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
Claims 3 and 5-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3: On Lines 8-9, the Examiner assumes that “transmittance of the variable optical attenuator” should actually be --transmittance of the at least one variable optical attenuator--.
Claim 5: On Line 5, the Examiner assumes that “measure laser power of laser” should actually be --measure the laser power of a laser--.
Claim 5: On Line 11, the Examiner assumes that “transmittance of the variable optical attenuator” should actually be --transmittance of the at least one variable optical attenuator--.
Claim 5: On Lines 12-13, the Examiner assumes that “transmittance of the variable optical attenuator” should actually be --transmittance of the at least one variable optical attenuator--.
Claim 6: On Line 4, the Examiner assumes that “measure laser power of laser” should actually be --measure the laser power of a laser--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US 2014/0009755), hereinafter Shibata, in view of Otani et al. (US 2013/0277553), hereinafter Otani.
Claim 1: Shibata discloses an optical-type foreign matter inspection device (Fig. 1) that inspects a foreign matter on a surface of a sample (1), the optical-type foreign matter inspection device comprising:
a rotary stage (3) that is driven to rotate and on which the sample (1) is placed [0031];
a laser light source (10) configured to irradiate the surface of the sample (1) with a laser beam [0032];
a variable optical attenuator (15/25) configured to adjust a light amount of the laser beam [0035,0044];
a sensor (41,46,51,56) configured to detect light scattered or reflected from the surface of the sample (1) [0038];
an A/D conversion circuit (60,65,70,75) configured to convert an intensity of light received by the sensor (41,46,51,56) into a digital pixel based on an output signal of the sensor (41,46,51,56) [0038];
a data processor (80) configured to receive an output signal of the A/D conversion circuit (60,65,70,75) and coordinate information output from the rotary stage (3) and associate the coordinate information with the output signal of the A/D conversion circuit (60,65,70,75) to output the associated information as detection data [0038]; and
an attenuator controller (95) configured to control transmittance of the variable optical attenuator (15/25) based on the coordinate information [0035].
Shibata discloses a variable optical attenuator (15) and a polarizer (25), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the inspection device comprises variable optical attenuators of two or more stages.
Otani, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical defect inspection, discloses wherein a polarizer is functionally equivalent with an attenuator, and that rotation of the polarizer allows for modulation of the intensity transmitted through the polarizer [0103].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Shibata’s polarizer with a second variable optical attenuator since they are functional equivalents. It would have been obvious to modify Shibata’s inspection device in this manner so that the intensity control of the two attenuators can be more easily synchronized if desired.
Claim 2: Shibata further discloses wherein
the attenuator controller (95) has a function of controlling the plurality of variable optical attenuators (15/25) independently and sequentially (Shibata gives no indication that the control of all the attenuation elements must be done as a single unit [0035]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, in view of Otani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oshima et al. (US 2008/0151235), hereinafter Oshima.
Claim 3: Shibata does not explicitly disclose wherein
at least one of the variable optical attenuators includes a 1/2 wavelength plate and a polarized beam splitter.
Oshima, however, in the same field of endeavor of wafer inspection systems, discloses an optical-type foreign matter inspection device comprising:
a variable optical attenuator (3) configured to adjust a light amount of a laser beam [0025], wherein
the variable optical attenuator (3) includes a 1/2 wavelength plate and a polarized beam splitter [0025], and
an angle of the 1/2 wavelength plate is changeable by a stepping motor (implicit [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shibata’s variable optical attenuator to comprise a ½ wavelength plate and a polarized beam splitter for the purpose of allowing simple adjustment of the amount of transmitted light by rotating the ½ wavelength plate (Oshima [0025]).
Shibata further discloses wherein the attenuator controller (95) includes
a linear speed processor configured to calculate a linear speed based on the coordinate information (Fig. 14A) [0043], and
a transmittance table for determining a transmittance of the variable optical attenuator (15/25) based on the linear speed (center of wafer or outside the radial direction r0) (Fig. 14B) [0044].
In the modified inspection device, Shibata discloses an angle conversion table for determining an angle of the 1/2 wavelength plate based on the transmittance (“permitting adjustment of the amount of light”, Oshima [0025]), and
a pulse generator configured to output a control pulse to the stepping motor based on the angle (Oshima [0033]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, in view of Otani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oshima and Fairley et al. (US 2008/0225298), hereinafter Fairley.
Claim 5: Shibata does not explicitly disclose wherein
at least one of the variable optical attenuators includes a 1/2 wavelength plate and a polarized beam splitter.
Oshima, however, in the same field of endeavor of wafer inspection systems, discloses an optical-type foreign matter inspection device comprising:
a variable optical attenuator (3) configured to adjust a light amount of a laser beam [0025], wherein
the variable optical attenuator (3) includes a 1/2 wavelength plate and a polarized beam splitter [0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shibata’s variable optical attenuator to comprise a ½ wavelength plate and a polarized beam splitter for the purpose of allowing simple adjustment of the amount of transmitted light by rotating the ½ wavelength plate (Oshima [0025]).
Shibata is also silent with respect to a laser power monitor.
Fairley, however, in the same field of endeavor of wafer inspection systems, discloses an optical-type foreign matter inspection device (Fig. 5) that includes:
a laser power monitor configured to measure the laser power of a laser reflected by a polarized beam splitter [0118];
a laser power memory configured to record reference laser power (implicit in the initial calibration of the system [0118]);
a power difference calculation processor configured to calculate a difference between the measured laser power and the reference laser power (implicit in the measurement of leakage to “make appropriate adjustments” [0118]); and
a correction value deriving processor configured to derive a correction value of a light level based on the difference (“control both stages of the light level control” [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shibata’s inspection device with a laser power monitor for the purpose of ensuring a steady intensity of light so that neither the sample nor the sensor are damaged by oversaturation. In Shibata’s modified device, it is evident that the correction value deriving processor would be configured to derive a correction value of a transmittance of the variable optical attenuator (15/25).
It is furthermore evident that Shibata’s attenuator controller (95) further controls the transmittance of the variable optical attenuator (15/25) based on the correction value since it is “used in a feedback loop to control the system light level” (Fairley [0118]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, in view of Otani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fairley, Togashi et al. (US 2008/0007725), hereinafter Togashi, and Weidmann et al. (US 2015/0226665), hereinafter Weidmann.
Claim 6: Shibata further discloses:
a half mirror (30) configured to reflect a part of the laser beam radiated to the sample (1) [0038].
Shibata is silent with respect to a laser power monitor.
Fairley, however, in the same field of endeavor of wafer inspection systems, discloses an optical-type foreign matter inspection device (Fig. 5) that includes:
a laser power monitor configured to measure the laser power of a laser reflected by an optical element [0118];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shibata’s inspection device with a laser power monitor for the purpose of ensuring a steady intensity of light so that neither the sample nor the sensor are damaged by oversaturation.
Shibata does not explicitly disclose a foreign matter determination processor.
Togashi, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical wafer inspection, discloses an inspection device comprising:
a foreign matter determination processor configured to compare an output signal of an A/D conversion circuit with a foreign matter threshold and output foreign matter information indicating whether a foreign matter is present [0063], but is silent with respect to determining the foreign matter threshold based on laser power.
Weidmann, however, although not in the same field of endeavor, is nevertheless concerned with the same problem of compensating for fluctuations in an optical measurement system. Weidmann discloses an optical measurement system comprising:
a threshold processor configured to determine a threshold based on laser power [0013].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Togashi’s inspection device with a threshold processor to determine a power-based threshold for the purpose of accurately accounting for variations in sample irradiation.
It would have been furthermore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shibata’s inspection device with a foreign matter determination processor for the purpose of accurately and consistently characterizing the sample under interrogation.
In the modified inspection device, Shibata discloses a foreign matter coordinate processor configured to output the coordinate information and the foreign matter information in association with each other (implicit since these data are linked with the coordinate-based threshold determination).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, in view of Otani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Togashi and Kim et al. (US 5,416,512), hereinafter Kim.
Claim 7: Shibata does not explicitly disclose a foreign matter determination processor.
Togashi, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical wafer inspection, discloses an inspection device comprising:
a foreign matter determination processor configured to compare an output signal of an A/D conversion circuit with a foreign matter threshold and output foreign matter information indicating whether a foreign matter is present [0063], but is silent with respect to determining the foreign matter threshold based on coordinate information.
Kim, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection systems, discloses an inspection system comprising:
a threshold processor configured to determine a threshold based on coordinate information (Col. 7, Lines 24-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Togashi’s inspection device with a threshold processor to determine a coordinate-based threshold for the purpose of accurately accounting for different criteria further from the center of a sample.
It would have been furthermore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shibata’s inspection device with a foreign matter determination processor for the purpose of accurately and consistently characterizing the sample under interrogation.
In the modified inspection device, Shibata discloses a foreign matter coordinate processor configured to output the coordinate information and the foreign matter information in association with each other (implicit since these data are linked with the coordinate-based threshold determination).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, in view of Otani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oshima and Biellak et al. (US 8,294,887), hereinafter Biellak.
Claim 8: Shibata does not explicitly disclose wherein
at least one of the variable optical attenuators includes a 1/2 wavelength plate and a polarized beam splitter.
Oshima, however, in the same field of endeavor of wafer inspection systems, discloses an optical-type foreign matter inspection device comprising:
a variable optical attenuator (3) configured to adjust a light amount of a laser beam [0025], wherein
the variable optical attenuator (3) includes a 1/2 wavelength plate and a polarized beam splitter [0025], and
an angle of the 1/2 wavelength plate is changeable by a stepping motor (implicit [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shibata’s variable optical attenuator to comprise a ½ wavelength plate and a polarized beam splitter for the purpose of allowing simple adjustment of the amount of transmitted light by rotating the ½ wavelength plate (Oshima [0025]).
Shibata does not explicitly disclose wherein
at least one another one of the variable optical attenuators includes an electro-optical element and a polarized beam splitter.
Biellak, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical wafer inspection, discloses an inspection device comprising:
a variable optical attenuator (26) configured to adjust a light amount of a laser beam (Col. 22, Lines 28-31), wherein
the variable optical attenuator (26) includes an electro-optical element (200) and a polarized beam splitter (210) (Col. 22, Lines 31-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shibata’s variable optical attenuator to comprise an electro-optical component and a polarized beam splitter for the purpose of providing for “extremely fast laser power attenuation” (Biellak, Col. 22, Lines 44-47).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4: None of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the optical-type foreign matter inspection device according to claim 1, wherein
the attenuator controller includes
a stage signal counter configured to count a stage encoder signal from the rotary stage,
a coordinate table that stores one or more angle change thresholds for changing the angle of the 1/2 wavelength plate, and
a pulse generator configured to output a control pulse to the stepping motor when a count value of the stage encoder signal matches any one of the angle change thresholds,
in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 4.
Claim 9: None of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the optical-type foreign matter inspection device according to claim 8, further comprising:
a large-diameter foreign matter determination processor configured to output foreign matter information indicating whether a large-diameter foreign matter is present based on the output signal of the A/D conversion circuit;
a voltage calculation processor configured to determine a first voltage and a second voltage based on the measured laser power;
a first variable voltage source configured to output the first voltage;
a second variable voltage source configured to output the second voltage; and
a voltage switch configured to switch which of the first variable voltage source and the second variable voltage source is to be used based on the foreign matter information, wherein
the attenuator controller controls a polarization direction of the laser beam by connecting either one of the first variable voltage source and the second variable voltage source to the electro-optical element,
in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 9.
Claim 10: None of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the optical-type foreign matter inspection device according to claim 8, further comprising:
a large-diameter foreign matter determination processor configured to output foreign matter information indicating whether a large-diameter foreign matter is present based on the output signal of the A/D conversion circuit;
a voltage calculation processor configured to determine a first voltage and a second voltage based on the coordinate information;
a first variable voltage source configured to output the first voltage;
a second variable voltage source configured to output the second voltage; and
a voltage switch configured to switch which of the first variable voltage source and the second variable voltage source is to be used based on the foreign matter information, wherein
the attenuator controller controls a polarization direction of the laser beam by connecting either one of the first variable voltage source and the second variable voltage source to the electro-optical element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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 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.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877