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 .
Response to Amendment
The current Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on July 31, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 9-11, filed July 31, 2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn. Applicant has corrected the minor informalities.
Applicant's arguments filed July 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claim 8, Applicant argues that the claim has been amended in line with the Examiner’s claim interpretation. However, the amended claim contains indefinite claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein it is determined that a void exists when the integrated value is less than a predetermined range or is less than a predetermined threshold, and it is determined that a void does not exist when the integrated value is within the predetermined range or is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold” renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to define what is being referred to as “it”. As currently written, the limitation is narrative and fails to particularly point out what the term “it” is. The Examiner has interpreted the limitation as wherein “wherein a void exists when the integrated value is less than a predetermined range or is less than a predetermined threshold, and a void does not exist when the integrated value is within the predetermined range or is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, and 9-20 are allowable.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1:
Chen discloses a determination method comprising:
a post-embedding measurement step for performing spectroscopic measurement (Fig. 12, 1210) on a substrate in which a pattern including a recess (Fig. 1, gap between 102) is formed (Fig. 12, irradiating a wafer), the recess having an embedding material embedded therein (Fig. 7, material absorbance measures different materials), and measuring an absorbance spectrum of the substrate having the embedding material embedded therein (Fig. 7, material absorbance); and
a determination step for determining an embedded state of the recess (Fig. 12, 1240).
However, Chen fails to disclose a determination step for determining an embedded state of the recess based on an integrated value of an intensity of the measured absorbance spectrum of the substrate at a plurality of wavenumbers.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten to overcome the objections above. Claims 2-7, and 9-17 are allowable by virtue of their dependency. Regarding claim 18:
Chen discloses A substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a light source (Fig. 11, 1120) configured to emit light (Fig. 11, 1121, 1122, and 1124) to a substrate in which a pattern including a recess (Fig. 11 and Fig. 1) is formed and an embedding material is embedded in the recess recesses;
a light receiving mechanism (Fig. 11, 1160) configured to receive transmitted light emitted from the light source and transmitted through the substrate or reflected light emitted from the light source and reflected by the substrate (Fig. 11, light is transmitted through the substrate); and
a controller (Fig. 11, 1110),
wherein the controller executes:
measuring an absorbance spectrum (Fig. 7, material absorbance) of the substrate in which the embedding material is embedded from the reflected light or the transmitted light received by the light receiving mechanism (Fig. 7, material absorbance); and
determining an embedded state of the recess (Fig. 12, 1240).
However, Chen fails to disclose measuring an absorbance spectrum based on a integrated value of an intensity at a plurality of wavenumbers of the measured absorbance spectrum of the substrate.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach the details above, nor is there any reason to modify or combine prior art elements absent of applicant’s disclosure, the claim is deemed patentable over the prior art of record, if rewritten to overcome the objections above. Claims 19-20 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SOORENA KEFAYATI whose telephone number is (469)295-9078. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, David Makiya can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2884 .
/DAVID J MAKIYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights