DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO 1449.These IDS has been considered.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within 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, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group II: claims 12-20, in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” filed on 1/25/26 is acknowledged and entered by Examiner.
This office action considers claims 1-20 are thus pending for prosecution, of which, non-elected claims 1-11 are withdrawn, and elected claims 12-20 are examined on their merits.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “measurer” in claim 12.
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.
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 12-20 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.
Claim element “measurer” as found in claim 12 is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim limitation “measurer for measuring characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave received by the electromagnetic wave receiver” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of “a measurer 40 for measuring characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave received by the electromagnetic wave receiver 30, and an operation controller 50 for determining composition uniformity or defect distribution of the thin film based on locations on the substrate by using a parameter including the measured characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave …¶0046”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform “for measuring characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave received by the electromagnetic wave receiver”. The use of the term " measurer " is not adequate structure for performing the limitation “for measuring characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave received by the electromagnetic wave receiver” because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “measurer” refers “for measuring characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave received by the electromagnetic wave receiver” and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. Therefore, claim 12, the claimed function of “measurer” being treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, indefiniteness Accordingly, claim 12 is explicitly rejected as being indefinite, and claims 13-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on at least claim 12.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of removing noise from the appearance signals. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 12, thereby containing all the limitations of the claim on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 12-13, 15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (KR20250018574A) (herein after LEE) in view of Sugimoto et al. (US 6320401 B1) (herein after Sugimoto).
As to claim(s) 12 and 20, LEE discloses a thin film monitoring apparatus comprising:
a beam emitter [first laser source (110)] for generating a beam to be injected into a thin film on a substrate to form excited carriers in the thin film [specimen (167) may be formed as a thin film on an epitaxial layer on a wafer substrate…Page 6];
an electromagnetic wave irradiator [second laser source (120)] for irradiating an electromagnetic wave onto the thin film while the excited carriers in the thin film are recombining [the laser output from the second laser source (120) is converted into an electromagnetic wave and provided to the specimen (167) or used as a reference laser…page 6];
an electromagnetic wave receiver [detection unit (150)] for receiving the electromagnetic wave transmitted through or reflected from the thin film [page 7];
a measurer for measuring characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave received by the electromagnetic wave receiver [the electromagnetic wave converted by the second branch laser through the second optical crystal (145) is input to the detection unit (150) as a reference electromagnetic wave, and the electromagnetic wave output through the second lens (165) includes characteristic information of the specimen to be inspected and is compared with the reference electromagnetic wave…page 7]; and
an operation controller [analysis unit] for determining composition uniformity or defect [The semiconductor inspection device (100) may further include an analysis unit (not shown) that analyzes whether or not a specimen has a defect… The analysis unit is implemented by a computer program, and calculates the attenuation rate described above based on the magnitude of the electromagnetic wave penetrating the specimen (167) …page 7].
The thin film monitoring apparatus of claim 12, further comprising a
display for visualizing and displaying the composition uniformity or defect [The analysis unit is implemented by a computer program, and calculates the attenuation rate described above based on the magnitude of the electromagnetic wave penetrating the specimen (167) and the reference electromagnetic wave, and then determines whether or not a defect has occurred in the specimen
based on this, and outputs the result through an interface module such as a display…page 7].
[Note: while each unit configured to perform as claimed may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does].
LEE discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “defect distribution of the thin film based on locations on the substrate by using a parameter comprising the measured characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave”.
However, Sugimoto from the same field of endeavor discloses a controller [107…col.8, line 50] for determining composition uniformity or defect distribution of the thin film based on locations on the substrate by using a parameter comprising the measured characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave [col. 9, lines 3-15].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of LEE such that the controller for determining composition uniformity or defect distribution of the thin film based on locations on the substrate by using the parameter comprising the measured characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave; as taught by Sugimoto, for the advantages such as: comparing the test characteristics with the measured standard characteristics to determine whether the sample substrate is good or bad.
As of claim 13, LEE discloses the thin film monitoring apparatus of claim 12, wherein the electromagnetic wave irradiator is located above the substrate, and the electromagnetic wave receiver is located below the substrate to receive the electromagnetic wave transmitted through the thin film [@fig.3: the electromagnetic wave passing through the sample (167) and the reference electromagnetic wave are transmitted to the detection unit (150), and the size of each electromagnetic wave is detected…page 7].
As of claim 15, LEE discloses the thin film monitoring apparatus wherein a plurality of electromagnetic wave irradiators [a first laser source (110) and a second laser source (120)…page 6] and a plurality of electromagnetic wave receivers are arranged in pairs to correspond to each other to measure the characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave based on the locations of the thin film on the substrate [the detection unit (150) may include a first photodiode (158) that detects a first electromagnetic wave converted by a second branch laser through a second optical crystal (1450) and a second photodiode (159)…page 7].
As of claim 17, LEE discloses the thin film monitoring apparatus wherein the measurer measures a transmittance or reflectance of the electromagnetic wave as the characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave [the electromagnetic wave converted by the second branch laser through the second optical crystal (145) is input to the detection unit (150) as a reference electromagnetic wave, and the electromagnetic wave output through the second lens (165) includes characteristic information of the specimen to be inspected and is compared with the reference electromagnetic wave…page 7].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of Sugimoto et al. and further in view of Ouchi (US 20150051496 A1) (herein after Ouchi).
As of claim 14, LEE when modified by Sugimoto discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The thin film monitoring apparatus of claim 12, wherein the electromagnetic wave irradiator is located above the substrate, and the electromagnetic wave receiver is located above the substrate to receive the electromagnetic wave reflected from the thin film”.
However, Ouchi from the same field of endeavor discloses an electromagnetic wave irradiator [emitter element] is located above the substrate, and the electromagnetic wave receiver [receiver element] is located above the substrate to receive the electromagnetic wave reflected from the thin film [FIG. 1A) is used as a receiver element, a laser light beam 18 (for receiving) is passed through an optical delay unit including mirrors 25 and 16 and a driving unit 15 and further through mirrors 13 and 11 and a lens 9 such that the laser light beam 18 (for receiving) strikes the gap of the element. While irradiating the gap of the element, the optical delay unit is scanned and a waveform of a terahertz wave reflected from the object under observation is acquired via the amplifier 5 and a data processing unit 6…¶0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of LEE when modified by Sugimoto such that the electromagnetic wave irradiator is located above the substrate, and the electromagnetic wave receiver is located above the substrate to receive the electromagnetic wave reflected from the thin film; as taught by Ouchi, for the advantages such as: to obtain a high-accuracy image without being influenced by noise caused by multiple reflections in the object.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of Sugimoto et al. and further in view of TAKEBAYASHI et al. (US 20240242983 A1) (herein after TAKEBAYASHI).
As of claim 16, LEE when modified by Sugimoto discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the limitation such as: “The thin film monitoring apparatus of claim 12, further comprising a susceptor for seating the substrate thereon, wherein the susceptor is movable in a direction parallel to an upper surface of the substrate to measure the characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave based on the locations of the thin film on the substrate”.
However, TAKEBAYASHI from the same field of endeavor discloses a susceptor [103a/103b] for seating the substrate thereon, wherein the susceptor is movable in a direction parallel to an upper surface of the substrate to measure the characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave based on the locations of the thin film on the substrate [¶0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the device/method/system of LEE when modified by Sugimoto such that the susceptor for seating the substrate thereon, wherein the susceptor is movable in the direction parallel to the upper surface of the substrate to measure the characteristic information of the electromagnetic wave based on the locations of the thin film on the substrate; as taught by TAKEBAYASHI, for the advantages such as: improving a uniformity in the heating of the substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur.
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, TARIFUR CHOWDHURY can be reached at 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 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.
MD M. RAHMAN
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2886
/MD M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877