DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
2. The amendment filed on 04/28/2026 has been entered into this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0173855 A1 by Munro (hereinafter Munro) in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0067058 A1 by Horn (hereinafter Horn).
Regarding Claim 1, Munro teaches a method of scanning a substrate (Fig. 5A @ 90, Par. [0004, 0053]), comprising:
generating multi-wavelength light by a light source (Fig. 5A @ 152, Par. [0041]);
generating a collimated (Fig. 5A @ 160, Par. [0034, 0041]) light beam from the multi-wavelength light (Fig. 5A @ 152, Par. [0041]);
receiving the collimated light beam by a chromatic lens (Fig. 5A @ 180, Par. [0035]) that generates a converging beam (Fig. 5A @ 182, Par. [0055]) comprising a plurality of wavelengths each comprising a respective wavelength-dependent focal length (Fig. 5A @ 112, 183, 185, Par. [0006, 0044, 0074, 0091]);
directing the converging beam (Fig. 5A @ 182, Par. [0055]) to impinge on a surface of the substrate (Fig. 5A @ 90, Par. [0004, 0053, 0055]), while the substrate (Fig. 5A @ 90, Par. [0004]) is scanned (Par. [0004, 0053]);
receiving reflected light from the surface of the substrate (Fig. 5A @ 196, Par. [0007, 0076]);
determining a position-dependent peak wavelength of the reflected light (Par. [0061, 0075, 0076, 0087], Claim 14); and
determining surface depth variations based on variations in the position-dependent peak wavelength (Fig. 5A @ 112, 183, 185, Par. [0006, 0044, [0053]: the test surface 90 is the surface whose displacement, or distance, from the interferometer 150, or a reference point on the interferometer 150, such as the apex of the lower surface of the measurement arm chromatic lens 180, is to be measured, 0054, 0061, 0074, 0091]) but does not explicitly teach determining surface height variations based on variations in the position-dependent peak wavelength.
However, Horn teaches determining surface height variations based on variations in the position-dependent peak wavelength (Fig. 1 @ 105, Abstract, Par. [0006, 0012, 0018, 0026, 0029-0030, 0040, 0047], Claims 2, 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention top modify Munro by Horn as taught above such that determining surface height variations based on variations in the position-dependent peak wavelength is accomplished in order to decrease the time for achieving high-yield, high-value production. Thus, minimizing the total time from detecting a yield problem to fixing it determines the return-on-investment for the semiconductor manufacturer (Horn, Par. [0003, 0007]).
Regarding Claim 2, Munro teaches irradiating the surface of the substrate (Fig. 5A @ 90, Par. [0053, 0055]) with the converging beam (Fig. 5A @ 182, Par. [0055]) from the light source (Fig. 5A @ 152, Par. [0041]) that is located at a first distance (Fig. 5A @ 90, 152, light 152’s location from the surface 90 is the first distance) from the surface of the substrate (Fig. 5A @ 90, Par. [0053, 0055]), wherein the surface of the substrate (Fig. 5A @ 90, Par. [0053, 0055]) is a backside surface of the substrate (Fig. 5A @ 90, illustrates the backside surface) and the light source (Fig. 5A @ 152, Par. [0041]) is located above the backside surface of the substrate (Fig. 5A @ 152, 90, illustrates such configuration) (Also see Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 3, Munro teaches the first distance is a perpendicular distance between the light source (Fig. 5A @ 152, Par. [0041]) and a flat portion (Fig. 5A @ 112, Par. [0034]. Also see Fig. 9 @ 290, Par. [0088]) of the surface of the substrate (Fig. 5A @ 90, Par. [0053, 0055]) with no bumps or dips (Fig. 5A @ 90, illustrates such configuration. Also see Fig. 9 @ 290).
Regarding Claim 4, Munro as modified by Horn teaches the surface of the substrate comprises one or more of bumps and dips, wherein a height of a bump or a depth of dip on the surface of the substrate is determined with respect to a smooth area surrounding the bump or the dip (Horn, Fig. 1 @ 105, Abstract, Par. [0006, 0012, 0018, 0026, 0029-0030, 0040, 0047], Claims 2, 10) (5-steps omitted sue to same motivation).
Regarding Claim 5, Munro teaches the light source is a white light source comprising multiple wavelengths in a white light spectrum (Par. [0029]).
Regarding Claim 6, Munro as modified by Horn teaches the reflected light from the surface of the substrate is received by a spectrometer (Munro, Fig. 3, 4, 5A @ 114, 116, Par. [0028, 0056-0057]), the method further comprising:
detecting the reflected light from a first point on the surface of the substrate (Munro, Fig. 5A @ 112, Par. [0034]);
determining a spectrum of the reflected light (Munro, Par. [0057]);
determining a peak wavelength at a peak intensity of the spectrum (See Claim 1 rejection); and
determining a height or depth of the first point on the surface of the substrate based on the peak wavelength (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 7, Munro as modified by Horn teaches the spectrometer (Munro, Fig. 3, 5A @ 114, 116, Par. [0028, 0056-0057], Horn, Fig. 1 @ 107, Par. [0016, 0028, 0039]) comprises a lens (Horn, Fig. 1 @ 114, Par. [0030, 0033]) at an input to the spectrometer (Munro, Fig. 3, 5A @ 114, 116, Par. [0028, 0056-0057], Horn, Fig. 1 @ 107, Par. [0016, 0028, 0039]), the lens (Horn, Fig. 1 @ 114, Par. [0030, 0033]) is configured to focus the reflected light from the surface of the substrate (Munro, Fig. 5A @ 90, Horn, Fig. 1 @ 105,) onto one or more light detectors (Horn, Fig. 1 @ 107); and
each light detector comprises a filter to select a specific wavelength range and to generate a signal proportional to an intensity of the reflected light in the specific wavelength range (Horn, Par. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 8, Munro teaches a portion of the converging beam having the peak wavelength is configured to focus on the surface of the substrate (Fig. 5A @ 90, 112).
Regarding Claim 9, Munro as modified by Horn teaches a pinhole structure having a pinhole (Horn, Fig. 1 @ 102, Par. [0011, 0028, 0036]) is arranged before the lens (Horn, Fig. 1 @ 114, Par. [0030, 0033]) of the spectrometer (Munro, Fig. 3, 5A @ 114, 116, Par. [0028, 0056-0057], Horn, Fig. 1 @ 107, Par. [0016, 0028, 0039]), wherein the reflected light with the peak wavelength is configured to focus on the pinhole structure (Horn, Fig. 1 @ 102, Par. [0011, 0028, 0036]), and wherein the reflected light with the peak wavelength substantially entirely passes through the pinhole (Horn, Fig. 1 @ 102, Par. [0011, 0028, 0036]).
Regarding Claim 10, Munro as modified by Horn teaches the reflected light having one or more wavelengths other than the peak wavelength is defocused to not focus on the pinhole (Horn, Par. [0028]: through a pinhole aperture that allows only the focused wavelength to pass through to a CCD spectrometer, thus teaches one or more wavelengths other than the peak wavelength are configured to not focus on the pinhole).
Regarding Claim 11, Munro as modified by Horn teaches a fraction of the reflected light passes through the pinhole when the reflected light has a wavelength other than the peak wavelength (inherently teaches the limitation).
Regarding Claim 12, Munro as modified by Horn teaches the reflected light having a wavelength that does not focus on the surface of the substrate is defocused to not to focus on the pinhole structure (Horn, Par. [0028]: through a pinhole aperture that allows only the focused wavelength to pass through to a CCD spectrometer, thus teaches the limitation).
Regarding Claim 13, Munro as modified by Horn teaches the substrate is arranged on a stage (Horn, Fig. 1 @ 106, Par. [0015]), the method further comprising:
configuring the stage to move the substrate in a first direction (Horn, Fig. 1 @ 106, Par. [0050]) and receiving the reflected light from the surface of the substrate at one or more different points along the first direction (Munro, Par. [0004], Horn, Par. [0008]);
scanning the surface of the substrate by the converging beam (See Claim 1 rejection);
receiving the reflected light from the surface of the substrate in a specific range of wavelengths corresponding to a specific range of heights (See Claim 1 rejection); and
determining a map of the specific range of heights on the surface of the substrate on a scan line along the first direction (See Claim 1 rejection, Munro, Par. [0004]: scanned across the surface of interest to generate a complete surface profile).
Regarding Claim 14, Munro as modified by Horn teaches moving the stage in first parallel lines along the first direction or moving the stage in second parallel lines perpendicular to the first direction to scan the substrate (Horn, Par. [0050]);
receiving the reflected light from the surface of the substrate in the specific range of wavelengths corresponding to the specific range of heights (See Claim 1 rejection); and
determining the map of the specific range of heights on the surface of the substrate (See Claim 1 rejection, Munro, Par. [0004]: scanned across the surface of interest to generate a complete surface profile).
Regarding Claim 15, Munro as modified by Horn teaches a method of scanning a substrate (See Claim 1 rejection), comprising:
directing a converging beam to impinge on a surface of the substrate, wherein the converging beam comprises a plurality of wavelengths each comprising a respective wavelength-dependent focal length (See Claim 1 rejection);
receiving reflected light from a first point on the surface of the substrate; directing the reflected light to pass through a pinhole (See Claim 7 rejection);
detecting the reflected light from the first point after passing the pinhole;
determining a spectrum of the reflected light (See Claim 6 rejection);
determining a peak wavelength at a peak intensity of the spectrum (See Claim 6 rejection); and
determining a height or depth of the first point on the surface of the substrate based on the peak wavelength (See Claim 6 rejection).
Regarding Claim 16, Munro as modified by Horn teaches the substrate is arranged on a stage (See Claim 13 rejection), the method further comprising:
configuring the stage to move the substrate in a first direction and receiving the reflected light from the surface of the substrate at one or more different points along the first direction (See Claim 13 rejection);
scanning the surface of the substrate while the converging beam impinges on the surface of the substrate (See Claim 1 rejection);
receiving the reflected light from the surface of the substrate in a specific range of wavelengths corresponding to a specific range of heights (See Claim 13 rejection); and
determining a map of the specific range of heights on the surface of the substrate on a scan line along the first direction (See Claim 13 rejection).
Regarding Claim 17, Munro as modified by Horn teaches a system for scanning a substrate (See Claim 1 rejection. Note: a method claim can be used to implement an apparatus claim), comprising:
a light source configured to generate multi-wavelength light (See Claim 1 rejection);
a chromatic lens configured to receive the multi-wavelength light and to generate a converging beam comprising a plurality of wavelengths each comprising a respective wavelength-dependent focal length (See Claim 1 rejection);
an optical system comprising a beam splitter through which a portion of the multi-wavelength light passes and hits the chromatic lens such that the converging beam on a surface of the substrate and reflect from the surface (See Claim 1 rejection);
a spectrometer configured to receive reflected light from the beam splitter and to determine a peak wavelength of the reflected light (See Claim 6 rejection); and
a processor (Munro, Fig. 3 @ 120, Par. [0039]) configured to determine a local height or depth of the surface based on the peak wavelength (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 18, Munro the light source is a white light source comprising multiple wavelengths in a white light spectrum (See Claim 5 rejection).
Regarding Claim 19, Munro as modified by Horn teaches the spectrometer includes a prism (Horn, Par. [0016, 0039]: spectral dispersion element, such as (i.e. “for example" or "like") a grating. Prism is also a dispersion element thus teaches the limitation. Munro did not preclude using a prism instead of grating) configured to direct the reflected light onto one or more light detectors of the spectrometer (See Claim 5 rejection); and
each light detector is configured to generate a signal proportional to the reflected light in a specific wavelength range (See Claim 7 rejection) but does not explicitly teach a prism.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (a prism), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (grating, prism), and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a prism in order to obtain brighter and more efficient, higher optical throughput (no "wasted" light in higher orders), lack of overlapping spectral orders, and superior performance in the ultraviolet (UV) range.
Regarding Claim 20, Munro as modified by Horn a pinhole disposed in a light path between the substrate and the spectrometer (See Claim 9 rejection), wherein:
the pinhole is arranged before a lens of the spectrometer and is positioned to transmit a specific wavelength of the reflected light to the spectrometer (See Claim 9 rejection).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments, filed on 04/28/2026, with respect to Claim Interpretation, Specification, and U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, U.S.C. 112(f): Claim Interpretation, Objection to Specification and the U.S.C. 112 rejection are withdrawn.
6. Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/28/2026 with respect to Munro teaches away (Argument, Page 10-11) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Non-Final OA (Dated – 02/05/2026) used both Fig. 1 and Fig. 5A of Munro reference for the rejection. Fig. 1 of Munro was used for simplicity and clarity. Fig. 5A of Munro teaches the instant claim limitations (See Final OA).
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed.Cir.2008) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
However, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Since Office Action has shown that the combination of the cited references teaches or suggests each and every element of the amended claims, therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
7. Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/28/2026 with respect to Impermissible hindsight (Argument, Page 11-12) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached on 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights