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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 16-24) in the reply filed on 8/6/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement has not provided evidence that there would be a serious and undue burden of search were restriction not required. This is not found persuasive because, contrary to Applicant’s assertion that the Office Action provides mere conclusions without supporting reasons that invention I includes limitations not found in invention II and invention II includes limitations not found in invention I, the Office Action details (on pages 2 and 3) the specific limitations which of each invention that are not included in the other invention. Specifically: “subcombination I has separate utility such as measuring working height by reflecting multiple beamlets off of a configuration of reflectors supporting different target heights of a substrate, and subcombination II has separate utility such as measuring working height by projecting a pattern on a substrate by reflecting multiple beamlets off the substrate (rather than multiple reflectors, as in subcombination I). Subcombination I does not include the projecting of a pattern onto the substrate (as in subcombination II)” (see pages 2-3 of the Restriction Requirement 6/4/2026).
In order to fully address the limitations of invention I, search and consideration must be given to the limitation “multiple light reflecting components, wherein each light reflecting component is associated with one of the beamlets and is configured to support a different target height for the substrate by enabling detection of a height or a levelness of the substrate based on the beamlet reflecting off the substrate” (in claim 16). However, search and consideration of this limitation is not required in examining the claims of invention II.
In order to fully address the limitations of invention II, search and consideration must be given to the limitation “projecting a pattern on a substrate by a radiation beam from a radiation source of the level sensor” (in claim 27), and the similar limitation “cause projection of a pattern on a substrate by a radiation beam from a radiation source of a level sensor of an inspection system” (in claim 33). Search and consideration of this feature in claims 27 and 33 is not required in examining the claims of invention I.
For at least these reasons, search and consideration of invention I is separate from search and consideration of invention II.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 2) with respect to the classification of inventions I and II, the classification system utilized by the Office does not always perfectly reflect the language of the claims of an application. Applicant does not suggest classification which would more properly encompass the language of the claims, and the mere assertion that if inventions I and II were properly classified, they would be classified into the same classification is not supported by evidence of a single class which would encompass the disparate limitations of the claims of inventions I and II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 16-26 are 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the images". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Prior to this recitation, the claim defines “a detector configured to detect an image from at least one of the beamlets that reflect off the substrate”. Whether this limitation is construed to include an image from one beamlet, or an image from plural beamlets, it is a singular image, and therefore does not provide antecedent basis for the later limitation of “the images” (plural).
Claims 17-26 inherit the limitations of claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding independent claim 16; Sekiguchi et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0323835 discloses a multi-working height inspection apparatus (“A height detection apparatus” [Abstract]) comprising: a stage configured to hold a substrate at one of a plurality of target heights (“The control unit also controls an actuator for changing the height of the sample stage on which the sample 50 is to be mounted” [0026]); a level sensor comprising: a beam splitter configured to split a radiation beam (“A light beam Ray 0 output from a light source 7a such as a laser or an LED is divided into two light beams Ray 1 and Ray 2 at a slit portion 7b” [0036]) into multiple beamlets (“The projection optical system 7 is an optical system that outputs two light beams Ray 1 and Ray 2” [0034]) that each reflect off the substrate (“an optical system that guides the light beam reflected by the sample 50 to the imaging element 9” [0034]), and a detector configured to detect an image from at least one of the beamlets that reflect off the substrate (“the detection optical system 8, and the imaging element 9 in the atmosphere, projects light beams Ray 1 and Ray 2 onto the sample 50 through a vacuum sealing window 11, and detects the reflected light” [0035]); and controller circuitry (“a control unit (for example, a computer connected to the detection system) for controlling operation of the whole and each of components” [0026]) configured to compare a first image of the images with a reference image corresponding to a first target height of the target heights to determine a deviation value for the substrate from the first target height (“with the use of one secured imaging element 9, it is possible to detect the height of two references (any of the positions L1 or L2 as the height of the sample 50)” [0070]). However, Sekiguchi does not disclose multiple light reflecting components, wherein each light reflecting component is associated with one of the beamlets and is configured to support a different target height for the substrate by enabling detection of a height or a levelness of the substrate based on the beamlet reflecting off the substrate.
Dotan et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0396511 discloses a multi-working height inspection apparatus comprising: a stage configured to hold a substrate (“The measurement system 100 includes a structure support assembly 102 for holding a structure W (i.e. semiconductor wafer) under measurements” [0034]) at one of a plurality of target heights (“The support assembly 102 is also configured for adjusting a z-axis position of the measurement plane MP” [0036]); a level sensor comprising:, multiple light reflecting components (LD4 and LD3 in figure 5), wherein each light reflecting component LD4/LD3 is associated with one of the beamlets DCobl/ICobl enabling detection of a height or a levelness of the substrate based on the beamlet reflecting off the substrate (“a light detection system 110, and comprises light directing assembly (e.g. folding mirror, lenses, etc.) defining illumination and light collection channels. The optical system may also include a polarization assembly (not shown here) enabling measurements with different polarization conditions” [0037]). However, Dotan disclsoes that each of the beamlets is generated from a respective source, and is not generated from a beam splitter configured to split a (single) radiation beam into multiple beamlets that each reflect off the substrate.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a multi-working height inspection apparatus comprising: a level sensor comprising: a beam splitter configured to split a radiation beam into multiple beamlets that each reflect off a substrate, multiple light reflecting components, wherein each light reflecting component is associated with one of the beamlets and is configured to support a different target height for the substrate by enabling detection of a height or a levelness of the substrate based on the beamlet reflecting off the substrate.
Regarding dependent claims 17-26; these claims would be allowable at least for their dependence, either directly or indirectly, upon independent claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights