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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4 with a Verification of Translation, filed 07/30/26, with respect to the rejection of claim 1-7, 11, and 13-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-7, 11, and 13-14 has been withdrawn.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidaka et al (US 2022/0214288) in view of McLean et al (US 2004/0045465 hereinafter “McLean”).
Regarding claim 1; Hidaka discloses a semiconductor measurement apparatus comprising:
a light source (101 @ figure 1) configured to emit light;
a digital light projection (104 @ figures 1 and 6 and paragraph [0077] e.g., the input light IL (see FIG. 1) passing through the illumination pupil shape controller 104 may be formed/modified to have a ring-shaped beam cross-section. Also, the illumination pupil shape controller 104 may include a spatial modulator such as a Digital Micromirror Device (DMD)) configured to generate structured light based on the light emitted by the light source (101 @ figure 1);
a first polarizer (105 @ figure 1) configured to transmit the structured light;
a second polarizer (108 @ figure 1) configured to transmit light reflected from a sample (150 @ figure 1), passing through the first polarizer (105 @ figure 1);
a spectrometer (113 @ figure 1) configured to receive light transmitted through the second polarizer (108 @ figure 1); and
at least one processor (114 @ figure 1) configured to generate polarization data by analyzing the light received by the spectrometer (113 @ figure 1). See figures 1-7
Hidaka discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the digital light processor. However, McLean teaches that it is known in the art to provide the digital light processor (16 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine semiconductor measurement apparatus of Hidaka with the digital light processor as taught by McLean for the purpose of improving print quality with resulting in higher resolutions with the projection device.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidaka in view of McLean as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiu et al (US 2024/0027325 hereinafter "Chui").
Regarding claim 2; Hidaka in view of McLean combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light emitted by the light source has a broadband wavelength ranging from ultraviolet to infrared. However, Chiu teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light emitted by the light source (110, 114, 118, 120 @ figure 1) has a broadband wavelength ranging from ultraviolet to infrared (paragraph [0073]: e.g., the light emitted by the light source has a broadband wavelength ranging from ultraviolet to infrared). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine semiconductor measurement apparatus of Hidaka with the digital light processor as taught by Chui for the purpose of improving detection sensitivity by increasing the signal-to-noise ratio and by minimizing cross talk between different excitation regions or laser lines.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidaka in view of McLean as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao et al (US 2024/0221149 hereinafter "Zhao").
Regarding claim 3; Hidaka in view of McLean combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the spectrometer comprises a single pixel. However, Zhao teaches that it is known in the art to provide the spectrometer (116 @ figure 1B) comprises a single pixel (paragraph [0048]: e.g., the detector 116 includes a single-pixel device such as, but not limited to, a photodetector, an avalanche photodiode, or a photo-multiplier tube). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine semiconductor measurement apparatus of Hidaka with the digital light processor as taught by Zhao for the purpose of improving detection to defect inspection.
Claims 4-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidaka in view of McLean as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tearney et al (US 2010/0207037 hereinafter "Tearney").
Regarding claim 4; Hidaka in view of McLean combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the digital light processor is further configured to change into a plurality of patterns, wherein the spectrometer is further configured to receive a plurality of pattern images generated by a plurality of beams of structured light that correspond to the plurality of patterns, respectively, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate a measurement image based on the plurality of pattern images. However, Tearney teaches that it is known in the art to provide the digital light processor (330, 350 @ figures 3A-3B and paragraph [0033] e.g., the speckle generators 330, 350 can be diffusing arrangement(s), a spatial light modulator, a digital light processor, a digital mirror arrangement, or any other speckle generator which can generate speckle patterns or alternatively any arbitrary pattern) is further configured to change into a plurality of patterns (paragraph [0033]: e.g., a plurality of distinct patterns can be produced by altering the illumination's angle of incidence, and/or by rotating one or moth of the generators 330, 350, changing the speckle pattern, or employing any other means to generate different patterns. In such exemplary manner, the locations of the nulls on the patterns can be changed), wherein the spectrometer (detector 150 @ figure 1) is further configured to receive a plurality of pattern images (figure 4A-4D and paragraph [0034]-[0035]: e.g., The detection of a plurality of images and recombination of this plurality of images can provide a resultant image of the structure) generated by a plurality of beams of structured light that correspond to the plurality of patterns (paragraph [0033]), respectively, and wherein the at least one processor (figure 6 and paragraph [0038]) is further configured to generate a measurement image based on the plurality of pattern images (figures 4A-4D and paragraphs [0034]-[0035]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine semiconductor measurement apparatus of Hidaka with the digital light processor as taught by Tearney for the purpose of measuring the sample individually resolvable with great precision using certain fitting procedures.
Regarding claim 5; Hidaka in view of McLean combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the at least one processor is further configured to generate a plurality of slice images by slicing the measurement image based on a plurality of wavelengths. However, Tearney teaches that it is known in the art to provide the at least one processor (paragraphs [0038] and [0040]) is further configured to generate a plurality of slice images (figures 4A-4D and paragraphs [0034]- [0045]) by slicing the measurement image based on a plurality of wavelengths (101, 102 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0009]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine semiconductor measurement apparatus of Hidaka with the digital light processor as taught by Tearney for the purpose of measuring the sample individually resolvable with great precision using certain fitting procedures.
Regarding claim 6; Hidaka in view of McLean combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a first region of a slice image of the plurality of slice images has a first resolution, and a second region of a slice image of the plurality of slice images, different from the first region, has a second resolution different from the first resolution. However, Tearney teaches that it is known in the art to provide a first region of a slice image (figure 4A) of the plurality of slice images (figures 4A-4D) has a first resolution (figure 4B), and a second region of a slice image (figure 4C) of the plurality of slice images (figures 4A-4D), different from the first region, has a second resolution (figure 4D) different from the first resolution (figure 4B "having different resolution images"). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine semiconductor measurement apparatus of Hidaka with the digital light processor as taught by Tearney for the purpose of measuring the sample individually resolvable with great precision using certain fitting procedures.
Regarding claim 7; Hidaka in view of McLean combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the digital light processor is further configured to form a first pattern to implement a first resolution in a first process section and form a second pattern to implement a second resolution in a second process section different from the first process section. However, Tearney teaches that it is known in the art to provide the digital light processor (122 @ figure 1 or 330 @ figure 3A and paragraph [0033]) is further configured to form a first pattern to implement a first resolution in a first process section (figures 4A-4B and paragraph [0034]), and form a second pattern to implement a second resolution in a second process section different from the first process section (figures 4C-4D and paragraph [0035]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine semiconductor measurement apparatus of Hidaka with the digital light processor as taught by Tearney for the purpose of measuring the sample individually resolvable with great precision using certain fitting procedures.
Regarding claim 11; Hidaka in view of McLean combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the digital light processor includes a digital mirror device (DMD). However, Tearney teaches that it is known in the art to provide the digital light processor (122 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0033]) includes a digital mirror device (paragraph [0033]: e.g., both of the speckle generators 330, 350 can be diffusing arrangement(s), a spatial light modulator, a digital light processor, a digital mirror arrangement or device, or any other speckle generator which can generate speckle patterns or alternatively any arbitrary pattern). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine semiconductor measurement apparatus of Lee with the digital light processor as taught by Tearney for the purpose of measuring the sample individually resolvable with great precision using certain fitting procedures.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidaka in view of McLean as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiu et al (US 2024/0197002 hereinafter "Chiu").
Regarding claim 13; Hidaka in view of McLean combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for an objective lens configured to deliver light to the sample, wherein the objective lens has a numerical aperture greater than or equal to 0.95 and less than 1.0. However, Chiu teaches that it is known in the art to provide an objective lens configured to deliver light to the sample, wherein the objective lens (186 @ figure 1) has a numerical aperture greater than or equal to 0.95 and less than 1.0 (paragraphs [0008] and [0155] e.g., an air objective 186 having a lower numerical aperture, such as in a range of greater than 0.91 and less than 0.99, is suitable for detection of single particles and/or single molecules in a flow channel 102). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine semiconductor measurement apparatus of Hidaka with the digital light processor as taught by Chiu for the purpose of improving detection sensitivity by increasing the signal-to-noise ratio and by minimizing cross talk between different excitation regions or laser lines.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidaka in view of McLean as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pahk et al (US 2023/0266233 hereinafter "Pahk").
Regarding claim 14; Hidaka in view of McLean combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the second polarizer, the spectrometer, and the objective lens are implemented as an optical system configured to image a back focal plane of the objective lens. However, Pahk teaches that it is known in the art to provide the second polarizer (analyzer 220 @ figure 11), the spectrometer (560 @ figure 11), and the objective lens (150 @ figure 11) are implemented as an optical system configured to image a back focal plane (500 @ figure 11) of the objective lens (150 @ figure 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine semiconductor measurement apparatus of Hidaka with the digital light processor as taught by Pahk for the purpose of significantly improved measurement accuracy and analysis precision in which by improving the configuration of the conventional spectroscopic imaging reflectometer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 12 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.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a semiconductor measurement apparatus comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the at least one processor is further configured to: generate a slice image by analyzing the light received by the spectrometer; extract a plurality of peak images corresponding to regions where peaks appear based on the interference of polarization components that have passed through the first polarizer and the second polarizer, by converting the slice image to a frequency domain; and obtain a plurality of sample images by performing an inverse frequency transform on each of the plurality of peak images in set forth of claim 8.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a semiconductor measurement apparatus comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the first polarizer comprises a first illumination polarization element and a second illumination polarization element, wherein each of the first illumination polarization element and the second illumination polarization element comprises a pair of beam displacers, wherein the second polarizer comprises a first light-receiving polarization element and a second light-receiving polarization element, and wherein each of the first light-receiving polarization element and the second light-receiving polarization element comprises a pair of beam displacers in set forth of claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Roblyer et al (US 2019/0310239) discloses systems and methods for determining water and/or lipid content in a tissue sample.
2) Durkin et al (US 2008/0101657) discloses a method and an apparatus for noninvasively and quantitatively determining spatially resolved absorption and reduced scattering coefficients over a wide field-of-view of a food object, including fruit or produce, uses spatial-frequency-domain imaging (SFDI
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
September 1, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights