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
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2007/0146685 A1) in view of Xu et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2012/0327414 A1) further in view of Arnoult et al. (WO 2018/215507 A1, where the examiner is using U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0158497 A1 as an English language equivalent for citations) further in view of Finarov (U.S. PGPub No. 2007/0258092 A1).
As to claims 1, and 10, Yoo discloses and shows in figures 1, 7 and 8, an instrument for measuring surface curvature of a sample, the instrument comprising ([0009], ll. 3-6)
a single light source (620) and a mask (609, as disclosed can be mask) arranged between the light source and the surface of the sample (610), the light source is configured to illuminate the mask so as to generate by transmission through the mask a light beam incident on the surface of the sample and to form a light beam reflected by the sample (explicitly shown in figure 7) ([0058], ll. 3-12),
wherein the mask has a transparent background and opaque patterns arranged at predetermined position on the mask surface, the opaque patterns of the mask having a total surface area smaller than the surface area of the transparent background,
the instrument comprising an imaging system (717) and a camera (718), the imaging system and the camera being suitable to receive at least one part of the reflected light beam and to form an image of the mask by reflection on the sample (explicitly shown in figure 7) ([0062], ll. 1-6),
an image processing system (140) being suitable to process the image of the mask by reflection on the sample surface, calculate the respective positions of the patterns in said image and to compare the predetermined positions (i.e. pattern positions in ideal sample/pattern) of the patterns of the mask with the calculated positions of the patterns in the image, ([0009], ll. 3-6; [0046]; [0057]).
Yoo does not explicitly disclose wherein the mask has a transparent background and opaque patterns arranged at predetermined position on the mask surface, the opaque patterns of the mask having a total surface area smaller than the surface area of the transparent background.
However, Xu does disclose in ([0028]) the basic concept of using a transparent mask where the pattern is generated by using opaque dots to generate the pattern. Obviously this can be combined with the pattern in the upper left or middle left of figure 8 of Yoo to yield a mask that has far less total surface area for the opaque spots that form the dots then the transparent background (commonly a square/rectangle around the dots as shown in figure 1B of Xu.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo wherein the mask has a transparent background and opaque patterns arranged at predetermined position on the mask surface, the opaque patterns of the mask having a total surface area smaller than the surface area of the transparent background in order to provide the advantage of expected results, one having ordinary skill in the art recognizes that there are two common and simple ways to construct a mask, either you make the base material transparent and the pattern opaque, or the base material opaque and the pattern transparent, using either method is one of two predictable manners in which to accurately produce a pattern on the sample under test.
Yoo in view of Xu fails to disclose where the curvature calculation is specifically at least one radius of surface curvature of the sample.
However, Arnoult does disclose in ([0079]) using the radius of curvature as a form of calculation to use when measuring a pattern reflected off a sample under test.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo in view of Xu where the curvature calculation is specifically at least one radius of surface curvature of the sample in order to provide the advantage of increased versatility in obviously adding a radius of curvature measurement one can more precisely characterize the sample under test by providing an additional metric by which one can judge or review the sample under test.
Yoo in view of Xu further in view of Arnoult does not explicitly disclose an instrument, further comprising an optical beam splitter and a spectrometer, wherein the optical beam splitter being arranged so as to receive the reflected light beam and to transmit one part of the reflected beam towards the imaging system and another part of the reflected light beam towards the spectrometer, the spectrometer being suitable for measuring a power of the other part of the reflected light beam.
However, Xu does disclose and show in figures 1A, 1C and ([0012], ll. 15-22; [0035]; [0039], ll. 16-24; [0047]; [0049]) the use of a spectrometer to measure the reflectance “power” (i.e. signal measured) of a sample under test. Where a processor 260 is used to process the power measurements from the sample under test to deduce spectral reflectivity (i.e. spectral/surface reflectance). In some cases where that sample is a wafer to measure features therein. Xu does teach using a beam splitter 107a-c, however not in a clear way where the splitter relays light to two measurements systems. Additionally, this is one obvious technique known in the art as evidenced by Finarov in figure 4a and in ([0073]; [0083]; [0087]) that it is common to run two measurement schemes (i.e. imaging detector 107, and light detector 12) from the same light reflectance beam via a simple beamsplitter 406. As such one can better characterize the sample under test.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo in view of Xu further in view of Arnoult with an instrument, further comprising an optical beam splitter and a spectrometer, wherein the optical beam splitter being arranged so as to receive the reflected light beam and to transmit one part of the reflected beam towards the imaging system and another part of the reflected light beam towards the spectrometer, the spectrometer being suitable for measuring a power of the other part of the reflected light beam in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy, in using a spectrometer in addition to the detection scheme of Yoo one can more accurately detail the sample under test, and obviously it is more efficient to do so via a common optical setup of using a beam splitter to relay light to each detecting scheme reducing overall processing time in comparison with a sequential measurement scheme.
The subject matter of claims 1 and 10 relate in that the technical features of apparatus claim 1 are in each case suitable for implementing the method of claim 10, therefore the method is obvious in view of the above apparatus rejection.
As to claim 2, Yoo in view of Xu further in view of Arnoult does not explicitly disclose an instrument, wherein the opaque patterns of the mask have a total surface area less than 15%, 10%, 5%, or 1% of the mask surface area.
However, Yoo does disclose the use of a pattern implementation of just 5 dots. Further when taking into account the teachings of Yoo’s other patterns it can be seen that the mask would be a square one that is substantially larger as shown in the two patterns to the right of the 5 dots in figure 8. Further, Xu shows a similar pattern profile as already modified via figure 1B. All of the evidence would clearly support that the 5 dots would take up less than 15% of the mask as a whole (e.g. comparing the size of the mask encompassing the pattern directly to the right of the 5 dots, the area of a similar mask size that only had the 5 dots would be less than 15% of the total mask surface area). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a total surface area less than 15%, 10%, 5%, or 1% of the mask surface area. 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.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo in view of Xu further in view of Arnoult with an instrument, wherein the opaque patterns of the mask have a total surface area less than 15%, 10%, 5%, or 1% of the mask surface area in order to provide the advantage of expected results in that obviously using one mask blank size for various patterns is a more efficient processing technique, and as a result when the pattern is simplistic as taught by Yoo it results in the above noted surface area requirements. Further the less dots used by the mask while maintaining sufficient accuracy results in lower processing requirements for wafer characterization.
As to claim 3, Yoo is modified by Xu discloses an instrument, wherein the mask patterns are arranged as a two-dimensional periodic matrix (explicitly shown in figure 8 of Yoo via multiple two-dimensional periodic matrix patterns).
As to claim 5 and 7, Yoo in view of Xu further in view of Arnoult does not explicitly disclose an instrument, wherein the optical beam splitter comprises a plate beam splitter having an optical power distribution of 50-50, 40-60, 30-70, 10-90 or 20-80 or where wherein the instrument comprises a signal processing system suitable for receiving a power measurement of the reflected beam detected by the spectrometer and deducing therefrom a spectral reflectivity of the sample.
However, Xu does disclose and show in figures 1A, 1C and ([0012], ll. 15-22; [0035]; [0039], ll. 16-24; [0047]; [0049]) the use of a spectrometer to measure the reflectance “power” (i.e. signal measured) of a sample under test. Where a processor 260 is used to process the power measurements from the sample under test to deduce spectral reflectivity (i.e. spectral/surface reflectance). In some cases where that sample is a wafer to measure features therein. Xu does teach using a beam splitter 107a-c, however not in a clear way where the splitter relays light to two measurements systems. However, this is one obvious technique known in the art as evidenced by Finarov in figure 4a and in ([0073]; [0083]; [0087]) that it is common to run two measurement schemes (i.e. imaging detector 107, and light detector 12) from the same light reflectance beam via a simple beamsplitter 406. As such one can better characterize the sample under test. The examiner lastly takes Office notice that 50-50 beam splitter or any of the other configurations as claimed are obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to relay a sufficient amount of light to each detector for the particular measurement scheme.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo in view of Xu further in view of Arnoult wherein the optical beam splitter comprises a plate beam splitter having an optical power distribution of 50-50, 40-60, 30-70, 10-90 or 20-80 or where wherein the instrument comprises a signal processing system suitable for receiving a power measurement of the reflected beam detected by the spectrometer and deducing therefrom a spectral reflectivity of the sample in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy, in using a spectrometer in addition to the detection scheme of Yoo one can more accurately detail the sample under test, and obviously it is more efficient to do so via a common optical setup of using a beam splitter to relay light to each detecting scheme reducing overall processing time in comparison with a sequential measurement scheme.
As to claim 8, Yoo does not explicitly disclose an instrument, wherein the light source comprises a single light source, chosen among a halogen lamp or a light-emitting diode.
However, Xu does disclose in ([0025]) that one of many common light sources used in illuminating a sample under test can be a light-emitting diode or a halogen lamp.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo with an instrument, wherein the light source comprises a single light source, chosen among a halogen lamp or a light-emitting diode in order to provide the advantage of expected results and reduction in cost as is well-known in the optical art some of the most common light sources are either LED light sources or halogen lamps which in being widely available are also likewise low in cost to use.
As to claim 9, Yoo discloses a use of an instrument according to claim 1, in combination with a treatment apparatus for measurements in situ ([0066], where the examiner is interpreting the delivery cassette system as a “treatment apparatus”).
As to claim 11, Yoo discloses a method for performing measurements in situ, the method comprising: providing the instrument of claim 1, and using said instrument in combination with a treatment apparatus for measurements in situ ([0066]; where the examiner is interpreting the delivery and retrieval cassettes as part of a “treatment apparatus”, as further noted in [0038], the wafer is either patterned or unpatterned and the cassette are being interpreted as part of the “treatment apparatus” that delivers patterned wafers)
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. in view of Xu et al. in view of Arnoult et al. in view of Finarov further in view of Chhibber et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2004/0207836 A1).
As to claim 6, Yoo in view of Xu in view of Arnoult further in view of Finarov does not explicitly disclose an instrument, wherein the instrument includes another sensor arranged to measure a power of a light beam scattered by the sample and a signal processing system suitable for extracting from the scattered light measurement a measurement of the surface roughness of the sample.
However, Chhibber does disclose and show in figure 5 and in ([0098]; [0111], ll. 22-27) the use of a common scattering light measurement system that measures surface roughness (i.e. polish roughness) of the sample under test, where a control computer (i.e. signal processing system) determines the noted roughness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoo in view of Xu in view of Arnoult further in view of Finarov with an instrument, wherein the instrument includes another sensor arranged to measure a power of a light beam scattered by the sample and a signal processing system suitable for extracting from the scattered light measurement a measurement of the surface roughness of the sample in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy and using a high precision and hive dynamic range detection scheme as noted by Chhibber one can further detail and characterize the sample under test in a reliable, compact and low cost manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner notes that in many cases where applicant details the references individually and point to particular claim elements not being found in the respective prior art, the examiner agrees which is why the rejection was presented as a 103 rejection where those additional elements were addressed by different references. The examiner will address the arguments that are related to limitations actually in the references used to teach those limitations. Any limitations argued by applicant that are not cited as being taught by the respective reference will be considered moot.
As to applicant’s argument that Yoo fails to teach “calculate respective positions of the patterns in said image”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In ([0057]) Yoo specifically calls out comparing the pattern of a “perfect” sample to that of a measured sample, further where the spots have sharp edges and “where the position of the spots may be calculated”. Further Yoo discloses that “the positions may deviate from the calculated position” and finally that the result is “compared to a result for an ideal sample and/or pattern”. As such it is believed now that it is explicitly pointed out, Yoo can in no way be said to not read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language noted by applicant.
In response to applicant's argument that the reference Xu fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., macroscopic property) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In fact the examiner is unclear as to why applicant would attempt to rely in any manner on the size of the property under measure, as nothing in the claim in any way clearly defines some dimension of the property under measure. For this reason the rejection has been maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the reference Xu fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., real-time measurement) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In fact the examiner is unclear as to why applicant would attempt to rely on the timing of the claim, as nothing in any manner defines within the claim a time based requirement that the claim be in “real-time”. For this reason the rejection has been maintained.
The examiner notes that under the section “Combination of References” applicant again reiterates that the prior art fails to teach taking measurements “at a macroscopic scale, simultaneously and in real time”. None of the language itself, or even an overly narrow interpretation of the claims could somehow require any of those three limitations. As such the arguments are considered moot and the rejection is being maintained.
As to the argument that the prior art fails to disclose using “a single light source”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is constructed with the transition phrase “comprising” meaning that the system/method requires what is equivalent to “at least” the structures/step following. As such the addition of the word “single” merely requires that at least one single light source is present. It does not require as applicant seems to be imply that only a single light source is allowed. As such clearly the prior art meets the limitation and the rejection has been maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The examiner notes that there may well be scale differences between the prior art, but generally speaking the modifications were from small specific areas of each reference. For example masks used in optical measuring and testing can be used at any scale. Even if there is a smaller scale in for example Xu when forming a mask, the only objective by the examiner was to show that using masks with a particular opaque/transparent form is known in the art. This obviously can be applied at any scale and is only a teaching of a particular form of a mask.
The examiner is unclear with respect to applicant’s argument of through-hole 104C. Applicant firstly seems to be forming a new 103 rejection for the examiner stating that through-holes that have opaque backgrounds and transparent masks are known and have distinct advantages as noted by applicant (i.e. useful in Nomarski and polarized light imaging). Then somehow concluding that this new rejection would teach away from the claimed solution. Since this argument is not based on the current rejection and one constructed by applicant it is considered moot and the rejection as presented above is still being maintained.
As to applicant’s argument that multiple measurements may be desirable, but not feasible based on different scales, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the premise of the argument. Firstly the claim requires nothing in any manner related to scale. Secondly, applicant has failed to provide any evidence of varying scale between the references being macroscopic vs microscopic. Thirdly, again the reference measurements or more precisely the systems of all of the prior art of record are not all being combined in to one large system. Instead the rejection above takes particular aspects of each reference and modifies them in to the primary reference with a corresponding motivation. For example a particular mask design of Xu, not the whole measurement system, but simply a manner in which a mask can be created. As already noted above this is the predictable manner in which to construct a mask to pattern light to a sample under test. Applicant has failed to argue the particulars of each motivation or modification a manner which the examiner can respond to. Instead the arguments are generally directed at features which are not claimed. For example the measurements of Xu “cannot even be performed simultaneously”, is not found persuasive, as already noted above, it is not a requirement for the instant claim language.
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 MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 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 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 P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877