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 Objections
2. Claims 10 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 10, line 2, change “first host” to –first hose--.
Regarding Claim 13, line 7, change “threshold number” to –threshold--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The present application 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 12, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Pub. No. 2005/0037513 A1 by Ivancic et al. (hereinafter Ivancic).
Regarding Claim 1, Ivancic teaches a method for non-destructively inspecting a surface (Abstract), the method comprising:
providing a light beam (Fig. 10 @ 1011, Par. [0083]) focused at a focal point at a distance from the surface (Fig. 10 @ 1005, Par. [0083]) to cause a shockwave (Abstract: a laser to vaporize or break down an analyte desired to be measured (e.g. PCB or PCB like compounds) in a surface area thus teaches shockwave) reaching the surface to dislodge particles from the surface (Abstract, Par. [0083-0084]) and cause the dislodged particles to become airborne particles (Fig. 1 @ 121, Par. [0027]: A vacuum pump 121 typically aids in conducting the analyte carrying gas to the adsorbent trap 119, Par. [0083]: When a sample is ready to be collected by generation of vaporized analyte the surface a flow of gas from gas line 1120 at opening 1121 sweeps the analyte into a second opening 1123 leading to adsorbent trap 1130, Par. [0084]: the paint releasing vaporized material and small particulate that is then collected in an absorbent trap 1130 The absorbent trap is seen on the top of the sampling head 910 in FIG. 10 and is connected to the pump and the outflow area of the optical cavity, thus teaches airborne particles); and
detecting the airborne particles (Fig. 11 @ 1190, Par. [0004, 0086, 0114-0115]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ivancic teaches quantifying a cleanliness and/or contamination of the surface by surface-bound particles, which were at least present on the surface prior to the shockwave (Par. [0113]: calibration curve, The EPA allowable standard for calling a sample uncontaminated is at 50 ppm, i.e. the baseline prior to the shockwave), based on a detected amount of the airborne particles, during the detecting carried out after the shockwave reaching the surface (Par. [0014-0015]: clean and contaminated, i.e. the detected amount after the shockwave reaching the surface).
Regarding Claim 4, Ivancic teaches a system for non-destructively inspecting a surface (See Claim 1 rejection above. Note: a method claim can be used to implement an apparatus claim), the system comprising:
a lighting device (Abstract: laser) configured to provide a light beam focused at a focal point at a distance from the surface to cause a shockwave reaching the surface to dislodge particles from the surface and cause the dislodged particles to become airborne particles (See Claim 1 rejection above) and
a particle detector configured to detect the airborne particles (See Claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 5, Ivancic teaches the particle detector comprises a channel (Fig. 10 @ 1130, Par. [0083]) configured to receive a particle flow comprising the airborne particles and detect the airborne particles in the particle flow (Par. [0083-0086]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ivancic teaches a controller (Par. [0086]) configured to perform a measurement sequence comprising performing:
a first measurement of any airborne particles detected by the particle detector prior to applying the shockwave by the lighting device (Par. [0113]: calibration curve, The EPA allowable standard for calling a sample uncontaminated is at 50 ppm, i.e. the baseline prior to applying the shockwave); and
a second measurement of any airborne particles detected after applying the shockwave by the lighting device (Par. [0014-0015]: clean and contaminated, i.e. the detected amount after applying the shockwave); and
a quantification of a contamination and/or cleanliness of the surface by comparing the second measurement with the first measurement (Par. [0014-0015]).
Regarding Claim 16, Ivancic teaches detecting the airborne particles comprises receiving a particle flow containing the dislodged airborne particles through a channel and detecting the airborne particles in the particle flow (See Claim 5 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 17, Ivancic teaches the channel has a flow inlet positioned within a distance of less than ten centimeters from the focal point where the light beam is focused (See Claim 6 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 18, Ivancic teaches providing a gas flow of source gas into a volume that includes the focal point, wherein detecting the airborne particles comprises receiving a particle flow containing the dislodged airborne particles carried in the flow of the source gas through a channel (See Claim 7 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 19, Ivancic teaches the gas flow of source gas is provided from a flow outlet located within a distance of less than ten centimeters from the focal point where the light beam is focused (See Claim 8 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 20, Ivancic teaches the light beam is delivered through a light guide into a contained volume formed by a probe head shaped as a cup placed against the surface to be inspected (See Claim 9 rejection above),
wherein the focal point is located inside the cup at a distance from a plane established by a rim of the cup corresponding to a designated region of the surface (See Claim 9 rejection above), and
wherein the method further comprises:
guiding a particle flow containing the dislodged airborne particles from the contained volume toward the particle detector through a first hose forming a first channel (See Claim 9 rejection above); and
providing a gas flow of clean source gas into the contained volume through a second hose forming a second channel (See Claim 9 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 21, Ivancic teaches the light guide, the first hose and the second hose are flexible to facilitate moving the probe head to different regions of the
Surface (See Claim 10 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 22, Ivancic teaches the surface is part of a substrate held inside a contained volume encapsulated by a container (See Claim 11 rejection above),
wherein providing the light beam and detecting the airborne particles are performed within the contained volume (See Claim 11 rejection above),
wherein detecting the airborne particles comprises receiving the airborne particles from the contained volume through a channel connected to the particle detector (See Claim 11 rejection above); and
wherein the method further comprises providing a gas flow of clean source gas into the contained volume (See Claim 11 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 23, Ivancic teaches performing a first measurement of any airborne particles detected by the particle detector prior to applying the shockwave with the light beam (See Claim 12 rejection above);
performing a second measurement of any airborne particles detected after applying the shockwave with the light beam (See Claim 12 rejection above); and
quantifying a contamination and/or cleanliness of the surface by comparing the second measurement with the first measurement (See Claim 12 rejection above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivancic in view of US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0072724 A1 by Knollenberg et al. (hereinafter Knollenberg).
Regarding Claim 3, Ivancic teaches the airborne particles dislodged by the shockwave from the surface that are detected during the detecting the airborne particles (See Claim 1 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach comprise nanoparticles having a diameter between one nanometer and two hundred nanometers.
However, Knollenberg teaches nanoparticles having a diameter between one nanometer and two hundred nanometers (Abstract, Par. [0010, 0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ivancic by Knollenberg as taught above such that nanoparticles having a diameter between one nanometer and two hundred nanometers is accomplished in order to maintaining a cleanroom environment otherwise, they may affect the increasingly sensitive manufacturing processes (Knollenberg, Par. [0002-0003]).
7. Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivancic.
Regarding Claim 6, Ivancic teaches the channel has a flow inlet (Fig. 10 @ 1123, 1130, 1011, Par. [0083]: When a sample is ready to be collected by generation of vaporized analyte the surface a flow of gas from gas line 1120 at opening 1121 sweeps the analyte into a second opening 1123 (i.e. the flow inlet, which is not shown in Fig. 10) leading to adsorbent trap 1130. Therefore, inlet is illustrated diagonally left from the 1011 or straight across 1121. Proximal end of 1130), to receive the particle flow, within a distance of less than ten centimeter (Fig. 10 @ 1005, 1130, the distance is illustrated between 1005 and proximal end of 1130 thus a distance of less than ten centimeter is anticipated) from the focal point provided by the lighting device (Fig. 10) but does not explicitly teach a distance of less than ten centimeter.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use optimum range (a distance of less than ten centimeter) in order to balance the trade-off between sensitivity, resolution, cost, and power consumption. By optimizing for a specific distance/range, system ensure enough particles return to detect particles reliably without unnecessary power, cost, or hardware complexity. Since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 7, Ivancic teaches a flow source (Fig. 10 @ 1120, Par. [0083]) configured to provide a gas flow of source gas into a volume comprising the focal point (Fig. 10 @ 1003, Par. [0083]),
wherein the channel of the flow inlet (See Claim 6 rejection above) is configured to receive the particle flow comprising the airborne particles carried in a flow of the source gas (Par. [0083]) from the flow source (Fig. 10 @ 1120, Par. [0083]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ivancic teaches the flow source has a flow outlet (Fig. 10 @ 1121, Par. [0083]) for the gas flow of source gas within a distance of less than ten centimeter (Fig. 10 @ 1005, 1121, the distance is illustrated between 1005 and 1121thus a distance of less than ten centimeter is anticipated) from the focal point provided by the lighting device (Fig. 10) but does not explicitly teach a distance of less than ten centimeter.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use optimum range (a distance of less than ten centimeter) in order to balance the trade-off between sensitivity, resolution, cost, and power consumption. By optimizing for a specific distance/range, system ensure that unwanted chemical reaction such as oxidation (rusting/spoiling), combustion, or degradation is avoided. Since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 9, Ivancic teaches a probe head (Fig. 10 @ 910, Par. [0083]) and configured to form a contained volume (Fig. 10 @ 1003, Par. [0083]) when placed against the surface to be inspected (Fig. 10 @ 1005, Par. [0083]),
wherein the probe head (Fig. 10 @ 910, Par. [0083]) is connected by a light guide (Fig. 10 @ 970, 1011, Par. [0082-0083]) to receive the light beam focused at the focal point (See Claim 4 rejection above) inside (Fig. 10 @ 1001, Par. [0083]), in particular at the distance from a plane (See Claim 4 rejection above), the plane corresponding to a designated region of the surface to be inspected (Fig. 10 @ 1005, Par. [0083]);
wherein the probe head (Fig. 10 @ 910, Par. [0083]) is fluidly connected by a first hose forming a first channel (Fig. 10 @ 1130, Par. [0083]) to guide a particle flow from the contained volume (Fig. 10 @ 1003, Par. [0083]) towards the particle detector (Fig. 11 @ 1190, Par. [0083-0086]); and
wherein the probe head (Fig. 10 @ 910, Par. [0083]) is fluidly connected by a second hose forming a second channel (Fig. 10 @ 1120, Par. [0083]) to guide a gas flow of clean source gas, from a flow source (Fig. 10 @ 1120, Par. [0083]) into the contained volume (Fig. 10 @ 1003, Par. [0083]) but does not explicitly teach a cup and a rim of the cup.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (a probe head that is shaped as a cup), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (regular, cup size prob head), 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a probe head that is shaped as a cup (inherently teaches a rim of the cup) in order to enhance stability, improve contact on irregular surfaces, and minimize slippage.
Regarding Claim 10, Ivancic teaches each of the light guide, the first host and the second hose (See Claim 4 rejection above) are flexible (Fig. 9 @ 970, Par. [0082]: laser beam for the sampling head via an optic cable 970, Fig. 10, Par. [0083]: gas line 1133 leads via a line in the cable 972, Par. [0094, 0103], thus teaches flexible) to facilitate movement of so the probe head to different regions of the surface (Par. [0082]).
Regarding Claim 11, Ivancic teaches a container (Fig. 10 @ 1001, Par. [0083]) encapsulating a contained volume (Fig. 10 @ 1003, Par. [0083]) configured to hold a substrate (Fig. 10 @ 1005, Par. [0083]);
wherein the system is configured to inspect the surface of the substrate (Fig. 10 @ 1005, Par. [0083]. Also see Claim 4 rejection above,
wherein the particle detector comprises a channel connected to receive the airborne particles (See Claim 5 rejection above) from the contained volume (Fig. 10 @ 1003, Par. [0083]), and
wherein a flow source is configured to provide a gas flow of clean source gas into the contained volume (See Claim 9 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach a contained volume configured to hold a substrate inside and inspect the surface of the substrate in the contained volume.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (inspecting the surface of the substrate inside the contained volume), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (inside, outside), 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 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to inspect the surface of the substrate inside the contained volume in order to avoid contamination thus improve inspection result.
8. Claims 14-15 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivancic in view of US Patent No. 5023424 by Vaught (hereinafter Vaught).
Regarding Claim 14, Ivancic teaches a sensor or contact surface of a probe head (Fig. 10 @ 910, Par. [0083]), configured to determine a position of a designated region on the surface (Fig. 10 @ 910, 1005, illustrates such configuration), wherein the lighting device (Abstract: laser) is configured to focus the light beam at the focal point at a distance above the surface of the determined position of the designated region (Fig. 10 @ 910, 1005, 1011, illustrates such configuration) but does not explicitly teach generate a plasma and a distance between 0.1 and 5 mm.
However, Vaught teaches generate a plasma (Col. 2, line 23-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ivancic by Vaught as taught above such that generating a plasma is accomplished in order to provide higher energy efficiency, superior precision, and lower operating temperatures, resulting in less thermal damage to surrounding areas and more effective material breakdown.
Still lacking limitation such as: a distance between 0.1 and 5 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use optimum range in order to balance the trade-off between sensitivity, resolution, cost, and power consumption. By optimizing for a specific distance/range, system ensure enough signal return (reflectivity) to detect objects reliably without unnecessary power, cost, or hardware complexity. Since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 15, Ivancic teaches inspecting a surface (See Claim 4 rejection above) but does not explicitly teach a lithography system including the system for non-destructively inspecting a surface and further comprising a wafer stage and/or mask stage configured to hold and/or position a wafer substrate and/or mask,
wherein the system for non-destructively inspecting a surface is configured to inspect a surface of the wafer substrate and/or mask.
However, Vaught teaches a lithography system (Col. 3, line 35-41) including the system for non-destructively inspecting a surface and further comprising a wafer stage and/or mask stage (Fig. 1 @ 13, Col. 3, line 45-54) configured to hold and/or position a wafer substrate and/or mask (Abstract, Col. 2, line 7-11, Col. 3, line 35-41),
wherein the system for non-destructively inspecting a surface is configured to inspect a surface of the wafer substrate and/or mask (Fig. 1 @ 45, Col. 3, line 55-57, Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ivancic by Vaught as taught above such that a lithography system comprising a wafer stage and/or mask stage configured to hold and/or position a wafer substrate and/or mask, wherein the system for non-destructively inspecting a surface is configured to inspect a surface of the wafer substrate and/or mask in order to avoid contamination where surfaces requiring extreme cleanliness thus lithography process is performed with accuracy (Vaught, Col. 3, line 35-41).
Regarding Claim 25, Ivancic teaches determining a position of a designated region on the surface using a sensor or contact surface (See Claim 14 rejection above); and
focusing the light beam to generate a plasma at the focal point at a distance between 0.1 and 5 millimeters above the surface at the determined position (See Claim 14 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 26, Ivancic teaches the surface is that of a wafer substrate and/or mask held or positioned on a wafer stage and/or mask stage of a lithography system, and the method is performed as part of the lithography process (See Claim 15 rejection above).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 13 and 24 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.
Additional Prior Art
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The reference listed teaches of other prior art method/system of removing particles by Shockwave.
WO9714033A1 by Smedley et al.
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
Prosecution Insights