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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 602. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, the limitation “thing film” should likely be amended to “thin film” to correct typographical error.
In claim 18, the limitation “emitting form respective light sources” should be amended “emitting from respecting light sources” to correct typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11-20 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.
In claims 11 and 16, the limitation “adjusting the respective length” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is intended to require the length of the plurality of hollow structures is adjusted to a determined length or to require determining a current length of the hollow structures and then adjusting the hollow structures independently from the determining step.
In claim 15, the limitation “the thing film” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a “thing” or “thin” film and therefore it is unclear if the limitation is intended to require the previously recited film to be a “thin film” or to require a separate thin film. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to simply recite “the film” instead.
Claims 12-15 and 17-20 are indefinite by virtue of depending on the indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “determining a respective length” in claim 1.
The limitation of “determining a respective length” is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating or choosing a length based on observations/data. Therefore, the claim limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas and the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because after “determining” the length, there is no action/application taken using the determined length and especially not a particular practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of claim 1 include depositing a film and measuring a thickness of the film at multiple locations, which are well-understood, routine components of thin film deposition (see Terada (US 20180067330 A1) and Suzuki (JPWO 2004047160 A1)) and appending well-understood, known elements to the judicial exception does not qualify as significantly more than the judicial exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)). The additional element of claim 4 is directed toward the judicial exception and thus does not qualify as significantly more. The additional elements of claims 7-8 and 10 are well-understood, routine, and conventional (see Terada (US 20180067330 A1)). Therefore, claims 1, 4, 7-8, and 10 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they apply the judicial exception to a particular practical application of adjusting the length to the determined length based upon the thickness measurements. Claim 9 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it contains an additional element of helical grooves and protrusions, which is not well-understood, routine, and conventional in a collimator and thus amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 11 and 16 and their dependents are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are not directed toward the judicial exception and include a practical application of adjusting the length of the hollow structures based on measured thicknesses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (US 20180067330 A1) in view of Suzuki (JPWO 2004047160 A1, see translation), and Zueger (US 20090205949 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Terada (US 20180067330 A1) teaches a method of depositing a material from a target 12 onto a substrate/wafer 2 to form a film in a process chamber 1, where the chamber also includes a collimator 16 having hollow structures defined by walls 45 and openings 47 (plurality of hollow structures), wherein the height (length) of the hollow structures may be adjusted by adding collimation components (32A, 32B) at a desired position in order to set a desired aspect ratio, wherein the aspect ratio is determined depending on the width and height of the openings (para 0021-0022, 0046, 0052-0053, 0073, 0123, 0135, 0140-0141, 0143; Fig. 1-3, 5-7), thus necessarily “determining” a respective length of each of the hollow structures by selecting a length/aspect ratio.
Terada fails to explicitly teach measuring, at a plurality of locations, a thickness of the film on the substrate, the plurality of locations including a first location, and the determining of the respective length based on the measuring of the plurality of locations including determining a first length of a first hollow structure that is corresponding to the first location. However, Suzuki (JPWO 2004047160 A1), in the analogous art of collimated sputtering, teaches improving the in-plane film thickness distribution of the deposited film by adjusting the aspect ratios such that there are different aspect ratios depending on where on the substrate the thickness is larger or smaller, where the film thickness distribution may be measured from an experimental deposition where the wafer is measured at multiple locations (pg. 2-3; Fig. 4). Additionally, Zueger (US 20090205949 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that a desired thickness distribution can be obtained by iteratively optimizing deposition conditions based on a measured thickness distribution, where the distribution may be controlled by aperture (e.g., collimator) corrections (para 0009, 0026, 0149, 0159, 0161, 0167; Fig. 10). Terada teaches that the height/length is adjusted before sputtering to set a desired aspect ratio, where different sections may have their aspect ratios independently set (para 0070, 0137-0138; Fig. 2-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine/set a desired aspect ratio, and thus height/length, of the collimators, including a first length of a first hollow structure corresponding to a first location, based upon the measuring the film thickness distribution of an experimental deposition at multiple locations (plurality of locations including a first location) to compensate for thickness non-uniformity in the film.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, and Zueger teaches the thickness at the peripheral portion of the substrate may be thinner than the thickness at the center (first location having a first thickness greater than a predetermined thickness) and the film thickness may be made uniform by using a larger aspect ratio at the central portion of the collimator (first hollow structure) (Suzuki pg. 2-3), wherein the aspect ratio may be increased by increasing the height/length of the collimator portion (first length of the first hollow structure is increased to the determined length) (Terada para 0092).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, and Zueger teaches the thickness at the peripheral portion (first location) of the substrate may be thinner than the thickness at the center (less than a predetermined thickness) and the film thickness at the periphery may be made uniform by using a smaller aspect ratio at the peripheral portion of the collimator (first hollow structure) (Suzuki pg. 2-3), wherein the aspect ratio may be reduced by decreasing the height/length of the collimator portion (first length of the first hollow structure is decreased to the determined length) (Terada para 0092).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, and Zueger teaches measuring the thickness distribution of the film (Suzuki pg. 2-3), thus necessarily determining an average thickness of the film by obtaining measurements from different portions of the film.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, and Zueger teaches the thickness at the peripheral portion of the substrate may be thinner than the thickness at the center (first location having a first thickness greater than the average thickness of the film) and the film thickness may be made uniform by using a larger aspect ratio at the central portion of the collimator (first hollow structure) (Suzuki pg. 2-3), wherein the aspect ratio may be increased by increasing the height/length of the collimator portion (first length of the first hollow structure is increased to the determined length) (Terada para 0092).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, and Zueger teaches the thickness at the peripheral portion (first location) of the substrate may be thinner than the thickness at the center (less than the average thickness) and the film thickness at the periphery may be made uniform by using a smaller aspect ratio at the peripheral portion of the collimator (first hollow structure) (Suzuki pg. 2-3), wherein the aspect ratio may be reduced by decreasing the height/length of the collimator portion (first length of the first hollow structure is decreased to the determined length) (Terada para 0092).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, and Zueger teaches the first hollow structure includes a frame 41 (first hollow member) and a collimation component (32A-32B) (second hollow member) overlapped with each other (Terada para 0094-0096; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, and Zueger teaches the first hollow structure includes a frame 41 (first hollow member) and a collimation component (32A-32B) (second hollow member) at least partially overlapped with each other (Terada para 0094-0096; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, and Zueger teaches the frame 41 (first hollow member) includes a plurality of grooves 49 extending in the Z direction and in a circumferential direction of the frame (internal groove) and the collimation component is inserted into the frame using projecting parts 59 (protrusion that fits into the internal groove) (Terada para 0062-0063, 0085-0086, 0108; Fig. 3, 8).
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the groove and protrusion are helical. However, Terada teaches that the projecting part (protrusion) may have a different shape (para 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the groove and protrusion to be helical because changing the shape of the groove/protrusion is a matter of design choice that would have been found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the shape is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, and Zueger teaches each of the hollow structures may be increased or decreased in height/length (configured to extend and retract) in a linear direction, where each hollow structure may have its height/length increased independently by wall parts 55 (Terada para 0070, 0094, 0179; Fig. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 11, Terada (US 20180067330 A1) teaches a method of depositing a material from a target 12 onto a substrate/wafer 2 to form a film in a process chamber 1, where the chamber also includes a collimator 16 having hollow structures defined by walls 45 and openings 47 (plurality of hollow structures), wherein the height (length) of the hollow structures may be adjusted by adding collimation components (32A, 32B) at a desired position in order to set a desired aspect ratio, wherein the aspect ratio is determined depending on the width and height of the openings (para 0021-0022, 0046, 0052-0053, 0073, 0123, 0135, 0140-0141, 0143; Fig. 1-3, 5-7), thus necessarily “determining” a respective length of each of the hollow structures by selecting a length/aspect ratio.
Terada fails to explicitly teach measuring, at a plurality of locations, respective thicknesses of the film on the substrate, the plurality of locations including a first location, and the determining and adjusting of the respective length based on the measuring of the plurality of locations. However, Suzuki (JPWO 2004047160 A1), in the analogous art of collimated sputtering, teaches improving the in-plane film thickness distribution of the deposited film by adjusting the aspect ratios such that there are different aspect ratios depending on where on the substrate the thickness is larger or smaller, where the film thickness distribution may be measured from an experimental deposition where the wafer is measured at multiple locations (pg. 2-3; Fig. 4). Additionally, Zueger (US 20090205949 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that a desired thickness distribution can be obtained by iteratively optimizing deposition conditions based on a measured thickness distribution, where the distribution may be controlled by aperture (e.g., collimator) corrections (para 0009, 0026, 0149, 0159, 0161, 0167; Fig. 10). Terada teaches that the height/length is adjusted before sputtering to set a desired aspect ratio, where different sections may have their aspect ratios independently set (para 0070, 0137-0138; Fig. 2-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine and set a desired aspect ratio, and thus height/lengths, of the collimator based upon the measuring the film thickness distribution of an experimental deposition at multiple locations (respective thicknesses of the film) to compensate for thickness non-uniformity in the film.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (US 20180067330 A1) in view of Suzuki (JPWO 2004047160 A1, see translation), and Zueger (US 20090205949 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Suh (US 20030175023 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, and Zueger teaches the frame 41 (first hollow member) includes a plurality of grooves 49 extending in the Z direction and in a circumferential direction of the frame (internal groove) and the collimation component is inserted into the frame using projecting parts 59 (protrusion that fits into the internal groove) (Terada para 0062-0063, 0085-0086, 0108; Fig. 3, 8).
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the groove and protrusion are helical. However, Suh (US 20030175023 A1), in the analogous art of optical elements, teaches a lens barrel 25 (second hollow member) having helicoid (helical) projections 25a fitting in helicoid/helical grooves 15a of a focus ring 15 (first hollow member) to join the components together (para 0058; Fig. 1) Terada teaches that the projecting part (protrusion) may have a different shape and the projecting part is intended to insert into the groove (para 0082, 0085-0086). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention substitute the shape of the groove and protrusion of Terada with a helical groove and protrusion shape, as described by Suh, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (US 20180067330 A1) in view of Suzuki (JPWO 2004047160 A1, see translation), and Zueger (US 20090205949 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Rosenthal (US 6161054 A) and Tung (US 20210226182 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, and Zueger fails to explicitly teach measuring the thicknesses of the film with a plurality of measurement devices on a cool down chamber cover configured to overlap the substrate when the substrate is within the cool down chamber. However, Rosenthal (US 6161054 A), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches a cluster tool including process chambers for performing a deposition and a cooldown chamber 20 having a film thickness monitor that collects data from multiple data points and then the process chamber is controlled based upon the obtained data, where the film thickness is monitored by an FTIR sensor (measurement device) mounted on the cluster tool cooldown chamber while the substrate is positioned in the cooldown chamber (col 4 line 5-67, col 5 line 1-67, col 9 line 15-44; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the substrate measuring method of Terada in view of Suzuki and Zueger with the FTIR measurement (measurement device) of the coated substrate positioned in a cooldown chamber, as described by Rosenthal, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of measuring a film thickness. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Terada, Suzuki, Zueger, and Rosenthal fails to explicitly teach a plurality of measurement devices on a cool down chamber cover configured to cover the substrate. However, Tung (US 20210226182 A1), in the analogous art of thickness measurement, teaches that a film may be measured in a chamber using a metrology head (cover) having an array (plurality) of metrology devices including light sources, optical components, or spectrometers (measurement devices) for measuring different portions of the substrate, where the metrology head covers the substrate during measurement (para 0025; Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the FTIR sensor/spectrometer in the cool down/metrology chamber of Rosenthal with a metrology head (cover) having a plurality of optical measurement devices, as described by Tung, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of measuring film thickness. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, Zueger, Rosenthal, and Tung teaches the plurality of measurement devices are reflectometry and/or transmission devices such as light sources, optical components, or spectrometers (optical measurement devices) (Tung para 0025).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, Zueger, Rosenthal, and Tung teaches the optical measurement devices of the film may include a light source 512a for emitting a light beam 508 to a substrate to be reflected from the film and measured by a spectrometer 512a (light detector) to determine a thickness (Tung para 0082-0083, 0086-0087; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, Zueger, Rosenthal, and Tung teaches the optical measurement devices of the film may include a light source 512a for emitting a light beam 508 to a substrate to be reflected from the film and measured by a spectrometer 512a (light detector) to determine a thickness, where each metrology/measurement device 302 may be positioned relative to a particular region of the substrate/workpiece 304 (Tung para 0025, 0068-0069, 0082-0083, 0086-0087; Fig. 3B, 5), thus emitting light to and measuring reflected light from respective locations of the film with the light sources and detectors.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (US 20180067330 A1) in view of Suzuki (JPWO 2004047160 A1, see translation), Zueger (US 20090205949 A1), Rosenthal (US 6161054 A), and Tung (US 20210226182 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Terada (US 20180067330 A1) teaches a method of depositing a material from a target 12 onto a substrate/wafer 2 to form a film in a process chamber 1, where the chamber also includes a collimator 16 having hollow structures defined by walls 45 and openings 47 (plurality of hollow structures), wherein the height (length) of the hollow structures may be adjusted by adding collimation components (32A, 32B) at a desired position in order to set a desired aspect ratio, wherein the aspect ratio is determined depending on the width and height of the openings (para 0021-0022, 0046, 0052-0053, 0073, 0123, 0135, 0140-0141, 0143; Fig. 1-3, 5-7), thus necessarily “determining” a respective length of each of the hollow structures by selecting a length/aspect ratio.
Terada fails to explicitly teach measuring, at a plurality of locations, respective thicknesses of the film on the substrate, the plurality of locations including a first location, and the determining and adjusting of the respective length based on the measuring of the plurality of locations. However, Suzuki (JPWO 2004047160 A1), in the analogous art of collimated sputtering, teaches improving the in-plane film thickness distribution of the deposited film by adjusting the aspect ratios such that there are different aspect ratios depending on where on the substrate the thickness is larger or smaller, where the film thickness distribution may be measured from an experimental deposition where the wafer is measured at multiple locations (pg. 2-3; Fig. 4). Additionally, Zueger (US 20090205949 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that a desired thickness distribution can be obtained by iteratively optimizing deposition conditions based on a measured thickness distribution, where the distribution may be controlled by aperture (e.g., collimator) corrections (para 0009, 0026, 0149, 0159, 0161, 0167; Fig. 10). Terada teaches that the height/length is adjusted before sputtering to set a desired aspect ratio, where different sections may have their aspect ratios independently set (para 0070, 0137-0138; Fig. 2-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine and set a desired aspect ratio, and thus height/lengths, of the collimator based upon the measuring the film thickness distribution of an experimental deposition at multiple locations (respective thicknesses of the film) to compensate for thickness non-uniformity in the film.
The combination of Terada, Suzuki, and Zueger fails to explicitly teach positioning the substrate on which the film is deposited in a cool down chamber and measuring the thicknesses with a plurality of optical measurement devices on a cool down chamber cover configured to, in operation, cover the substrate on which the film is deposited when the substrate is within the cool down chamber. However, Rosenthal (US 6161054 A), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches a cluster tool including process chambers for performing a deposition and a cooldown chamber 20 having a film thickness monitor that collects data from multiple data points and then the process chamber is controlled based upon the obtained data, where the film thickness is monitored by an FTIR sensor (optical measurement device) mounted on the cluster tool cooldown chamber while the substrate is positioned in the cooldown chamber (col 4 line 5-67, col 5 line 1-67, col 9 line 15-44; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the substrate measuring method of Terada in view of Suzuki and Zueger with the FTIR measurement (optical measurement device) of the coated substrate positioned in a cooldown chamber, as described by Rosenthal, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of measuring a film thickness. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The combination of Terada, Suzuki, Zueger, and Rosenthal fails to explicitly teach a plurality of optical measurement devices on a cool down chamber cover configured to cover the substrate. However, Tung (US 20210226182 A1), in the analogous art of thickness measurement, teaches that a film may be measured in a chamber using a metrology head (cover) having an array (plurality) of metrology devices including light sources, optical components, or spectrometers (optical measurement devices) for measuring different portions of the substrate, where the metrology head covers the substrate during measurement (para 0025; Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the FTIR sensor/spectrometer in the cool down/metrology chamber of Rosenthal with a metrology head (cover) having a plurality of optical measurement devices, as described by Tung, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of measuring film thickness. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, Zueger, Rosenthal, and Tung teaches adjusting the height/length of the hollow structures in the collimator, wherein collimation components 32A-32B (inner hollow members) may be rotated with respect to the frame 41 (corresponding outer hollow member) in order to insert the collimation components into a groove, thus adjusting the height/length of the collimator structures (Terada para 0085-0086, 0109, 0132, 0140-0143; Fig. 5-8) and therefore adjusting the lengths includes rotating inner hollow members relative to outer hollow members.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (US 20180067330 A1) in view of Suzuki (JPWO 2004047160 A1, see translation), Zueger (US 20090205949 A1), Rosenthal (US 6161054 A), and Tung (US 20210226182 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kanetomo (US 4956043 A).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, Zueger, Rosenthal, and Tung fails to explicitly teach positioning the substrate on a plurality of fins in the cool down chamber. However, Kanetomo (US 4956043 A), in the analogous art of cooling, teaches that a substrate may be cooled by placing it on a wafer table 2 having a cooling block 34 with a plurality of fins 35 (positioning the substrate on a plurality of fins) (col 3 line 55-68, col 4 line 1-15; Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the substrate in the cool down chamber of Rosenthal atop a wafer table having a cooling block with fins, as described by Kanetomo, in order to improve the cooling of the substrate with in the cool down chamber.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (US 20180067330 A1) in view of Suzuki (JPWO 2004047160 A1, see translation), Zueger (US 20090205949 A1), Rosenthal (US 6161054 A), and Tung (US 20210226182 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Li (US 20140024143 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, Zueger, Rosenthal, and Tung teaches the optical measurement devices of the film may include a light source 512a for emitting a light beam 508 to a substrate to be reflected and measured by a spectrometer 512a to determine a thickness (Tung para 0082-0083, 0086-0087; Fig. 5).
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the optical measurement devices include passing the light through respective filters, respective polarizers, and respective wave plates. However, Li (US 20140024143 A1), in the analogous art of optical measurement, teaches a reflectometer for measuring thickness, where the reflectometer includes a light source 110 for emitting light to a substrate through a collimator 120 (filter), polarizer 130, and wave plate 160 (para 0027-0028, 0049-0051; Fig. 1). Tung teaches the thickness may be measured through reflectometry measurements (para 0007, 0025). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute each of the optical measurement devices of Tung with the reflectometer of Li including a light source, filter, polarizer, and wave plate because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (US 20180067330 A1) in view of Suzuki (JPWO 2004047160 A1, see translation), Zueger (US 20090205949 A1), Rosenthal (US 6161054 A), Tung (US 20210226182 A1), and Li (US 20140024143 A1), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Dagenais (US 5354575 A).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Terada, Suzuki, Zueger, Rosenthal, Tung, and Li teaches the reflectometers (optical measurement devices) include passing the reflected light beam 220 out of the chamber and passing the beam to a signal detector 240 and reference detector 140 after passing through a partially reflective mirror 135 (filter), and wherein the intensity of the reflected light beam is compared to the intensity of the incident light and converted to an electrical signal, indicating the reflected light passes through an analyzer (Li para 0028-0029, 0032, 0035; Fig. 1-2).
Alternatively, Dagenais (US 5354575 A), in the analogous art of measurement, teaches a thickness of a film may be measured using a rotating analyzer to modulate the reflected light before reaching the detector and where an optical filter may be included in the reflected light path to avoid unwanted background radiation (col 4 line 54-68, col 5 line 1-10; Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the detecting arrangement of Li with the detecting arrangement of Dagenais including a filter, analyzer, and detector because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of detecting/analyzing a reflected light beam to measure thickness. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights