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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 – 11, 13 – 14, 16, and 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maris (US 5,7,48,318).
With respect to independent claim 1, Maris teaches in Fig. 6 – 7 A metrology device for non-destructive detection of buried structures in a sample, comprising:
a pump arm 21a that irradiates the sample at a plurality of locations FS; see column 14, lines 55 – 56 with pump pulses as shown in Fig. 4a to cause non-acoustic transient perturbations in material in the sample 51 at the plurality of locations;
a probe arm 21bthat irradiates the sample at the plurality of locations with probe pulses as shown in Fig. 4a to produce a reflected probe beam that is modulated based on a response of the material to the non-acoustic transient perturbations in the sample at the plurality of locations;
a detector 60 that acquires non-acoustic transient signals from the reflected probe beam in response to the non-acoustic transient perturbations propagating stress wave in column 8, lines 20 – 25; see column 9, lines 1 – 10 that are a function of varying time delay via 44 between the pump pulses and the probe pulses at each of the plurality of locations; and
at least one processor 66 coupled to the detector and is configured to detect at least one buried structure see column 18, lines 1 – 17 in the sample based on one or more features of the non-acoustic transient signals see column 26, lines 44 – 45 at each of the plurality of locations.
With respect to independent claim 11, as discussed above in the rejection justification to claim 1, Maris teaches in Fig. 6 a method for non-destructive detection of buried structures in a sample, comprising: irradiating the sample at a plurality of locations with a pump beam with pump pulses to cause non-acoustic transient perturbations in material in the sample at the plurality of locations; irradiating the sample at the plurality of locations with a probe beam with probe pulses to produce a reflected probe beam that is modulated based on a response of the material to the non-acoustic transient perturbations in the sample at the plurality of locations; detecting non-acoustic transient signals from the reflected probe beam in response to the non-acoustic transient perturbations that are a function of varying time delay between the pump pulses and the probe pulses at each of the plurality of locations; and detecting at least one buried structure in the sample based on one or more features of the non-acoustic transient signals at each of the plurality of locations.
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 13, Maris teaches in Fig. 4a and Fig. 6 wherein the one or more features of the non-acoustic transient signals comprises one or more features produced over a plurality of time delays between the pump pulses and the probe pulses.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Maris teaches an actuator STAGE MOTION in Fig. 2 configured to produce relative motion between the sample and the metrology device, wherein the pump arm and the probe arm irradiate the sample at the plurality of locations using the relative motion to scan the sample.
With respect to dependent claims 6 and 16, Maris teaches in column 19, lines 6 – 7 wherein the at least one buried structure is a void in a material that is transparent to wavelengths of light used to irradiate the sample by the pump arm.
With respect to dependent claims 8 and 18, Maris teaches in Fig. 6 wherein the non-acoustic transient perturbations do not include acoustic signals.
With respect to dependent claims 9 and 19, Maris teaches in Fig. 6 wherein the at least one buried structure is detected based on a comparison of the non-acoustic transient signals at the plurality of locations.
With respect to dependent claims 10 and 20, Maris teaches wherein the non-acoustic transient perturbations are produced by one or more of thermal dissipation thermal stress in column 19, lines 26 - 41, electron-hole recombination, plasma diffusion, symmetry breaking at top and bottom oxide surfaces, etalon effects.
With respect to dependent claim 14, Maris teaches in Fig. 2 scanning via motion stage the sample to irradiate the sample at the plurality of locations.
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.
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(s) 2, 7, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maris, and further in view of Tauc (US 4,710,030).
The teaching of Maris has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 12, Maris is silent with wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate an image of the at least one buried structure in the sample based on the one or more features of the non-acoustic transient signals at each of the plurality of locations.
Tauc, a pertinent art, teaches in Fig. 11 computer 250 displays an image of the inspected area. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Maris in order to display desired image of inspected area. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 17, Maris is silent with wherein the material comprises SiO2 and the wavelengths of light are infrared. However, Maris teaches silicon wafer 80 which includes a SOI (see column 8, lines 43 – 44). In view of this, SiO2 would be obvious choice and Tauc teaches in column 4, lines 7 – 9 an infrared source. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Maris in order to have desired a pump source. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maris, and further in view of Yang (US 10,219,700 B1).
The teaching of Maris has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 15, Maris is silent with wherein the detector is a lock-in camera with a multi-pixel array that acquires the non-acoustic transient signals from the reflected probe beam at each of the plurality of locations in parallel.
Yang, a pertinent art, teaches in column 5, lines 17 – 21 a lock-in camera with a multi-pixel array. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Maris in order to determine phase difference between the pump and probe beams by a known detector. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: Simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST.
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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights