being etched, cleaned, and dried in the etching device to the substrate thickness measuring device (see paragraphs 0076-0078, describing an etching, cleaning, and drying process).
Regarding claim 12, Ookawa (Figs. 3-5) discloses a substrate thickness measuring method of measuring a thickness of a substrate by using a substrate thickness measuring device equipped with a substrate holder 110 configured to hold a substrate T (which is a combined wafter including the processing target wafer W and the support wafer S as per paragraph 0035); a thickness measurer 150 (this is part of supply nozzle 122 in Fig. 3; see Fig. 5 for details) configured to measure a thickness of the substrate held by the substrate holder (see paragraph 0044); a housing 100 accommodating therein the substrate holder and at least a part of the thickness measurer; and a temperature measurer 123 configured to measure a temperature inside the housing (see paragraph 0039), the substrate thickness measuring method comprising calculating a corrected thickness using a thickness corrector 151 (see paragraph 0053, which states that the operation unit 151 corrects the thickness of the processing target wafer W based on temperature measurement data).
Ookawa fails to disclose calculating, as the corrected thickness, a product of the thickness measured by the thickness measurer and a preset correction coefficient, and changing a setting of the correction coefficient when the temperature measured by the temperature measurer falls outside of a preset allowable range.
Togawa discloses a method for optically measuring an object in three axis dimensions orthogonal to each other, which would inherently include the thickness of the object. Paragraphs 0052-0068 disclose determining a preset correction coefficient to be applied to the measurement values that involves a comparison of design values of a master workpiece Wm and actual measurement values of that master workpiece at a plurality of temperatures (see paragraph 0059) to generate a workpiece temperature correction file. A correction coefficient is then calculated via the process shown in paragraphs 0061-0068. Paragraph 0070 then states that the correction coefficient is updated as needed in accordance with the measured temperature; this would be able to meet the limitation of changing a setting of the correction coefficient when the temperature measured by the temperature measurer falls outside of a preset allowable range. The correction coefficient is used to correct the calculated thickness by multiplying the correction coefficient by measured values in the z-axis, or thickness, direction (see paragraph 0072-0077 and expression 10 in paragraph 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the substrate thickness measuring method of Ookawa to calculate, as the corrected thickness, a product of the thickness measured by the thickness measurer and a preset correction coefficient, and change a setting of the correction coefficient when the temperature measured by the temperature measurer falls out of a preset allowable range as per Togawa, the motivation being to allow for appropriate correction of the thickness of the substrate being measured in accordance with the temperature of the measurement target (see paragraph 0018), even at high temperatures (see paragraph 0077), thereby enabling accurate measurement of a substrate being manufactured.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ookawa (2021/0280429) in view of Togawa (JP 2020-034291) and in further view of Nimtsch et al (10,571,249).
As for claim 4, the combination of Ookawa and Togawa discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1. Ookawa further discloses that the thickness measurer is a sensor 150 that radiates light L1 towards the substrate and receives light L2 from the substrate, where the sensor includes a light source (see paragraph 0044), and that the thickness measurer is located inside the housing (see Fig. 3, showing that the sensor 150, which is part of nozzle 122, is inside the housing), but fails to disclose the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Nimtsch, in a device for measuring thickness (Fig. 1), discloses that the thickness measurer includes a probe (measuring head 1) that radiates light towards the substrate and receives light from the substrate, the probe receiving light from light source 11 and sending the light to a detector 12, with the light source and detector being connected to the probe through an optical fiber (clear from Fig. 1). While the light source and detector in Nimtsch are not shown to be in a box, the examiner notes that it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Additionally, while the probe in Ookawa is clearly shown to be inside the housing, the use of fibers to connect the light source and detector to the probe in Nimtsch suggests that light source and detector are placed away from the measurement probe, and could be outside of the housing. It has also been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness measurer of Ookawa and Togawa include a light source and detector connected to the probe through an optical fiber, the light source and detector being placed in a box outside of the housing while the probe remains inside the housing as taught by Nimtsch, the motivation being that optical fibers are well known means to transport light over larger distances without having the light be impacted by outside sources; additionally, having the light source and detector be away from the housing would insulate the light and detector from temperature changes inside the housing caused by processing of the substrate, thereby ensuring proper operation of those elements and allowing real time monitoring of the substrate to continue.
As for claim 6, while the combination of Ookawa, Togawa, and Nimtsch discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 4, the combination fails to disclose that the probe is disposed at a position where intensity of the light detected by the light detector becomes maximum.
However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86y USPQ 70. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the probe of the combined device to a location where the intensity of the detected light is maximum, the motivation being that the skilled artisan would be motivated to ensure the brightest possible light is detected to ensure accurate measurement of the thickness of the substrate.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ookawa (2021/0280429) in view of Togawa (JP 2020-034291) and in further view of Nimtsch et al (10,571,249) and Okawa (JP 2021-034533).
As for claim 5, the combination of Ookawa, Togawa, and Nimtsch discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 4, but fails to disclose a temperature controller configured to adjust a temperature inside the box.
Okawa, in a substrate processing and thickness measuring device, discloses a temperature adjusting liquid that is applied to the wafer during etching (see paragraph 0093) as a temperature controller.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a temperature controller to adjust the temperature inside the box to the combined device as per Okawa, the motivation being that suppressing the temperature decrease of the wafer W will appropriate suppress the deterioration of the etching rate, thereby allowing efficient processing of the substrate being processed (see paragraph 0093).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ookawa (2021/0280429) in view of Togawa (JP 2020-034291) and in further view of Monma et al (JP 2010-136478).
As for claim 7, Ookawa discloses a motor configured to rotate the substrate holder (see paragraph 0036), and a rotation controller (chuck driving unit 111) configured to control the motor, but fails Ookawa and Togawa fail to disclose that the rotation controller controls a supply current to the motor when a rotation of the substrate holder is stopped to be equal to or less than 5% to 20% of a supply current to the motor when the substrate holder is rotated.
Monma, while not analogous to the technology of substrate measurement, is concerned with solving a problem of smoothly stopping and starting an object placed on a rotating stage, with the stop control being applied to any type of stepping motor (see paragraph 0020 of Monma). To avoid vibration when starting the motor, Monma teaches applying a current value in the range of 5% to 20% (see paragraph 0018) when the motor is stopped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a stop current to the motor when a rotation of the substrate holder is stopped to be equal to or less than 5% to 20% of a supply current to the motor when the substrate holder is rotated in the device of Ookawa and Togawa as per Monma, the motivation being to avoid vibrations of the motor while starting and stopping the motor (see paragraph 0021), thereby allowing for increased accuracy of measurements of the substrate as the rotor of Ookawa starts or stops.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ookawa (2021/0280429) in view of Togawa (JP 2020-034291) and in further view of Katano et al (2001/0014372).
As for claim 8, Ookawa and Togawa disclose the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 1, but fail to disclose a humidity measurer configured to measure a humidity inside the housing, wherein the thickness corrector corrects the thickness measured by the thickness measurer based on the humidity measured by the humidity measurer.
Katano, in a substrate processing apparatus, discloses a temperature/humidity detector 3 (exemplified by detector 3A in Fig. 4) for monitoring the temperature and humidity of the substrate process. In paragraph 0076, Katano teaches that temperature may be compensated for according to the humidity detected by the temperature/humidity detector, not the temperature. As humidity is being measured to adjust the temperature as also taught in paragraph 0076, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use humidity instead of temperature to correct the thickness.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a humidity measurer to the device of Ookawa and Togawa as per Katano and to use the humidity information to correct the thickness measured by the thickness corrector, the motivation being to provide additional information to the thickness corrector for accurate thickness measurement as humidity can change measured values during substrate processing in addition to temperature (see paragraph 0076).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ookawa (2021/0280429) in view of Togawa (JP 2020-034291) and in further view of Sasaki et al (2006/0166503).
As for claim 10, the combination of Ookawa and Togawa discloses a substrate processing system comprising a substrate thickness measuring device as discussed above regarding claim 2, but fails to disclose a storage device configured to accommodate the calibration substrate therein, and a transfer device configured to transfer the calibration substrate to the substrate thickness measuring device and the storage device.
Sasaki discloses a substrate polishing apparatus and method including a storage device (receiver) that is configured to accommodate the calibration substrate; and a transfer device (transferring section) configured to transfer the calibration substrate to the thickness measuring device (measurement section) and the storage device (see paragraph 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a storage device configured to accommodate the calibration substrate therein, and a transfer device configured to transfer the calibration substrate to the substrate thickness measuring device and the storage device to the combination of Ookawa and Togawa as per Sasaki, the motivation being to allow for transferring the calibration substrate to the measurement section at a predetermined frequency to calibrate the measurement section in order to readily and stably maintain the accuracy of the measurement section (see paragraph 0019).
As for claim 11, Ookawa discloses an etching device 40, 41 configured to etch the substrate (see paragraph 0028); and a transfer device 32 configured to transfer the substrate to the substrate thickness measuring device and the etching device (see paragraph 0028 for a discussion of the wafer transfer device that transfers the wafer to the etching device, while paragraph 0034 discloses that the wafer can be carried into the housing 100 of the processing vessel shown in Fig. 3 for instance); wherein the transfer device transfers the substrate after being etched, cleaned, and dried in the etching device to the substrate thickness measuring device (see paragraphs 0076-0078, describing an etching, cleaning, and drying process). This process would also apply for the calibration substate of Sasaki, as paragraph 0054 of Sasaki teaches performing the same functions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0016720 to Nakamura discloses a polishing apparatus and method for monitoring film thickness of a conductive film based on an eddy current sensor (see abstract), and US 2022/0392814 to Watanabe et al. teaches a temperature correction information calculation device as pat of a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 22, 2026