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 .
Detailed Action
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.
Claim 10 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 Claim 10, the applicant has claimed “wherein the obtaining polarization information of the reflected light reflected from the working object when it is determined to be difficult to distinguish the defect signal from a noise,” however there is no connection between “wherein the obtaining polarization information of the reflected light reflected from the working object” and “when it is determined to be difficult to distinguish the defect signal from a noise”. Thus, the examiner is left to wonder what is done with the first part (the step from claim 1) when the condition is met. i.e. the applicant has left out the words “is performed”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-12, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al (PGPub 2018/0073979) (Cho).
Regarding Claim 1, Cho discloses an optical inspection method, comprising:
obtaining polarization information of a reflected light reflected from a working object (Paragraph 57, Null Conditions);
illuminating an incident light on the working object (200) and obtaining the reflected light converted to an arbitrary elliptical polarization by being reflected from the working object (Paragraph 59);
nulling the reflected light by using a waveplate (140, Paragraph 39) and a polarizer (150) (Paragraph 59);
wherein an initial value of a fast axis of the waveplate is set based on the polarization information (Paragraph 69); and
detecting a defect signal by adjusting the waveplate and the polarizer while maintaining the nulling (Paragraphs 52-53).
Regarding Claim 2, Cho discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cho discloses wherein an initial value of a phase shift of the waveplate is set as π/2 radian (Paragraph 39). The phase shift of a quarter waveplate is π/2.
Regarding Claim 3, Cho discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cho discloses wherein the nulling the reflected light by using the waveplate and the polarizer comprises: reducing ellipticity of the reflected light by using the waveplate; and blocking the reflected light with the reduced ellipticity by using the polarizer (Paragraph 59).
Regarding Claim 10, Cho discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the obtaining polarization information of the reflected light reflected from the working object when it is determined to be difficult to distinguish the defect signal from a noise,” is met since the point of deriving the Null conditions in the first place is to reduce noise and improve the signal and “when it is determined to be difficult to distinguish the defect signal from a noise” is a judgement call with no parameters.
Regarding Claim 11, Cho discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cho discloses wherein the polarization information of the reflected light reflected from the working object is obtained by at least one of simulation and analysis of a pupil plane according to actual measurement (Paragraphs 71-73, Figs. 4a & 4b).
Regarding Claim 12, Cho discloses an optical inspection apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
a light source (101) configured to generate light;
a first polarizer (130) configured to convert the light to an incident light that is incident on a working object, wherein the incident light is a polarized light modified from the light (Paragraph 38); and
a waveplate (140, Paragraph 39) and a second polarizer configured to null a reflected light converted to an arbitrary elliptical polarized light by reflection of the incident light from the working object and adjusted to magnify a defect signal while maintaining the nulling (Paragraph 59),
wherein an initial value of a fast axis of the waveplate is set based on polarization information of the reflected light reflected from the working object (Paragraph 69).
Regarding Claim 14, Cho discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cho discloses wherein the first polarizer is configured to convert the light to linearly polarized light (Paragraph 38).
Regarding Claim 15, Cho discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cho discloses wherein the waveplate is a 1/4 waveplate (Paragraph 39).
Regarding Claim 16, Cho discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cho discloses wherein the waveplate is configured to reduce ellipticity of the reflected light (Paragraph 39).
Regarding Claim 17, Cho discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cho discloses wherein the second polarizer blocks the reflected light with the reduced ellipticity (Paragraph 59).
Regarding Claim 18, Cho discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cho discloses wherein the polarization information of the reflected light reflected from the working object is predetermined (Paragraph 57). Determining the null conditions before doing the measurement means the information is pre-determined.
Regarding Claim 19, Cho discloses the aforementioned. Further, Cho discloses wherein the working object comprises a semiconductor wafer (Paragraph 35).
Regarding Claim 20, Cho discloses an optical inspection system (fig. 1), comprising:
a stage (103) configured to hold a working object;
an analyzer (105) configured to analyze polarization information of a reflected light reflected from the working object;
an optical inspection apparatus configured to detect a defect signal from the working object, wherein the optical inspection apparatus comprises:
a light source (101) configured to generate light;
an illumination optical module (130) configured to generate an incident light, wherein the incident light is a polarized light modified from the light (Paragraph 38);
a collection optical module configured to collect the reflected light converted to an arbitrary elliptically polarized light by reflection of the incident light from the working object (See fig. 1),
wherein the collection optical module comprises a waveplate (140, Paragraph 39) and a polarizer (150). The compensator may be on either side of the reflection as shown in Fig. 11 (140a);
the waveplate and the polarizer are configured to null the reflected light and magnify a size of the defect signal while maintaining the nulling (Paragraph 59); and
an initial value of a fast axis of the waveplate is set based on the polarization information (Paragraph 69); and
a detector (180) configured to detect the defect signal; and
a controller (105) configured to apply the polarization information to the waveplate and the polarizer (Paragraph 51).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6, & 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Aspnes et al (D. E. Aspnes and A. A. Studna, "High Precision Scanning Ellipsometer," Appl. Opt. 14, 220-228 (1975)) (Aspnes).
elliptical polarization parameters Ψ and Δ
103 Aspnes
Regarding Claim 4, Cho discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the polarization information is information formed within a pupil plane by Fourier transforming the reflected light reflected from the working object;
However, while it is silent on the fact it is obvious that the polarization information is formed within the pupil plane of the optical system;
Further, Aspnes discloses that it is possible to derive the elliptical polarization parameters Ψ and Δ, which Cho uses to derive the Null condition, using a Fourier transformation of data obtained from an ellipsometer (Abstract);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cho with wherein the polarization information is information formed within a pupil plane by Fourier transforming the reflected light reflected from the working object because it would be obvious to try the highly precise Aspnes method rather than the one used in Cho to derive the needed Null condition.
Regarding Claim 5, Cho as modified by Aspnes discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein: the pupil plane comprises a plurality of regions divided according to moving directions of the reflected light; and each region among the plurality of regions comprises the polarization information,” because this is inherently true. One can divide any plane into a plurality of regions and the in the case of this apparatus the light on the plane will have the polarization information since that light is used to derive it.
Regarding Claim 6, Cho as modified by Aspnes discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein: the polarization information comprises a first polarization information; and the first polarization information comprises information on a major axis, a minor axis, a polarization direction, and an intensity of the reflected light,” is inherently met since the light will have all of this information.
Regarding Claim 8, Cho as modified by Aspnes discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein: the polarization information further comprises a second polarization information; and the second polarization information comprises information on the major axis, the minor axis, the polarization direction, and the intensity of the reflected light having ellipticity reduced by passing through the waveplate,” is inherently met since the light will have all of this information.
Claim(s) 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho.
Regarding Claim 13, Cho discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose a beam splitter configured to direct the incident light on the working object, and direct the reflected light on the waveplate;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cho with a beam splitter configured to direct the incident light on the working object, and direct the reflected light on the waveplate because this is true of another common configuration of ellipsometer with a beam direction at a perpendicular angle to the wafer which is functionally equivalent to that of Cho and would be chosen based on cost and availability of parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 & 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to Claim 7 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein an initial value of the fast axis is set as a direction of a vector sum of major axes of the reflected light within the plurality of regions, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
As to Claim 9 the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious wherein an initial angle of the polarizer is set as a direction perpendicular to a vector sum of major axes of the reflected light having reduced the ellipticity within the plurality of regions, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 January 9, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877