DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 07/22/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 3-18 and 20 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments have changed the scope of the invention and overcome the rejection as written in the previous office action mailed 4/22/2026.
3- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings from the same references used in the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4- 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 of this title, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
5- Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-18, 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US Patent N. 11961770) in view of Makuuchi (PGPUB 20200393388).
As to claims 1, 11, 17, Lin teaches an apparatus, and its method of use, comprising: a housing (the housing 102 of processing chamber/tool 105, with multiple apertures allowing elements 111, 113, 114, and/or 117, or the samples 101 to penetrate the interior of the housing); a substrate holder within the housing; a stage within the housing, the stage to support the substrate holder, wherein the stage comprises a rotating stage beneath and attached to the substrate holder (Col/ll. 6/11-14; rotating chuck for rotating the sample according to Col/ll. 6/53-59, 13/22-80 for ex.), and a displaceable linear stage and attached to the rotating stage (Cart 140c and its upper element to hold sample 101 and to move it along rails 140a-b); and a diagnostic tool (180, 402 and/or 602-604-606) within the housing (Figs. 1-2), wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to take measurements of a substrate that is placed on the substrate holder (Col/ll. 6/33-67, 7/39-8/11, 9/48-10/8); (Claim 17) a method, comprising: coupling a portable module with diagnostic capabilities(Col/ll. 11/15-36, 12/56-67 for ex; the set of diagnostic assemblies ) and a displaceable stage to a processing tool (see cart 140c here above); analyzing a substrate a first time with the portable module; passing the substrate through the processing tool; and analyzing the substrate a second time with the portable module (Fig. 1; multiple measurements/analyses are performed along rails 140 while passing through the processing tool); wherein the diagnostic tool comprises a light source and a camera system (Figs. 2, 6-8; module 104 presents a light source 604 and a camera 602).
Lin does not teach expressly the housing to be portable; and that the linear stage is beneath the rotating stage; and wherein a housing of the light source and a housing of the camera system are in a same horizontal plane above a horizontal plane of the substrate holder at locations vertically overlapping with the substrate holder.
However, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to make the housing portable since it has been held, In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952), that (Fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.). Moreover, as the order of the rotational stage and the linear stage under the sample holder, Makuuchi, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an inspection device/method (Abstract, Figs. 1-5) wherein the linear stage (13) is beneath the rotating stage (12), ¶ 26-29. Moreover, Makuuchi teaches clearly an inspection system with a light source (3/4), a camera/detector (7) and the housings thereof in a same horizontal plane above a horizontal plane of substrate/holder (1) at locations vertically overlapping with the substrate holder (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Lin in view of Makuuchi’s suggestions so that the tool comprises a polarizer; wherein the housing is configured to be transportable on a carrier that comprises wheels; wherein a housing of the light source and a housing of the camera system are in a same horizontal plane above a horizontal plane of the substrate holder at locations vertically overlapping with the substrate holder, with the advantage of permitting ease of coupling with different processing/diagnostic tools, in addition to the advantage, taught by Bieli, of effectively optimizing ellipsometry measurements (¶ 21, 26 for ex.)
(Claims 3/16) wherein the stage comprises: a linear stage; and a rotating stage coupled to the linear stage; wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to take the measurements of the substrate at a plurality of locations on a surface of the substrate (Fig. 2, Col/ll. 6/53-59, 13/22-80 for ex.)
(Claims 4/13/20, 6) wherein the diagnostic tool comprises one or both of an optical metrology system or an optical inspection system; wherein the diagnostic tool comprises one or both of an ellipsometer or a reflectometer (Figs. 2-3, 6-8 and Col/ll. 7/39-8/11).
(Claims 7/12) wherein the housing is configured to dock with an equipment front end module (EFEM) of a semiconductor processing tool (Fig. 2 and Col/ll. 8/45-9/12; the apparatus is coupled to front end inspection module 106).
(Claim 9) wherein the housing has a form factor that is the same as a front opening unified pod -FOUP- used in high volume manufacturing semiconductor fabrication environments (Col/ll. 3/47-55).
(Claim 10) wherein the apparatus is configured to be communicatively coupled to a controller that is configured to direct one or more metrology processes that occur within the apparatus (Figs. 1-2, controller 118; Col/ll. 3/56-65).
(Claim 14) wherein the for the metrology system is capable of determining a film thickness and/or a film composition, or wherein the optical inspection tool is capable of determining a presence of a particle and/or a position of a particle (Col/ll. 6/65-7/7, 9/13-46).
(Claim 15) wherein the substrate has a form factor that is different than a form factor of production substrates that are processed in the processing tool (Fig. 6 and Col/ll. 9/13-46; parts of the substrate are imaged along scribe lines, the parts having smaller dimensions/form factor than the total wafer).
(Claim 18) further comprising: comparing results of analyzing the substrate the first time with results of analyzing the substrate the second time (Col/ll. 11/37-43; results of the measurements are correlated between the assemblies, i.e. first and second analyzes).
6- Claims 5, 8 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Bieli et al. (PGPUB No. 2019/0295874, cited by Applicants)
As to claims 5 and 8, Lin teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 4, wherein the diagnostic tool comprises: a lens (Figs. 2, 6-8; light source/lens/camera in the imaging module 604/606/602).
Lin does not teach expressly the tool comprises a polarizer; (Claim 8) wherein the housing is configured to be transportable on a carrier that comprises wheels.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bieli teaches sample transport device and associated metrology methods (Abstract and Figs. 1-4) wherein polarizers 314/320 are used with light source/lenses/camera 302/312/316/318 (Fig. 3, ¶ 51-61). Moreover, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to adapt the housing of Lin as a portable/transportable module on a carrier with wheels to facilitate its displacement and coupling with different processing chambers. See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D. In addition, it has been held that a fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus of Lin in view of Bieli’s suggestions so that the tool comprises a polarizer; wherein the housing is configured to be transportable on a carrier that comprises wheels, with the advantage of permitting ease of coupling with different processing/diagnostic tools, in addition to the advantage, taught by Bieli, of effectively optimizing ellipsometry measurements (¶ 21, 26 for ex.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
