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 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 § 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) 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US5706094A (hereinafter Maris) and in view of US 20040189993 A1 (Martin).
Regarding claim 1, Maris teaches a method of performing transient ellipsometry for measuring at least one property of a sample, the method comprising: generating pump pulses at a first pulse repetition rate with at least one laser (this is element 12 in fig. 1A, fig. 2 col 6 lines 50-55); generating probe pulses at a second pulse repetition rate with the at least one laser (fig. 1 element 14, fig. 7F col 7 lines 8-10), wherein the second pulse repetition rate is different than the first pulse repetition rate to produce a varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses for a plurality of cycles (fig. 4 col 6 line 55-60); causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample (this is shown in fig.1A, element 30 is the sample), wherein the pump pulses generate transient perturbations in the sample (col 5 lines 45-50), and reflected probe pulses are modulated in response to a transient perturbation in the sample based on the varying time delay (this is shown in figs. 7A-7E); and generating transient ellipsometric measurements from the reflected probe pulses at a plurality of time delays between the pump pulses and probe pulses (claim 33, col 9 para 4; fig. 10A shows a plurality of time delays, col 13 para 2 first sentence).
Maris fails to teach producing a polarization state of the probe pulses with a polarization state generator; analyzing the reflected probe pulses from the sample with a polarization state analyzer; and detecting the reflected probe pulses from the sample over multiple cycles at each of a plurality of different polarization states produced by at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer.
Martin, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches producing a polarization state of the probe pulses with a polarization state generator (fig. 1element 104); analyzing the reflected probe pulses from the sample with a polarization state analyzer (fig. 1 element 112); and “detecting the reflected probe pulses from the sample over multiple cycles at each of a plurality of different polarization states produced by at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer” (fig. 1 elements 114 and 116; p. 3 col 2 claim 1 “evaluating the sample by analyzing polarity phase differences between the generated probe beam and the selected portion”; para [0011] last sentence).
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 Martin to Maris to have producing a polarization state of the probe pulses with a polarization state generator; analyzing the reflected probe pulses from the sample with a polarization state analyzer; and detecting the reflected probe pulses from the sample over multiple cycles at each of a plurality of different polarization states produced by at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer in order to inspect and analyze semiconductor wafers specifically using small measurement spot sizes (para [0001]).
Regarding claim 2, Maris teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining the at least one property of the sample based on the transient ellipsometric measurements (col 9 para 4).
Regarding claim 9, Maris teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising digitizing signals received from detected reflected probe pulses from the sample, wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements are generated based on digitized signals (col 17 claim 15).
Regarding claim 10, Maris teaches an optical metrology device configured for performing transient ellipsometry for measuring at least one property of a sample, the optical metrology device comprising: a light source comprising at least one laser, the light source generating pump pulses at a first pulse repetition rate (this is element 12 in fig. 1A, fig. 2 col 6 lines 50-55) and generating probe pulses at a second pulse repetition rate (fig. 1 element 14, fig. 7F col 7 lines 8-10), wherein the second pulse repetition rate is different than the first pulse repetition rate to produce a varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses for a plurality of cycles (fig. 4 col 6 line 55-60); focusing optics that cause the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample (this is shown in fig. 1A), wherein the pump pulses generate transient perturbations in the sample (col 5 lines 45-50), and reflected probe pulses are modulated in response to a transient perturbation in the sample based on the varying time delay (this is shown in figs. 7A-7E); a detector that detects the reflected probe pulses from the sample (this is shown in fig. 1A, col 8 lines 35-45); and configured to generate transient ellipsometric measurements from the reflected probe pulses at a plurality of time delays between the pump pulses and probe pulses (claim 33, col 9 para 4; fig. 10A shows a plurality of time delays, col 13 para 2 first sentence).
Maris fails to teach a polarization state generator that produces a polarization state in the probe pulses; a polarization state analyzer that analyzes the reflected probe pulses from the sample; a computer system coupled to receive signals from the detector over multiple cycles at each of a plurality of different polarization states produced by at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer.
Martin, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches a polarization state generator that produces a polarization state in the probe pulses (fig. 1element 104); a polarization state analyzer that analyzes the reflected probe pulses from the sample (fig. 1 element 112); a computer system coupled to receive signals from the detector over multiple cycles at each of a plurality of different polarization states produced by at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer (fig. 1 elements 114 and 116; p. 3 col 2 claim 1 “evaluating the sample by analyzing polarity phase differences between the generated probe beam and the selected portion”; para [0011] last sentence).
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 Martin to Maris to have a polarization state generator that produces a polarization state in the probe pulses; a polarization state analyzer that analyzes the reflected probe pulses from the sample; a computer system coupled to receive signals from the detector over multiple cycles at each of a plurality of different polarization states produced by at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer in order to inspect and analyze semiconductor wafers specifically using small measurement spot sizes (para [0001]).
Regarding claim 11, Maris teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the computer system is further configured to determine the at least one property of the sample based on the transient ellipsometric measurements (col 9 para 4).
Regarding claim 18, Maris teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, further comprising a digitizer that receives signals from the detector and digitizes the signals, wherein the computer system receives digitized signals and generates the transient ellipsometric measurements based on the digitized signals (col 17 claims 15-16; the processor has a digitizer).
Regarding claim 19, Maris teaches an optical metrology device configured for performing transient ellipsometry for measuring at least one property of a sample, the optical metrology device comprising: a means for generating pump pulses at a first pulse repetition rate and generating probe pulses at a second pulse repetition rate (this is element 12 in fig. 1A, fig. 2 col 6 lines 50-55), wherein the second pulse repetition rate is different than the first pulse repetition rate to produce a varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses for a plurality of cycles (fig. 4 col 6 line 55-60); focusing optics that cause the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample (this is shown in fig. 1A), wherein the pump pulses generate transient perturbations in the sample, and reflected probe pulses are modulated in response to a transient perturbation in the sample based on the varying time delay (this is shown in figs. 7A-7E); means for analyzing the reflected probe pulses from the sample (p. 3 col 2 claim 1); and means for generating transient ellipsometric measurements from the reflected probe pulses at a plurality of time delays between the pump pulses and probe pulses (claim 33, col 9 para 4; fig. 10A shows a plurality of time delays, col 13 para 2 first sentence).
Maris fails to teach means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses; a detector that detects the reflected probe pulses from the sample over multiple cycles at each of a plurality of different polarization states produced by at least one of the means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses and the means for analyzing the reflected probe pulses from the sample.
Martin, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses (fig. 1element 104); a detector that detects the reflected probe pulses from the sample over multiple cycles at each of a plurality of different polarization states produced by at least one of the means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses and the means for analyzing the reflected probe pulses from the sample (fig. 1 elements 114 and 116; p. 3 col 2 claim 1 “evaluating the sample by analyzing polarity phase differences between the generated probe beam and the selected portion”; para [0011] last sentence).
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 Martin to Maris to have means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses; a detector that detects the reflected probe pulses from the sample over multiple cycles at each of a plurality of different polarization states produced by at least one of the means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses and the means for analyzing the reflected probe pulses from the sample in order to inspect and analyze semiconductor wafers specifically using small measurement spot sizes (para [0001]).
Claim(s) 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maris and Martin as applied to claim(s) 1, 10 above, and in view of WO 0122028 A1 (Humphrey).
Regarding claim 3, Maris does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first polarizer and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer, and wherein at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator, wherein a rotating frequency of the rotating compensator is synchronized with a cycle of the varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses.
Martin, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first polarizer (fig. 1 element 104) and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer (fig. 1 element 112, para [0011] last sentence).
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 Martin to Maris to have the method of claim 1, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first polarizer (fig. 1 element 104) and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer in order to inspect and analyze semiconductor wafers specifically using small measurement spot sizes (para [0001]).
Maris, when modified by Martin, does not teach wherein at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator, wherein a rotating frequency of the rotating compensator is synchronized with a cycle of the varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses.
Humphrey, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches “wherein at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator, wherein a rotating frequency of the rotating compensator is synchronized with a cycle of the varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses” (fig. 6 element 132, p. 8 para 2-4; the time delay is shown in fig. 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 Humphrey to the modified device of Maris to have wherein at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator, wherein a rotating frequency of the rotating compensator is synchronized with a cycle of the varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses in order to determine the characteristics of the sample (transparent or semitransparent films) (p. 8 para 2) and to determine the properties of the sample in response to the changes in the reflected probe beam intensity (p. 6 para 4).
Regarding claim 12, Maris does not teach the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first polarizer and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer, and at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator, wherein a rotating frequency of the rotating compensator is synchronized with a cycle of the varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses.
Martin, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first polarizer (fig. 1 element 104) and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer (fig. 1 element 112, para [0011] last sentence).
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 Martin to Maris to have the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first polarizer and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second polarizer in order to inspect and analyze semiconductor wafers specifically using small measurement spot sizes (para [0001]).
Maris, when modified by Martin, does not teach at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator, wherein a rotating frequency of the rotating compensator is synchronized with a cycle of the varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses.
Humphrey, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches “at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator, wherein a rotating frequency of the rotating compensator is synchronized with a cycle of the varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses” (fig. 6 element 132, p. 8 para 2-4; the time delay is shown in fig. 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 Humphrey to the modified device of Maris to have at least one of the polarization state generator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a rotating compensator, wherein a rotating frequency of the rotating compensator is synchronized with a cycle of the varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses in order to determine the characteristics of the sample (transparent or semitransparent films) (p. 8 para 2) and to determine the properties of the sample in response to the changes in the reflected probe beam intensity (p. 6 para 4).
Claim(s) 4, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maris, Martin, and Humphrey as applied to claim(s) 3, 12 above, and in view of CN 103134592 A (hereinafter Liu 2).
Regarding claim 4, Marris, when modified by Martin and Humphrey, does teach the method of claim 3, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first rotating compensator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second rotating compensator, and wherein the first rotating compensator and the second rotating compensator rotate with different frequencies, wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix.
Liu 2, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the “polarization state generator comprises a first rotating compensator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second rotating compensator, and wherein the first rotating compensator and the second rotating compensator rotate with different frequencies” (p. 5 para [0039]), wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix (see Liu claim 9, the matrix has 16 elements).
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 2 to Marris, when modified by Martin and Humphrey, to have the method of claim 3, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first rotating compensator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second rotating compensator, and wherein the first rotating compensator and the second rotating compensator rotate with different frequencies, wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix in order to extract the optical constants of the sample piece to be detected and characteristic shape and size information (para [0076]).
Regarding claim 13, Marris, when modified by Woollam, does teach the optical metrology device of claim 12, wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first rotating compensator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second rotating compensator, and wherein the first rotating compensator and the second rotating compensator rotate with different frequencies, wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix.
Liu 2, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 12, “wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first rotating compensator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second rotating compensator, and wherein the first rotating compensator and the second rotating compensator rotate with different frequencies, wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix” (p. 5 para [0039]), wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix (see Liu claim 9, the matrix has 16 elements)).
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 2 to Maris, when modified by Woollam to have the optical metrology device of claim 12, “wherein the polarization state generator comprises a first rotating compensator and the polarization state analyzer comprises a second rotating compensator, and wherein the first rotating compensator and the second rotating compensator rotate with different frequencies, wherein the transient ellipsometric measurements comprise perturbations to all 16 elements of a full Mueller Matrix” in order to extract the optical constants of the sample piece to be detected and characteristic shape and size information (para [0076]).
Claim(s) 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maris and Martin as applied to claim(s) 1, 10 above, and in view of US5548404A (hereinafter Kupershmidt).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Maris does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a portion of the probe pulses with a balanced photodetector before the probe pulses are incident on the sample; wherein detecting the reflected probe pulses from the sample comprises receiving the probe pulses reflected from the sample with the balanced photodetector.
Kupershmidt, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a portion of the probe pulses with a balanced photodetector before the probe pulses are incident on the sample (fig. 1 element 42); wherein detecting the reflected probe pulses from the sample comprises receiving the probe pulses reflected from the sample with the balanced photodetector (fig. 1 element 56).
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 Kupershmidt to the modified device of Maris to have the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a portion of the probe pulses with a balanced photodetector before the probe pulses are incident on the sample; wherein detecting the reflected probe pulses from the sample comprises receiving the probe pulses reflected from the sample with the balanced photodetector in order to enable compensation for noise, drift, ambient light, or other system or environmental causes of inaccuracy (col 5 lines 27-32) and to collect the laser beams reflected or transmitted from the sample (col 5 lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Maris does not teach the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the detector comprises a balanced photodetector that receives a portion of the probe pulses before the probe pulses are incident on the sample, and receives the reflected probe pulses from the sample.
Kupershmidt, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the detector comprises a balanced photodetector that receives a portion of the probe pulses before the probe pulses are incident on the sample (fig. 1 element 42), and receives the reflected probe pulses from the sample (fig. 1 element 56).
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 Kupershmidt to the modified device of Maris to have the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the detector comprises a balanced photodetector that receives a portion of the probe pulses before the probe pulses are incident on the sample, and receives the reflected probe pulses from the sample in order to enable compensation for noise, drift, ambient light, or other system or environmental causes of inaccuracy (col 5 lines 27-32) and to collect the laser beams reflected or transmitted from the sample (col 5 lines 45-50).
Claim(s) 6, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maris and Martin as applied to claim(s) 1, 10 above, and in view of US 20040189993 A1 (hereinafter Ebert).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Maris does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample comprises: causing the pump pulses to be incident on the sample at normal incidence using a first set of optical elements; and causing the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at oblique incidence with a second set of optical elements.
Ebert, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample comprises (fig. 1): causing the pump pulses to be incident on the sample at normal incidence using a first set of optical elements (fig. 1 element 118, para [0018]); and causing the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at oblique incidence with a second set of optical elements (fig. 1 element 102, para [0018]).
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 Ebert to the modified device of Maris to have the method of claim 1, wherein causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample comprises: causing the pump pulses to be incident on the sample at normal incidence using a first set of optical elements; and causing the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at oblique incidence with a second set of optical elements in order to provide an ellipsometer that produces an effectively small measurement spot even when operating at large angles of incidence (para [0011] lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Maris does not teach the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the focusing optics comprise a first set of optical elements that cause the pump pulses to be incident on the sample at normal incidence and a second set of optical elements that cause the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at oblique incidence.
Ebert, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the focusing optics comprise a first set of optical elements that cause the pump pulses to be incident on the sample at normal incidence (fig. 1 element 118, para [0018]) and a second set of optical elements that cause the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at oblique incidence (fig. 1 element 102, para [0018]).
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 Ebert to the modified device of Maris to have the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the focusing optics comprise a first set of optical elements that cause the pump pulses to be incident on the sample at normal incidence and a second set of optical elements that cause the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at oblique incidence in order to provide an ellipsometer that produces an effectively small measurement spot even when operating at large angles of incidence (para [0011] lines 1-3).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maris and Martin as applied to claim(s) 1, 10 above, and in view of US 5748317 A (hereinafter Stoner).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Maris does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample comprises causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at a same angle of incidence.
Stoner, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample comprises causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at a same angle of incidence (this is shown in fig. 6, col 17 lines 46-50).
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 Stoner to the modified device of Maris to have the the method of claim 1, wherein causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample comprises causing the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at a same angle of incidence in order to improve the signal quality (col 17 last sentence) and to have a simple ellipsometry device (col 17 lines 27-28).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Maris does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one laser comprises a first laser and a second laser that is mode locked to the first laser.
Stoner, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one laser comprises a first laser and a second laser that is mode locked to the first laser (fig. 1a, col 20 lines 30-33).
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 Stoner to the modified device of Maris to have the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one laser comprises a first laser and a second laser that is mode locked to the first laser in order to reduce the cost of the device.
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Maris does not teach the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the focusing optics comprise a set of optical elements that cause the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at a same angle of incidence (this is shown in fig. 6, col 17 lines 46-50).
Stoner, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the focusing optics comprise a set of optical elements that cause the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at a same angle of incidence (this is shown in fig. 6, col 17 lines 46-50).
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 Stoner to the modified device of Maris to have the the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the focusing optics comprise a set of optical elements that cause the pump pulses and the probe pulses to be incident on the sample at a same angle of incidence in order to improve the signal quality (col 17 last sentence) and to have a simple ellipsometry device (col 17 lines 27-28).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Maris does not teach the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the light source comprises a first laser and a second laser that is mode locked to the first laser.
Stoner, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the light source comprises a first laser and a second laser that is mode locked to the first laser (fig. 1a, col 20 lines 30-33).
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 Stoner to the modified device of Maris to have the optical metrology device of claim 10, wherein the light source comprises a first laser and a second laser that is mode locked to the first laser in order to reduce the cost of the device.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maris and Martin as applied to claim(s) 19 above, and in view of US 20050041250 A1 (Opsal).
Regarding claim 20, Maris fails to teach the optical metrology device of claim 19, wherein at least one of the means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses and the means for analyzing the reflected probe pulses comprises a rotating compensator, wherein a rotating frequency of the rotating compensator is synchronized with a cycle of the varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses.
Martin, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches the optical metrology device of claim 19, wherein at least one of the means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses (fig. 1 element 104) and the means for analyzing the reflected probe pulses comprises a rotating compensator, wherein a rotating frequency of the rotating compensator is synchronized with a cycle of the varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses (para [0011] last sentence and para [0022]. This implies that the system of Maris can implement a rotating compensation together with the analyzer.).
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 Martin to Maris to the optical metrology device of claim 19, wherein at least one of the means for producing a polarization state of the probe pulses and the means for analyzing the reflected probe pulses comprises a rotating compensator, wherein a rotating frequency of the rotating compensator is synchronized with a cycle of the varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses in order to inspect and analyze semiconductor wafers specifically using small measurement spot sizes (para [0001]).
Maris, when modified by Martin does not teach explicitly a rotating compensator.
Opsal, from the same field of endeavor as Maris, teaches a rotating compensator (fig. 6 element 132, p. 8 para 2-4; the time delay is shown in fig. 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 Opsal to Maris, when modified by Martin to have a rotating compensator in order to simultaneously evaluate both the critical dimensions and film parameters (p. 8 para 2).
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 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
