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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the shear must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
There are two copies of the Specification, both filed on 11/13/2024. Neither copy is labeled to indicate which Specification is the most recent version that should be referenced. For examination purposes, the Specification with 71 pages was referenced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “PSD” is an undefined acronym and should be corrected to say –PSD (power spectral density)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
“scattered light measurement device”, “interference light measurement device” and “signal processing device” in claim 1.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al. (WO 2016015734 A1), hereinafter Madsen, in view of Yedur et al. (US6354133B1), hereinafter Yedur, further in view of Nemoto et al. (US 20110276299 A1), hereinafter Nemoto.
As to claim 1, Madsen teaches a sample surface quality management device for measuring a micro roughness of a sample (pg. 8 ln. 27- pg. 9 ln. 3; fast and reliable measurements of micro/nano-textured surfaces), the sample surface quality management device comprising:
a stage device configured to hold the sample (pg. 24 ln. 9-18; fig. 1; “the sample is held on a xyz stage (typically in a microscope)”);
a scattered light measurement device configured to measure scattered light generated on the sample (pg. 24 ln. 9-18; fig. 1; “The scatterometer apparatus comprises a broadband light source 1 for illuminating the sample with radiation in a single beam path”);
an interference light measurement device configured to measure interference light including reflected light generated on the sample (pg. 28 ln. 3-9; “For hyperspectral CCD imaging a spectrum is recorded for every single pixel. There are typically three methods to acquire such an image: … (3) interferometer based acquisition where image and spectrum is recorded simultaneously”);
and a signal processing device configured to process signals of the scattered light measurement device and the interference light measurement device (claim 26; “the image analyzer is programmed for comparing said determined diffraction efficiency or diffraction efficiency pattern and for determining dimensional information of the sample based on said comparison”),
wherein the signal processing device calculates a first evaluation value of the micro roughness of the sample based on the signal of the interference light measurement device (pg. 28 ln. 5-9; the image and spectrum recorded simultaneously for every single pixel),
calculates a scattering characteristic signal based on the signal of the scattered light measurement device (claims 26 and 46; the diffraction efficiency or diffraction efficiency pattern, i.e. scattering intensities),
and calculates, a second evaluation value of the micro roughness based on the first evaluation value and the scattering characteristic signal (claims 26 and 46; the dimensional information, i.e. the second evaluation value, of the sample is based on the comparison of the diffraction efficiency or diffraction efficiency pattern, i.e. the scattering characteristic signal, and “a best set of dimensional parameters from database lookup and/or from electromagnetic calculations and/ or from experimentally measured reference data”, i.e. the image and spectrum: the first evaluation value).
However, Madsen does not explicitly disclose the stage device configured to move the sample in a sample surface direction; and wherein the signal processing device calculates, for a spatial frequency band for which the first evaluation value is not calculated, the second evaluation value of the micro roughness based on the first evaluation value and the scattering characteristic signal.
Yedur, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the stage device configured to move the sample in a sample surface direction (Yedur fig. 1b; col. 11 ln. 30-34; “The sample stage 150 moves the workpiece in the X and/or Y directions. Piezo-electric motors, or other devices, may move the sample stage”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Madsen to incorporate the teachings of Yedur to include the stage device configured to move the sample in a sample surface direction, for the advantage of position and focus accuracy while moving the sample together with the sample stage (Yedur col. 11 ln. 24-28).
Still lacking the limitation such as the signal processing device calculates, for a spatial frequency band for which the first evaluation value is not calculated, the second evaluation value of the micro roughness based on the first evaluation value and the scattering characteristic signal.
Nemoto, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the signal processing device (Nemoto [0079]; “The general control part 6 performs a general control for the apparatus by processing signals”)
calculates a scattering characteristic signal based on the signal of the scattered light measurement device (Nemoto [0097]; “the expected haze value obtained in the process P3 and the actually-measured haze value obtained in the process P4 is obtained”),
calculates, for a spatial frequency band for which the first evaluation value is not calculated, the second evaluation value of the micro roughness based on the first evaluation value and the scattering characteristic signal (Nemoto [0097]; “Measurement of a roughness degree of microroughness” is performed in P2, linear Fourier transformed in P3, and results are averaged in the Y direction and fitted to a “PSD function S(f) with each parameter determined, the roughness degree of microroughness measured by the AFM is converted to a PSD light amount (in units of W)”. Thus, at least a second measurement of a roughness degree of microroughness is measured at a different spatial frequency f compared to a first measurement of a roughness degree of microroughness, and eventually averaged and filled to a PSD function S(f)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Madsen and Yedur to incorporate the teachings of Nemoto to include the signal processing device calculates, for a spatial frequency band for which the first evaluation value is not calculated, the second evaluation value of the micro roughness based on the first evaluation value and the scattering characteristic signal; for the advantage of calibrating the haze measuring function of the dark-field inspection apparatus with high accuracy (Nemoto [0013]).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Madsen Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
977
896
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yedur Fig. 1b
As to claim 2, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 1.
However, Madsen in view of Yedur does not explicitly disclose wherein the scattering characteristic signal is a haze value, and the first evaluation value is PSD (power spectral density) data.
Nemoto, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the scattering characteristic signal is a haze value (Nemoto [0097]; “the expected haze value obtained in the process P3 and the actually-measured haze value obtained in the process P4 is obtained”), and the first evaluation value is PSD (power spectral density) data (Nemoto [0097]; “based on the PSD function S(f) with each parameter determined, the roughness degree of microroughness measured by the AFM is converted to a PSD light amount (in units of W)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Madsen in view of Yedur to incorporate the teachings of Nemoto to include wherein the scattering characteristic signal is a haze value, and the first evaluation value is PSD (power spectral density) data; for the advantage of detection accuracy (Nemoto [0099]).
As to claim 3, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 1.
However, Madsen does not explicitly disclose wherein the stage device moves the sample such that an entire surface of the sample is scanned.
Yedur, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the stage device moves the sample such that an entire surface of the sample is scanned (Yedur col. 12 ln. 49-53; “In the step 920… a sample is scanned to obtain sample feature size data. In the step 930, the calibration data and a known dimension of the calibration standard are used to relate the measured sample feature size data to the sample feature's actual size”. Thus, the entire surface of the sample has to be scanned in order to obtain the entire sample feature size data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Madsen to incorporate the teachings of Yedur to include wherein the stage device moves the sample such that an entire surface of the sample is scanned, for the advantage of position and focus accuracy while moving the sample together with the sample stage (Yedur col. 11 ln. 24-28).
As to claim 6, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 1, wherein the interference light measurement device separates light emitted from a light source into two pieces of linearly polarized light having a predetermined shear amount (fig. 1; pg. 24 ln. 9-18; the beam splitter 4 “is positioned to enable a common beam path through the low NA objective lens of light illuminating the sample and of light scattered from the sample” and thus, has a predetermined shear amount, i.e. the separation width of the two beams), irradiates the sample with the light (claim 5; “Wavelengths/and or at separate polarization state of said collected scattered light, said apparatus optionally comprises one or more splitters and/or one or more filters and/or one or more polarizer arranged between said low NA objective system and said respective image recorders” Claim 37; The “splitter arranged for enabling a common beam path through the low NA objective system of light illuminating the sample and of light scattered from the sample”. Pg. 28 ln. 10-12; “The incoming beam is linearly polarized by passing through a polarizer”),
and measures an interference intensity of interference light generated on the sample (Claim 46; “The scatterometry method… comprises… measuring images of scattering intensities”).
Madison teaches “An advantage of the scatterometer apparatus is that it is capable of providing nanoscale resolution and large-field-of-view. Hence, a sample with dimensions on the micrometer or even millimeter scale can be investigated and nanometer resolution of structural features can be analyzed” (pg. 13 ln. 9-12). However, Madsen in view of Yedur does not explicitly disclose the signal processing device calculates the first evaluation value based on a signal related to interference light having a shear amount larger than an optical resolution of the interference light measurement device and a signal related to interference light having a shear amount smaller than the optical resolution.
However, applicant has not provided criticality for the signal processing device calculates the first evaluation value based on a signal related to interference light having a shear amount larger than an optical resolution of the interference light measurement device and a signal related to interference light having a shear amount smaller than the optical resolution. Applicant discloses merely that “In the
embodiment, the contrast is emphasized, and the shear amount 5 is set larger than an optical resolution and a sampling interval of the interference light measurement device 130” (Specification [0032]); and “In the embodiment, since the shear amount 6 is larger than the optical resolution, there is a spatial frequency band that cannot be measured although the spatial frequency band is equal to or smaller than the upper limit of the spatial frequency of the first PSD data” (Specification [0049]). There is no criticality for a shear amount larger than the optical resolution and a shear amount smaller than the optical resolution. Furthermore, it has been held that finding the optimal or working ranges of a variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Madsen in view of Yedur to incorporate the signal processing device calculates the first evaluation value based on a signal related to interference light having a shear amount larger than an optical resolution of the interference light measurement device and a signal related to interference light having a shear amount smaller than the optical resolution; for the advantage of reducing computation time without compromising the resolution (Madsen pg. 31 ln. 15-18).
As to claim 7, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 1, wherein the signal processing device calculates the second evaluation value based on the first evaluation value and the scattering characteristic signal that are related to the same region of the same sample (claim 26; “The image analyzer is programmed for comparing said determined diffraction efficiency or diffraction efficiency pattern and for determining dimensional information of the sample based on said comparison”. Thus, the dimensional information of the sample (i.e. the second evaluation value) and the diffraction efficiency or diffraction efficiency pattern (i.e. the scattering characteristic signal) are related to the same region of the same sample).
As to claim 8, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 1, wherein the signal processing device calculates the first evaluation value and the second evaluation value based on detection signals of the interference light and the scattered light that are generated at the same time (pg. 28 ln. 3-9; “For hyperspectral CCD imaging a spectrum is recorded for every single pixel. There are typically three methods to acquire such an image: … (3) interferometer based acquisition where image and spectrum is recorded simultaneously”. Thus, the interference light, i.e. spectrum, and the scattered light, i.e. image from scattered light from the sample, are generated at the same time to be recorded simultaneously).
As to claim 9, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 1, wherein the signal processing device calculates, for a model function related to the micro roughness taking a constant value in a predetermined spatial frequency band, the constant value based on the first evaluation value (pg. 29 ln. 28 – pg. 30 ln. 2; “
PNG
media_image3.png
56
286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where R(λ) are the wavelength dependent reflection coefficients of the reference sample”),
calculates, based on the constant value and the scattering characteristic signal in the predetermined spatial frequency band, a calibration coefficient for converting the scattering characteristic signal into an evaluation value of the micro roughness (pg. 30 ln. 3-10; “The measured diffraction efficiencies are fitted to a theoretical model using an iterative optimization. The speed of the iterative approach depends on the number of adjustable parameters and requires substantial computation for convergence if many adjustable parameters are used”. Thus, the adjustable parameters in the model using iterative optimization is described by Madsen as the calibration coefficient, used to convert the scattering characteristic signal into the model for “database lookup”),
and converts the scattering characteristic signal into the second evaluation value using the calibration coefficient (claims 26 and 46; the measured data from scattering from the surface, “measured images of scattering intensities”, is converted into the dimensional information, i.e. the second evaluation value).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto, further in view of Schiff et al. (US5625451A), hereinafter Schiff.
As to claim 4, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 1.
However, Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto does not explicitly disclose wherein an upper limit value of a spatial frequency band related to the second evaluation value calculated based on the scattering characteristic signal is higher than an upper limit value of a spatial frequency band related to the first evaluation value calculated based on the signal of the interference light measurement device.
Schiff, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein an upper limit value of a spatial frequency band related to the second evaluation value calculated based on the scattering characteristic signal (Col. 4 ln. 46-52 and ln. 58-63; “The total integrated scatter data and the upper and lower limits of spatial frequency for each of the selected bands are used to approximate the "spectral integrated scatter" function, a three-dimensional function representative of the integrated power spectral density function”. “With the total integrated scatter determined for any set of desired spatial frequency limits”, haze may be characterized) is higher than an upper limit value of a spatial frequency band related to the first evaluation value calculated based on the signal of the interference light measurement device (Schiff claim 2; “Selecting a first band having an upper limit (f1) and a lower limit (f2) and selecting a second band having an upper limit (f3) and a lower limit (f4), and wherein f1, f2, f3 and f4 are selected such that the following relationship is satisfied: f3/f4 = f1/f2”. Thus, the upper limit value of a spatial frequency band related to the second evaluation value can be selected to be higher than an upper limit value of a spatial frequency band).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto to incorporate the teachings of Schiff to include wherein an upper limit value of a spatial frequency band related to the second evaluation value calculated based on the scattering characteristic signal is higher than an upper limit value of a spatial frequency band related to the first evaluation value calculated based on the signal of the interference light measurement device; for the advantage of enhanced characterizations of surface physical properties (Schiff col. 4 ln. 56-61).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto, further in view of Ishibashi et al. (US 11990336 B2), hereinafter Ishibashi.
As to claim 5, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 1.
However, Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the first evaluation value is calculated by a differential interference contrast method.
Ishibashi, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the first evaluation value is calculated by a differential interference contrast method (Ishibashi col. 2 ln. 19-29; “When observed using a differential interference contrast method, the epitaxial layer has microscopic step defects on a surface of 1.5 counts/300 mm wafer or less… The surface of the epitaxial layer preferably has a haze level (measured in SP2, DWO mode) of 0.4 ppm or less”. Thus, haze is described by Ishibashi as the first evaluation value and is calculated by a differential interference contrast method).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto to incorporate the teachings of Ishibashi to include wherein the first evaluation value is calculated by a differential interference contrast method; for the advantage of enhanced capability of detecting the number of irregularly shaped microscopic step defects whose height or depth on the wafer surface exceeds a predetermined threshold (Ishibashi col. 1 ln. 48-51).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto, further in view of Stover et al. (US5955654A), hereinafter Stover.
As to claim 10, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 1, wherein the signal processing device calculates, based on the scattering characteristic signal and the first evaluation value in the predetermined band, a calibration coefficient for converting the scattering characteristic signal into an evaluation value of the micro roughness (pg. 30 ln. 3-10; “The measured diffraction efficiencies are fitted to a theoretical model using an iterative optimization. The speed of the iterative approach depends on the number of adjustable parameters and requires substantial computation for convergence if many adjustable parameters are used”. Thus, the adjustable parameters in the model using iterative optimization is described by Madsen as the calibration coefficient, used to convert the scattering characteristic signal into the model for “database lookup”),
and converts the scattering characteristic signal into the second evaluation value using the calibration coefficient (claims 26 and 46; the measured data from scattering from the surface, “measured images of scattering intensities”, is converted into the dimensional information, i.e. the second evaluation value).
However, Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto does not explicitly disclose wherein a spatial frequency band related to the first evaluation value and a spatial frequency band related to the scattering characteristic signal overlap in a predetermined band.
Stover, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein a spatial frequency band related to the first evaluation value and a spatial frequency band related to the scattering characteristic signal overlap in a predetermined band (Stover fig. 10-11; col. 9 ln. 5-10; “FIGS. 10 and 11 summarize the determination of the power spectral density function and spatial frequency bandwidth for scattering instruments (e.g., total integrated scatterometers) and profilers (e.g., atomic force microscopes), respectively”. Fig. 7; col. 3 ln. 3-7; “FIG. 7 is a graph of both power spectral density (PSD), and rms-roughness (integrated PSD) over a spatial frequency range of 0.01 to 1.0 μm-1 obtained from angle-resolved light scattering scans of a standard of the present invention in accord with FIGS. 1-4”. Thus, the PSD and rms-roughness overlap in a predetermined spatial frequency band 0.01-1.0 μm-1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto to incorporate the teachings of Stover to include wherein a spatial frequency band related to the first evaluation value and a spatial frequency band related to the scattering characteristic signal overlap in a predetermined band; for the advantage of relating information about the Fourier transform of the surface into a form that makes it possible to readily compare information generated from various instruments (Stover col. 6 ln. 10-13).
PNG
media_image4.png
735
412
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Stover Fig. 7
PNG
media_image5.png
1077
1033
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Stover Fig. 10-11
As to claim 15, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 1.
However, Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto does not explicitly disclose a display device configured to display the first evaluation value and the second evaluation value.
Stover, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a display device configured to display the first evaluation value and the second evaluation value (Stover fig. 7; col. 6 ln. 36-44; “FIG. 7 was generated by a TMA CASI(r) angle-resolved light scattering (ARS) instrument. This is a specialized tool that allows for first-principles traceability based on the wavelength of light and optical geometries of the instrument” which has a display, thus, displaying fig. 7: different PSD values at different spatial frequencies and roughnesses).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto to incorporate the teachings of Stover to include a display device configured to display the first evaluation value and the second evaluation value; for the advantage of enhancing details and allowing for first-principles traceability (Stover col. 6 ln. 36-44).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto, further in view of Trost et al. (DE102012005417A1), hereinafter Trost.
As to claim 11, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 1.
However, Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the signal processing device calculates the second evaluation value based on a signal whose spatial direction corresponds to the first evaluation value among the scattering characteristic signals.
Trost, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the signal processing device calculates the second evaluation value based on a signal whose spatial direction corresponds to the first evaluation value among the scattering characteristic signals (Trost pg. 19 ln. 12-13; “By measuring or calculating the diameter d defect for different azimuth directions, the shape of a defect can also be determined”. The additional detection of defects or anisotropic roughness structures effects “the fractal model of spectral power density and roughness calculated therefrom”. Thus, the multiple PSD values are calculated based on a signal with a shared corresponding azimuth direction, in order to determine the shape of the defect).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto to incorporate the teachings of Trost to include wherein the signal processing device calculates the second evaluation value based on a signal whose spatial direction corresponds to the first evaluation value among the scattering characteristic signals; for the advantage of improving the reliability and robustness of the fractal model of spectral power density and roughness calculated therefrom (Trost pg. 19 ln. 12-15).
As to claim 12, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 11, wherein the signal processing device corrects, by a preset correction coefficient, a signal whose spatial direction is different from the first evaluation value among the scattering characteristic signals, and includes the corrected signal in a basis for calculation of the second evaluation value (pg. 30 ln. 3-10; “The measured diffraction efficiencies are fitted to a theoretical model using an iterative optimization. The speed of the iterative approach depends on the number of adjustable parameters and requires substantial computation for convergence if many adjustable parameters are used”. Thus, the adjustable parameters in the model using iterative optimization is described by Madsen as the preset correction coefficient, used to calculate the dimensional information and input the data into the model for “database lookup”).
As to claim 13, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 11.
However, Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the signal processing device includes, in a basis for calculation of the second evaluation value, a signal whose spatial direction is different from the first evaluation value among the scattering characteristic signals, similarly to the signal whose spatial direction corresponds to the first evaluation value.
Trost, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the signal processing device includes, in a basis for calculation of the second evaluation value, a signal whose spatial direction is different from the first evaluation value among the scattering characteristic signals, similarly to the signal whose spatial direction corresponds to the first evaluation value (Trost claims: pg. 2-5; The equations for PSD(f) are derived by Trost and include a calculation for the azimuth directions. Trost pg. 11 ln. 37-50; “The function PSD(f) contains information about both vertical and lateral surface structures”. Similarly to the signal whose spatial direction corresponds to the first evaluation value PSD, these equations can be used to calculate a signal whose azimuth direction is different from the first evaluation value PSD among the scattering characteristic signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Madsen in view of Yedur and Nemoto to incorporate the teachings of Trost to include wherein the signal processing device includes, in a basis for calculation of the second evaluation value, a signal whose spatial direction is different from the first evaluation value among the scattering characteristic signals, similarly to the signal whose spatial direction corresponds to the first evaluation value; for the advantage of improving the reliability and robustness of the fractal model of spectral power density and roughness calculated therefrom (Trost pg. 19 ln. 12-15).
As to claim 14, Madsen teaches the sample surface quality management device according to claim 11.
However, Madsen in view of Yedur, Nemoto and Trost does not explicitly disclose wherein the signal processing device excludes, from a basis for calculation of the second evaluation value, a signal whose spatial direction is different from the first evaluation value among the scattering characteristic signals.
However, applicant has not provided criticality for wherein the signal processing device excludes, from a basis for calculation of the second evaluation value, a signal whose spatial direction is different from the first evaluation value among the scattering characteristic signals. Applicant discloses merely that “The third example shown in FIG. 11C is an example in which the haze values 1102 whose spatial direction is different from that of the first PSD data are excluded. The haze values 1102 are excluded from the basis of the calculation of the second evaluation value (right diagram in FIG. 11C), and the second evaluation value is calculated based only on the haze values 1101” (Specification [0077]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to exclude part of the data with different spatial direction, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same function as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Madsen in view of Yedur, Nemoto and Trost to incorporate wherein the signal processing device excludes, from a basis for calculation of the second evaluation value, a signal whose spatial direction is different from the first evaluation value among the scattering characteristic signals; for the advantage of more precise measurements and improving the reliability and robustness of the fractal model of spectral power density and roughness calculated therefrom (Trost pg. 19 ln. 12-15)..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kemaya Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-9078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 11 am – 8 pm ET.
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 571-270-4211.
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.
/KEMAYA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877