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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 17, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20050174583 A1 (Chalmers).
Regarding claim 1, Chalmers teaches a spectroscopic ellipsometer, comprising: a light source configured to emit light (figs. 12-13 element 3, para [0123]); a polarizer configured to polarize the light emitted from the light source (figs. 12-13 element 1210, para [0123]); a substrate support supporting a substrate (figs. 12-13 element 2 supports substrate 1d, para [0123]); a polarization analysis assembly that is rotatable and optically connected to the substrate support (figs. 12-13 element 1220, para [0123]); and a spectroscope configured to disperse the light from the polarization analysis assembly, wherein the spectroscope comprises: a lens configured to change a propagation path of the light from the polarization analysis assembly (figs. 12 element 6, para [0062]); a line slit assembly comprising a slit extending linearly and configured to extract a portion of the light from the lens (fig. 12 element 5, fig. 2, para [0071]); a spectral dispersion device configured to disperse the light from the line slit assembly (fig. 12 element 7, fig. 2, para [0071]); and a plane detector optically connected to the spectral dispersion device and configured to continuously detect the dispersed light that is dispersed by the spectral dispersion device (this is shown in fig. 2, para [0071]), wherein the slit comprises a plurality of slit regions, each slit region of the plurality of slit regions corresponding to a different region of the substrate (the slit regions corresponds to elements 14a-c and 15a-c), wherein the plane detector comprises a plurality of detectors arranged in a first direction and a second direction (fig. 2 “spectral dimension” and “spatial dimension”), wherein, “along the first direction toward an end of the plane detector, a wavelength of light detected by the plurality of detectors increase” (fig. 2 para [0071]), “wherein the plurality of detectors arranged along the second direction respectively detect light passing through the plurality of slit regions” (this is shown in fig. 2, para [0071]), and wherein the second direction of the plane detector is a spatial direction corresponding to the different regions of the substrate (this is shown in fig. 2, para [0071]).
Regarding claim 8, Chalmers teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 1, “wherein the lens comprises a first collimating lens and a second collimating lens configured to control a propagation direction of the light from the polarization analysis assembly, and wherein the line slit assembly is between the first collimating lens and the second collimating lens” (these are elements 4 and 6 in fig. 12, para [0070] lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 10, Chalmers teaches a spectroscopic ellipsometer, comprising: a light source configured to emit light (figs. 12-13 element 3, para [0123]); a polarizer configured to polarize the light emitted from the light source (figs. 12-13 element 1210, para [0123]); a substrate support configured to support a substrate (figs. 12-13 element 2 supports substrate 1d, para [0123]); a rotatable analyzer configured to determine a degree of polarization of the light from the polarizer and a position of a polarization plane (figs. 12-13 element 1220, para [0123], para [0124] lines 12-18); and a spectroscope configured to disperse the light from the rotatable analyzer (fig. 12 element 7, see also fig. 2), wherein the spectroscope comprises: a first collimating lens configured to concentrate the light from the rotatable analyzer to form an image (figs. 2 and 12, element 4); a second collimating lens that is spaced apart from the first collimating lens and configured to parallel propagate the light from the first collimating lens (figs. 2 and 12, element 6); a line slit assembly between the first collimating lens and the second collimating lens and comprising a slit extending linearly (figs. 2 and 12, element 5); a spectral dispersion device optically connected to the second collimating lens and configured to disperse the light from the second collimating lens (fig. 12 element 7, see also fig. 2); and “a plane detector optically connected to the spectral dispersion device and configured to continuously detect the dispersed light from the spectral dispersion device” (figs. 2 and 12 element 8), “wherein the slit comprises a plurality of slit regions, each slit region of the plurality of slit regions corresponding to a different region of the substrate” (fig. 2, the slit regions corresponds to elements 14a-c and 15a-c), “wherein the plane detector comprises a plurality of detectors arranged in a first direction and a second direction” (fig. 2 “spectral dimension” and “spatial dimension”), and “wherein, along the first direction toward an end of the plane detector, a wavelength of light detected by the plurality of detectors increases” (this is shown in fig. 2 along “spectral dimension”), “wherein the plurality of detectors arranged along the second direction respectively detect light passing through the plurality of slit regions” (this is shown in fig. 2 along “spatial dimension”), and wherein the second direction of the plane detector is a spatial direction corresponding to the different regions of the substrate (this is shown in fig. 2 along “spatial dimension”).
Regarding claim 17, Chalmers teaches a substrate analysis method, comprising: providing a substrate on a spectroscopic ellipsometer (para [0121]); and analyzing the substrate (this is fig. 12), wherein the spectroscopic ellipsometer comprises: a light source configured to emit light (figs. 12-13 element 3, para [0123]); a polarizer configured to polarize the light emitted from the light source (figs. 12-13 element 1210, para [0123]); a substrate support configured to support the substrate (figs. 12-13 element 2 supports substrate 1d, para [0123]); a rotatable polarization analysis assembly configured to determine information about polarization of the light from the substrate support (figs. 12-13 element 1220, para [0123], para [0124] lines 12-18); and a spectroscope configured to disperse the light from the rotatable polarization analysis assembly (figs. 2 and 12 element 7), wherein the spectroscope comprises: a line slit assembly comprising a slit extending linearly (figs. 2 and 12 element 5); a spectral dispersion device configured to disperse the light from the line slit assembly (figs. 2 and 12 element 7); and a plane detector optically connected to the spectral dispersion device (figs. 2 and 12 element 8) and comprising a plurality of detectors arranged in a first direction and a second direction (figs. 2 and 12 element 8; fig. 2 “spectral dimension” and “spatial dimension”), wherein the rotatable polarization analysis assembly comprises an analyzer configured to determine the information about the polarization of the light from the substrate support (figs. 12-13 element 1220, para [0123], para [0124] lines 12-18, wherein the slit comprises a first slit region and a second slit region (fig. 2, this corresponds to 14a-c and 15a-c), wherein the substrate comprises: a first substrate region corresponding to the first slit region (fig. 2, this corresponds to 14a-c); and a second substrate region corresponding to the second slit region (fig. 2, this corresponds to 15a-c), and wherein the plurality of detectors arranged along the second direction respectively detect light passing through the first slit region and the second slit region (this is shown in fig. 2 element 8), wherein the second direction of the plane detector is a spatial direction (this is shown in fig. 2 element 8) corresponding to the first substrate region and the second substrate region (this is shown in fig. 2 element 8), wherein the analyzing the substrate comprises: rotating the rotatable polarization analysis assembly (figs. 12-13 element 1220, para [0123], para [0124] lines 12-18); measuring a continuous variation in intensity in accordance with a wavelength of the light caused by rotation of the rotatable polarization analysis assembly (figs. 12-13 element 1220, para [0123], para [0124] lines 12-18); “measuring a first Fourier coefficient of the first slit region and a second Fourier coefficient of the second slit region” (these are claims 48 and 49; the Fourier transform have the coefficient); “determining a first elliptical polarization coefficient of the first slit region based on the first Fourier coefficient and a second elliptical polarization coefficient of the second slit region based on the second Fourier coefficient” (these are claims 48 and 49; the Fourier transform have the coefficient in connection to para [0124] lines 12-18; elliptical polarization coefficient is related to Fourier coefficient, see evidentiary reference US9200998B2, col 11 lines 35 to col 12 line 10), and “obtaining structural parameters of the first substrate region and the second substrate region based on the first elliptical polarization coefficient and the second elliptical polarization coefficient, respectively” (this is Ψ in para [0124] lines 12 -18).
Regarding claim 21, Chalmers teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 1, further comprising a central processing unit connected to the plane detector (para [0074] col 2 lines 1-4), wherein the slit comprises a first slit region and a second slit region (fig. 2 elements 14a-c and 15a-c), wherein the substrate comprises a first substrate region corresponding to the first slit region and a second substrate region corresponding to the second slit region (fig. 2 elements 14a-c and 15a-c represent different parts of the substrate), and wherein the central processing unit is configured to: “measure a first Fourier coefficient of the first slit region and a second Fourier coefficient of the second slit region” (these are claims 48 and 49; the Fourier transform have the coefficient), determine a first elliptical polarization coefficient of the first slit region based on the first Fourier coefficient and a second elliptical polarization coefficient of the second slit region based on the second Fourier coefficient (these are claims 48 and 49; the Fourier transform have the coefficient in connection to para [0124] lines 12-18; elliptical polarization coefficient is related to Fourier coefficient, see evidentiary reference US9200998B2, col 11 lines 35 to col 12 line 10), and obtain structural parameters of the first substrate region and the second substrate region based on the first elliptical polarization coefficient and the second elliptical polarization coefficient, respectively (this is Ψ in para [0124] lines 12 -18).
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 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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalmers, as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of CN 103411890 A (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 3, Chalmers does not teach the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 1, further comprising a first compensator between the polarizer and the substrate support, wherein the first compensator configured to delay a phase of the light from the polarizer.
Liu, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 1, further comprising “a first compensator between the polarizer and the substrate support, wherein the first compensator configured to delay a phase of the light from the polarizer” (fig. 1 element 3, para [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Liu to Chalmers to have the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 1, further comprising a first compensator between the polarizer and the substrate support, wherein the first compensator configured to delay a phase of the light from the polarizer in order to have a simple and clear method of elimination the error in the device (Abstract last sentence).
Claim(s) 4, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalmers, as applied to claim(s) 1, 17 above, and in view of US 20170082932 A1 (hereinafter Fu).
Regarding claim 4, Chalmers teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 1, wherein the polarization analysis assembly comprises: an analyzer configured to determine information about polarization of the light from the substrate support (fig. 12 element 1220; para [0124] lines 12-18).
Chalmers does not teach a second compensator between the substrate support and the analyzer, the second compensator configured to change a phase of the light from the substrate support.
Fu teaches a second compensator between the substrate support and the analyzer, the second compensator configured to change a phase of the light from the substrate support (fig. 1 element 113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Fu to Chalmers to have a second compensator between the substrate support and the analyzer, the second compensator configured to change a phase of the light from the substrate support in order to improve overlay measurements of the systems (para [0010]).
Regarding claim 18, Chalmers does not teach the substrate analysis method of claim 17, wherein the rotatable polarization analysis assembly comprises a compensator configured to change a phase of the light from the substrate support, and wherein the rotating the rotatable polarization analysis assembly comprises rotating at least one of the compensator and the analyzer.
Fu, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches the substrate analysis method of claim 17, wherein the rotatable polarization analysis assembly comprises a compensator configured to change a phase of the light from the substrate support (fig. 1 element 113, para [0146] lines 1-4), and wherein the rotating the rotatable polarization analysis assembly comprises rotating at least one of the compensator and the analyzer (para [0144] lines 5-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Fu to Chalmers to have the substrate analysis method of claim 17, wherein the rotatable polarization analysis assembly comprises a compensator configured to change a phase of the light from the substrate support, and wherein the rotating the rotatable polarization analysis assembly comprises rotating at least one of the compensator and the analyzer in order to improve overlay measurements of the systems (para [0010]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalmers and Fu, as applied to claim(s) 4 above, and further in view of US 5798837 A (hereinafter Opsal).
Regarding claim 5, Chalmers does not teach the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 4, wherein the polarization analysis assembly further comprises a polarization rotator configured to rotate at least one of the analyzer and the second compensator.
Opsal, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 4, wherein the polarization analysis assembly further comprises a polarization rotator (fig. 1 motor 100) configured to rotate at least one of the analyzer (col 10 lines 23-26) and the second compensator (fig. 1 motor 100, col 7 lines 18-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Opsal to Chalmers to have the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 4, wherein the polarization analysis assembly further comprises a polarization rotator configured to rotate at least one of the analyzer and the second compensator in order to calibrate the ellipsometer (col 10 lines 14-26).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalmers, as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of CN 109001116 A (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 6, Chalmers does not teach the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 1, wherein the line slit assembly comprises a slit controller configured to adjust a width of the slit.
Chen, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 1, wherein the line slit assembly comprises a slit controller configured to adjust a width of the slit (fig. 5 element 700, p. 7 para 2 lines 1-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Chen to Chalmers to have the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 1, wherein the line slit assembly comprises a slit controller configured to adjust a width of the slit in order to perform high-precision measurement (p. 2 para 6).
Claim(s) 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalmers, as applied to claim(s) 1, 10, 17 above, and in view of Vohra, Q. et al., US11441948B2 (hereinafter Vohra).
Regarding claim 7, Chalmers does not teach the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 1, further comprising a plane driver configured to adjust a distance between the spectral dispersion device and the plane detector.
Vohra, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 1, further comprising a plane driver configured to adjust a distance between the spectral dispersion device and the plane detector (fig. 6 col 13 lines 38-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Vohra to Chalmers to have the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 1, further comprising a plane driver configured to adjust a distance between the spectral dispersion device and the plane detector in order to shift the spectroscopy signal relative to the optical sensor (col 13 lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 9, Chalmers does not teach the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 8, wherein the spectroscope further comprises a plane driver configured to adjust a distance between the spectral dispersion device and the plane detector, wherein the lens further comprises a third lens between the plane detector and the spectral dispersion device, and wherein the plane driver is further configured to adjust a distance between the third lens and the plane detector.
Vohra, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 8, wherein the spectroscope further comprises a plane driver configured to adjust a distance between the spectral dispersion device (fig. 6 element 90, col 13 lines 38-50) and the plane detector, wherein the lens further comprises a third lens between the plane detector and the spectral dispersion device (fig. 6 element 50, col 13 lines 34-37), and wherein the plane driver is further configured to adjust a distance between the third lens and the plane detector (this is shown in fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Vohra to Chalmers to have the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 8, wherein the spectroscope further comprises a plane driver configured to adjust a distance between the spectral dispersion device and the plane detector, wherein the lens further comprises a third lens between the plane detector and the spectral dispersion device, and wherein the plane driver is further configured to adjust a distance between the third lens and the plane detector in order for the detector to detect a plurality of discrete shifted spectroscopy signals (Abstract lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 11, Chalmers does not teach the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 10, wherein the line slit assembly comprises a slit controller configured to control a resolution of the light from the first collimating lens by adjusting a width of the slit.
Vohra, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 10, wherein the line slit assembly comprises a slit controller configured to control a resolution of the light from the first collimating lens by adjusting a width of the slit (fig. 5 element 68 moves slit 66, col 12 lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Vohra to Chalmers to have the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 10, wherein the line slit assembly comprises a slit controller configured to control a resolution of the light from the first collimating lens by adjusting a width of the slit in order to determine a spectral component of the spectroscopy signal corresponding to one or more component(s) of the sample (col 11 lines 62-64).
Regarding claim 12, Chalmers does not teach the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 10, wherein the spectroscope further comprises a plane driver configured to adjust a distance between the plane detector and the spectral dispersion device.
Vohra, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 10, wherein the spectroscope further comprises a plane driver configured to adjust a distance between the plane detector and the spectral dispersion device (fig. 6 col 13 lines 38-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Vohra to Chalmers to have the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 10, wherein the spectroscope further comprises a plane driver configured to adjust a distance between the plane detector and the spectral dispersion device in order to shift the spectroscopy signal relative to the optical sensor (col 13 lines 63-67).
Regarding claim 13, Chalmers does not teach the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 12, wherein the spectroscope further comprises a third lens between the spectral dispersion device and the plane detector, the third lens configured to pass the light from the spectral dispersion device to toward the plane detector, and wherein the plane driver is further configured to adjust a distance between the third lens and the plane detector.
Vohra, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 12, wherein the spectroscope further comprises a third lens between the spectral dispersion device and the plane detector (fig. 6 lens 50), the third lens configured to pass the light from the spectral dispersion device to toward the plane detector (this is shown in fig. 6), and wherein the plane driver is further configured to adjust a distance between the third lens and the plane detector (fig. 6 element 86).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Vohra to Chalmers to have the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 12, wherein the spectroscope further comprises a third lens between the spectral dispersion device and the plane detector, the third lens configured to pass the light from the spectral dispersion device to toward the plane detector, and wherein the plane driver is further configured to adjust a distance between the third lens and the plane detector in order for the detector to detect a plurality of discrete shifted spectroscopy signals (Abstract lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 19, Chalmers does not teach the substrate analysis method of claim 17, wherein the spectroscopic ellipsometer further comprises a plane driver configured to drive the plane detector to move, and wherein the analyzing the substrate comprises adjusting, by the plane driver, a distance between the plane detector and the substrate support.
Vohra, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches “the substrate analysis method of claim 17, wherein the spectroscopic ellipsometer further comprises a plane driver configured to drive the plane detector to move, and wherein the analyzing the substrate comprises adjusting, by the plane driver, a distance between the plane detector and the substrate support” (fig. 6 shows detector 86 is moved by element 90).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Vohra to Chalmers to have the substrate analysis method of claim 17, wherein the spectroscopic ellipsometer further comprises a plane driver configured to drive the plane detector to move, and wherein the analyzing the substrate comprises adjusting, by the plane driver, a distance between the plane detector and the substrate support in order for the detector to detect a plurality of discrete shifted spectroscopy signals (Abstract lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 20, Chalmers does not teach the substrate analysis method of claim 17, wherein the line slit assembly comprises a slit controller configured to adjust a width of the slit, and wherein the analyzing the substrate comprises adjusting, by the slit controller, the width of the slit.
Vohra, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches “the substrate analysis method of claim 17, wherein the line slit assembly comprises a slit controller configured to adjust a width of the slit, and wherein the analyzing the substrate comprises adjusting, by the slit controller, the width of the slit” (fig. 5 element 68 moves slit 66, col 12 lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Vohra to Chalmers teaches “the substrate analysis method of claim 17, wherein the line slit assembly comprises a slit controller configured to adjust a width of the slit, and wherein the analyzing the substrate comprises adjusting, by the slit controller, the width of the slit” in order to determine a spectral component of the spectroscopy signal corresponding to one or more component(s) of the sample (col 11 lines 62-64).
Claim(s) 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalmers, as applied to claim(s) 10 above, and further in view of US 5798837 A (hereinafter Opsal).
Regarding claim 14, Chalmers does not teach the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 10, further comprising a first compensator between the polarizer and the substrate support, the first compensator configured to convert a linear polarization into a circular polarization or an elliptical polarization.
Opsal, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 10, further comprising a first compensator between the polarizer and the substrate support (fig. 4 first compensator 98 is between elements 92 and 4, at the side of the light source), the first compensator configured to convert a linear polarization into a circular polarization or an elliptical polarization (col 7 lines 41-58; also Aspnes teaches this limitation, col 10 lines 63-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Opsal to Chalmers to have the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 10, further comprising a first compensator between the polarizer and the substrate support, the first compensator configured to convert a linear polarization into a circular polarization or an elliptical polarization in order to change the polarization state of the beam (col 7 lines 41-58).
Regarding claim 15, Chalmers does not teach the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 14, further comprising a second compensator between the substrate support and the rotatable analyzer, wherein the second compensator is configured to change a phase of the light from the polarizer.
Opsal, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 14, further comprising a second compensator between the substrate support and the rotatable analyzer (fig. 4 element 98, opposite to the light source 90), wherein the second compensator is configured to change a phase of the light from the polarizer (col 7 lines 41-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Opsal to Chalmers to have the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 14, further comprising a second compensator between the substrate support and the rotatable analyzer, wherein the second compensator is configured to change a phase of the light from the polarizer in order to change the polarization state of the beam (col 7 lines 41-58).
Regarding claim 16, Chalmers does not teach the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 15, further comprising: a polarization rotator configured to rotate the second compensator; and a central processing unit connected to the plane detector, wherein the central processing unit is configured to determine a structural parameter of the substrate based on data obtained from the plane detector.
Aspnes, from the same field of endeavor as Chalmers, teaches the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 15, further comprising: a polarization rotator configured to rotate the second compensator (fig. 6 motor 9); and a central processing unit connected to the plane detector, wherein the central processing unit is configured to determine a structural parameter of the substrate based on data obtained from the plane detector (processing unit is the processor in fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Aspnes to Chalmers to have the spectroscopic ellipsometer of claim 15, further comprising: a polarization rotator configured to rotate the second compensator; and a central processing unit connected to the plane detector, wherein the central processing unit is configured to determine a structural parameter of the substrate based on data obtained from the plane detector in order to analyze the sample with good accuracy (col 3 last para).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights