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 .
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.
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: carry-in unit, carry-out unit, polishing unit, cleaning unit, and drying unit in claims 9 and 10.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki JP 2021-004796 in view of Marumo et al. U.S. Patent #6,331,890.
With respect to claim 1, Miyazaki discloses an apparatus for measuring a thickness of a workpiece (abstract) comprising:
A measurement section disposed inside the enclosure for measuring the thickness of the workpiece wherein the measurement section is provided with a spectral interferometric sensor (measurement section = optical unit 12 and detection unit 14 implementing spectral interference thickness measurement, abstract, P.0010)
However, Miyazaki fails to disclose an enclosure, the measurement section inside the enclosure, and a rectifier disposed into the enclosure for rectifying airflow inside the enclosure.
Marumo teaches a film thickness measurement apparatus comprising:
A housing which substantially shuts off an internal region from outside air (claim 1, housing = enclosure, abstract)
A measurement section disposed inside the enclosure (measurement stage 54 = measurement section and film thickness measuring mechanism arranged inside housing, claim 1, Col.11)
A rectifier disposed inside the enclosure for rectifying airflow inside the enclosure (fan filter 90 located above measuring area, supplying pure air so that air flows from the upper region to the lower region of the measurement space, the fan filter unit comprising fan 91, chemical filter 92, and ULPA filter 93, claim 10, abstract, Col.11-12, fan filter unit 90 = rectifier)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the housing and rectifier of Marumo in the measurement apparatus of Miyazaki since in order to provide a controlled clean airflow environment around the optical thickness measurement, an enclosure is common sense. This would result in measurement stability and accuracy by reducing ambient contamination as taught by Marumo (abstract, Col.11-12) and desired by Miyazaki (abstract discussing temperature and environmental effects on spectral interference thickness measurement).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Miyazaki in view of Marumo teaches all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Miyazaki fails to disclose a storage section and the partitions with openings between sections.
Marumo teaches:
A storage/housing region within the same housing as the measurement section for storing cassettes and associated wafer handling equipment (introduction stage on which cassette is mounted, loading/unloading area with conveyance mechanisms and cassette = storage section for storing equipment)
The rectifier, the measurement section, and the storage section are arranged in this order from an upper side in the enclosure (Figure 1, rectifier = 90, measurement section = stage 54, storage section = cassette C that moves from level with measurement stage to below)
A first partition is provided between the rectifier and the measurement section (Figure 1 and 2, first partition = 96 + 95, rectifier = 90, measurement section = stage 54)
A second partition is provided between the measurement section and the storage section (Figure 1 and 2, second partition = 94, measurement section = stage 54, storage = cassette C)
A first opening is provided in the first partition (Figure 2, opening = gap between 96 and 95)
A second opening is provided in the second partition (Figure 2, opening = 94b)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the storage section, partitions, and openings as arranged in Marumo for the measurement of Miyazaki for the reasons above with respect to the rectifier. Providing a clean storage area as in Marumo within Miyazaki would allow housing all associated equipment in controlled air flow to establish a clean room space for continuity of measurement. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to arrange elements in a vertical order with respect to closed environments and to separate with partitions as in Marumo to establish unidirectional clean airflow and suppress stagnation.
With respect to claims 4, 5, and 6, Miyazaki in view of Marumo disclose all of the limitations as applied to claims 1-3 above.
In addition, Marumo further teaches:
An exhaust slit is provided on a side portion of the enclosure that defines the storage section (Figure 2, exhaust slit = 96a, Col.11, l 65-67, storage section = area to the right of partition 94)
However, Miyazaki and Marumo fail to disclose a perforated plate for the second partition and the bottom portion of the enclosure.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a perforated plate as airflow distribution/partition members and enclosure bottoms to provide exhaust slits in order to uniformly distribute and discharge rectified airflow while maintaining sectional separation.
With respect to claim 7, Miyazaki in view of Marumo teaches all of the claimed limitations as applied to claim 1 above. However, Miyazaki fails to disclose a temperature sensor disposed in the enclosure.
Official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a temperature sensor disposed inside the enclosure of Miyazaki and Marumo in order to monitor thermal conditions affecting optical thickness measurement accuracy, the same class of temperature dependent refractive index thickness errors identified by Miyazaki (abstract).
With respect to claim 12, Miyazaki discloses a method for measuring a thickness of a workpiece comprising:
The thickness of the workpiece is measured using a measurement section comprising a spectral interferometric sensor (abstract, P.0009)
However, Miyazaki fails to disclose the measurement section is disposed inside an enclosure and that the measurement occurs while rectifying airflow in the enclosure using a rectifier disposed inside the enclosure.
Marumo discloses a film thickness measurement method comprising:
A measurement section disposed inside an enclosure (Figure 1 and 2, measurement section = measurement table 54, enclosure = cases 38 and 52)
Rectifying airflow in the enclosure using a rectifier disposed inside the enclosure (Claim 1, rectifier = fan filter unit 90)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the enclosure and rectifier of Marumo to the measurement method of Miyazaki for the reasons disposed above with respect to claim 1.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Miyazaki in view of Marumo disclose all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 12 above.
In addition, Miyazaki discloses:
Temperature affects refractive index and spectral interference thickness measurement accuracy and temperature should be measured in connection with thickness measurement values (abstract, claim 1, P.0004-5)
However, Miyazaki fails to disclose monitoring a temperature of at least inside the enclosure by a temperature sensor disposed inside the enclose and estimating an appropriate measurement time for measuring the thickness of the workpiece based upon the temperature and measuring the thickness of the workpiece with the estimated measurement time or determining a pass or fail for accuracy based on the monitored temperature.
Official Notice is taken that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to monitor temperature inside a metrology enclosure and to time measurements for performance under thermally acceptable conditions or to pass/fail measurement results based on acceptable ranges of monitored temperatures for accuracy in view of Miyazaki’s teachings.
With respect to claim 8 and 15, Miyazaki in view Marumo discloses all of the limitations as applied to claims 1 and 12 above. In addition, Miyazaki discloses:
The workpiece is a semiconductor wafer (P.0010)
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki JP 2021-004796 in view of Marumo et al. U.S. Patent #6,331,890 and further in view of Nomura et al. U.S. Publication 2015/0017880.
With respect to claim 9, 10, and 11, Miyazaki in view of Marumo disclose all of the limitations as applied to claim 1 and 8 above.
In addition, Marumo discloses:
a workpiece carry-in unit with the thickness of a workpiece installed therein (Col.3, l 7-8, Col.7-8 describing the process of moving W from C to measurement section= workpiece carry-in unit)
However, Miyazaki fails to disclose a system for polishing a workpiece, comprising a workpiece carry-in unit and a workpiece carry-out unit, wherein the apparatus for measuring a thickness of a workpiece according to claim 1 is installed in each and fails to disclose the system further comprises a polishing unit, a cleaning unit, and a drying unit.
Nomura teaches a polishing apparatus comprising:
a polishing section for polishing a substrate
a cleaning section for cleaning and drying the substrate
and a film thickness measurement apparatus for measuring a film thickness of the substrate (abstract, Figure 1, Figure 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the film thickness measuring apparatus of claim 1 of Miyazaki for the film thickness measurement of Nomura with the polishing system having a carry-in and carry-out unit, polishing, cleaning and drying units as taught by Nomura, in order to obtain accurate pre and post polishing thicknesses for optimizing polishing conditions, the very purpose identified by Nomura for integrating spectral film-thickness measurements with the polishing apparatus.
Citation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zeng U.S. Patent #8,621,945 discloses a mini-environment with air circulation unit and temperature sensors for interferometric measurements
Fujihara et al. U.S. Patent #5,910,727 discloses a housing with punched plate exhaust and partitioned wafer tool sections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 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 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights