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 .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“an optical system configured to” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Objections
6. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 17, line 7, delete “S904”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
7. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Regarding claim 1, recites “receiving the multi-wavelength light by a chromatic lens that generates the collimated light beam;
directing the collimated light beam to impinge on a surface of the substrate while the collimated light beam is scanned over the surface of the substrate”. Claim 17 also recites similar limitations.
However, Examiner acknowledges that the instant specification discloses “when a collimated beam of light is transmitted to the chromatic lens, each component of the collimated beam of light having a different wavelength is focused at a different focal point from the chromatic lens” (Fig. 1A @ 114, Fig. 2 @ 150, Par. [0019]). Also discloses FIG. 1A, the beams of light 142, 144, and 146 focuses, e.g., converges, at different distances from the surface 131 of the substrate 130 such that the beam of light 142 focuses, e.g., converges, at point A before the surface 131 of the substrate 130 (i.e., the converging point is between the optical device 114 and the surface 131) (Par. [0033]). Further discloses FIG. 2, is consistent with FIG. 1A. The optical scanning system 200 shows that the optical device 114 includes a chromatic lens 150 that creates the beams of light 142, 144, and 146 from the multi-wavelength beam of light 134 (Par. [0033]). But the specification does not explain in clear and concise terms by which a chromatic lens that generates the collimated light beam. As such, the disclosure of the instant specification is not sufficient to support a method where a chromatic lens that generates the collimated light beam.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-14 and 17-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, recites “receiving the multi-wavelength light by a chromatic lens that generates the collimated light beam;
directing the collimated light beam to impinge on a surface of the substrate while the collimated light beam is scanned over the surface of the substrate”. Claim 17 also recites similar limitations. It is not clear how a chromatic lens that generates the collimated light beam.
However, Examiner acknowledges that the instant specification discloses “when a collimated beam of light is transmitted to the chromatic lens, each component of the collimated beam of light having a different wavelength is focused at a different focal point from the chromatic lens” (Fig. 1A @ 114, Fig. 2 @ 150, Par. [0019]). Also discloses FIG. 1A, the beams of light 142, 144, and 146 focuses, e.g., converges, at different distances from the surface 131 of the substrate 130 such that the beam of light 142 focuses, e.g., converges, at point A before the surface 131 of the substrate 130 (i.e., the converging point is between the optical device 114 and the surface 131) (Par. [0033]). Further discloses FIG. 2, is consistent with FIG. 1A. The optical scanning system 200 shows that the optical device 114 includes a chromatic lens 150 that creates the beams of light 142, 144, and 146 from the multi-wavelength beam of light 134 (Par. [0033]). But the specification does not explain in clear and concise terms by which a chromatic lens that generates the collimated light beam. As such, the disclosure of the instant specification is not sufficient to support a method where a chromatic lens that generates the collimated light beam and requires further clarification.
For examination purposes the Examiner is considering convergence rather collimated.
Claims 2-14, 18-20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because of their dependency status from claims 1 and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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. 1, 5A @ 90, Par. [0004]), comprising:
generating a collimated light beam by performing operations comprising: generating multi-wavelength light by a light source (Fig. 1 @ 12, Par. [0005], Fig. 5A @ 152, Par. [0041]); and
receiving the multi-wavelength light by a chromatic lens (Fig. 1 @ 12, Par. [0005], Fig. 5A @ 180, Par. [0035]) that generates the collimated light beam (Fig. 1 @ 28, Par. [0005], Fig. 5A @ 182, Par. [0055]) such that the collimated light beam comprises a plurality of wavelengths each comprising a respective wavelength-dependent focal length (Fig. 1 @ 28, Fig. 5A @ 112, 183, 185, Par. [0006, 0044, 0074, 0091]);
directing the collimated light beam (Fig. 1 @ 28, Par. [0005], Fig. 5A @ 182, Par. [0055]) to impinge on a surface of the substrate (Fig. 1, 5A @ 90, Par. [0004]) while the collimated light beam (Fig. 1 @ 28, Par. [0005], Fig. 5A @ 182, Par. [0055]) is scanned over the surface of the substrate (Fig. 1, 5A @ 90, Par. [0004]);
receiving reflected light from the surface of the substrate (Fig. 1 @ 32, 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. 1 @ 28, 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 with the collimated light beam from the light source that is located at a first distance (Fig. 1 @ 12, 90, light 12’s location from the surface 90 is the first distance) from the surface of the substrate, wherein the surface of the substrate is a backside surface of the substrate (Fig. 1 @ 90, illustrates the backside surface) and the light source is located above the backside surface of the substrate (Fig. 1 @ 12, 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 and a flat portion of the surface of the substrate with no bumps or dips (Fig. 1 @ 12, 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 (Fig. 1 @ 34, Par. [0007]), the method further comprising:
detecting the reflected light from a first point on the surface of the substrate (Fig. 1 @ 30, Par. [0006], Fig. 5A @ 112, Par. [0034]);
determining a spectrum of the reflected light (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 comprises a lens at an input to the spectrometer, the lens is configured to focus the reflected light from the surface of the substrate onto one or more light detectors (Munro, Fig 1 @ 24, Par. [0007], Fig. 2 @ 70); 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 collimated light beam having the peak wavelength is configured to focus on the surface of the substrate (Fig. 1 @ 90, 112).
Regarding Claim 9, Munro as modified by Horn teaches a pinhole structure having a pinhole is arranged before the lens of the spectrometer, wherein the reflected light with the peak wavelength is configured to focus on the pinhole structure, and wherein the reflected light with the peak wavelength substantially entirely pass through the pinhole (Munro, Par. [0010], Horn, Par. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 10, Munro as modified by Horn teaches the reflected light having one or more wavelengths other than the peak wavelength are configured 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 configured 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 collimated light 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 collimated light beam to impinge on a surface of the substrate, wherein the collimated light 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 collimated light 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 collimated light beam comprising a plurality of wavelengths each comprising a respective wavelength-dependent focal length (See Claim 1 rejection);
an optical system configured to direct the collimated light beam to impinge on a surface of the substrate and to receive S904 reflected light from the surface (See Claim 1 rejection);
a spectrometer configured to receive reflected light and to determine a peak wavelength of the reflected light (See Claim 6 rejection); and
a processor (Munro, Fig. 1 @ 40) 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 lens configured to focus the reflected light onto one or more light detectors of the spectrometer (See Claim 5 rejection)r; and
each light detector is configured to generate a signal proportional to the reflected light in a specific wavelength range (See Claim 7 rejection).
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 the lens of the spectrometer and is positioned to transmit a specific wavelength of the reflected light to the spectrometer (See Claim 9 rejection).
Conclusion
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