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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01 October 2025 and 09 July 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 11, line 6 recites the limitation “a normalization channel configured to…”. However, this limitation was previously recited on line 4 (“a portion of the light to a normalization channel”). The examiner assumes the normalization channel recited on line 4 is the same element as the normalization channel on line 6. Thus, line 6 of claim 11 should be amended to recite “[[a]] the normalization channel configured to…”. Claims 12-20 depend on claim 11 and are therefore also objected to.
Regarding claim 19, line 2 recites the limitation “the beam splitter is configured to directs…” which should be amended to recite “the beam splitter is configured to direct…” for grammatical purposes.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“a computing system configured for normalizing the measurements based on the light intensity detected in the normalization channel” in claim 11.
“the computing system normalizes the spectral measurements based on the light intensity detected in the normalization channel by applying the total intensity of the light source to all wavelengths in the spectral measurements” in claim 17.
“the computing system normalizes the spectral measurements based on the light intensity detected in the normalization channel by applying the intensity for different wavelengths to corresponding wavelengths in the spectral measurements” in claim 18.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-11, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kreh et al. (US 2005/0134846 A1, of record), hereinafter Kreh.
Regarding claim 1, Kreh teaches a method (paragraph 0007) for performing optical metrology (paragraph 0007) that mitigates light source noise using a normalization channel (abstract, paragraphs 0007, 0025; compensating for intensity fluctuations in a light source mitigates light source noise), comprising:
generating light with a light source having fluctuations in light intensity (paragraphs 0007, 0010, 0020);
directing a portion of the light to a normalization channel (see Fig. 2-4, paragraphs 0046-0051);
acquiring measurements from light reflected from a sample (paragraphs 0011, 0034);
detecting the light intensity of the light in the normalization channel while acquiring the measurements (paragraph 0025, 0046); and
normalizing the spectral measurements based on the light intensity detected in the normalization channel (abstract, paragraphs 0025, 0046, 0049, 0054).
Regarding claim 5, Kreh teaches the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches detecting the light intensity of the light in the normalization channel comprises: collecting a plurality of samples of the light intensity while acquiring the measurements (paragraphs 0022, 0043); and combining the plurality of samples of the light intensity (paragraphs 0022, 0043).
Regarding claim 6, Kreh teaches the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the light is broadband light (paragraph 0038) and the measurements are spectral measurements (paragraphs 0025 and 0054 reciting the images are spectrally resolved).
Regarding claim 8, Kreh teaches the method of claim 6, as outlined above, and further teaches detecting the light intensity of the broadband light in the normalization channel while acquiring the spectral measurements comprises detecting an intensity for different wavelengths in the broadband light (paragraphs 0025 and 0054 describing acquiring images in a spectrally resolved manner, thus the spectral measurements of Kreh involve detecting intensities for different wavelengths in the broadband light), and wherein normalizing the spectral measurements based on the light intensity detected in the normalization channel comprises applying the intensity for different wavelengths to corresponding wavelengths in the spectral measurements (paragraphs 0025 and 0054).
Regarding claim 9, Kreh teaches the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the light is normally incident on the sample (see Fig. 2), and wherein directing the portion of the light to a normalization channel comprises splitting the light with a beam splitter that directs a first portion of the light to the sample (see Fig. 2 semitransparent mirror 15 directing light to wafer 4, paragraph 0046), and directs a second portion of the light to the normalization channel (see Fig. 2 sub-beam 16, paragraph 0046), the beam splitter further directs light reflected from the sample to a detector for acquiring the measurements (see Fig. 2 camera 3, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 10, Kreh teaches the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the light is obliquely incident on the sample (Fig. 4, paragraph 0050), wherein directing the portion of the light to a normalization channel comprises splitting the light with a beam splitter that directs a first portion of the light to the normalization channel (Fig. 4 beam splitter 15 sending sub-beam 16 to photodetector 22, paragraph 0051), and directs a second portion of the light to the sample or to a detector for acquiring the spectral measurements from light reflected from the sample (see Fig. 4 beam 6 incident on wafer 4, paragraphs 0050-0051).
Regarding claim 11, Kreh teaches a metrology device (Fig. 2-4, abstract, paragraph 0008) configured for performing optical metrology that mitigates light source noise using a normalization channel (abstract, paragraphs 0007, 0025; compensating for intensity fluctuations in a light source mitigates light source noise), comprising:
a light source (Fig. 2 light source 10) generating light having fluctuations in light intensity (paragraphs 0020, 0043-0044);
a beam splitter (Fig. 2 beam splitter) that directs a portion of the light to a normalization channel (Fig. 2 sub-beam 16 directed to normalization channel composed of lens 17 and photodetector 22);
a detector (Fig. 2 camera 3) configured to acquire measurements from light reflected from a sample (see Fig. 2, paragraph 0034, 0046);
the normalization channel (Fig. 2 normalization channel comprises lens 17 and photodetector 22) configured to detect the light intensity of the light while acquiring the measurements (paragraphs 0025, 0046); and
a computing system (Fig. 2 computer 13) configured for normalizing the measurements based on the light intensity detected in the normalization channel (abstract, paragraphs 0021-0022, 0025, 0046).
Regarding claim 15, Kreh teaches the metrology device of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches the detector is configured to detect the light intensity of the light in the normalization channel by being configured to: collect a plurality of samples of the light intensity while acquiring the measurements (paragraphs 0022, 0043); and combine the plurality of samples of the light intensity (paragraphs 0022, 0043).
Regarding claim 16, Kreh teaches the metrology device of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches the light is broadband light (paragraph 0038) and the measurements are spectral measurements (paragraphs 0025 and 0054 reciting the images are spectrally resolved).
Regarding claim 18, Kreh teaches the metrology device of claim 16, as outlined above, and further teaches the normalization channel is configured to detect the light intensity of the broadband light in the normalization channel while acquiring the spectral measurements by being configured to detect an intensity for different wavelengths in the broadband light (paragraphs 0025 and 0054 describing acquiring images in a spectrally resolved manner, thus the spectral measurements of Kreh involve detecting intensities for different wavelengths in the broadband light), and the computing system normalizes the spectral measurements based on the light intensity detected in the normalization channel by applying the intensity for different wavelengths to corresponding wavelengths in the spectral measurements (paragraphs 0025 and 0054).
Regarding claim 19, Kreh teaches the metrology device of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches the light is normally incident on the sample (see Fig. 2), and the beam splitter is configured to direct a first portion of the light to the sample (see Fig. 2 beam splitter 15 directing light to wafer 4, paragraph 0046), and direct a second portion of the light to the normalization channel (see Fig. 2 sub-beam 16, paragraph 0046), and further direct light reflected from the sample to the detector for acquiring the spectral measurements (see Fig. 2 camera 3, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 20, Kreh teaches the metrology device of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches the light is obliquely incident on the sample (see Fig. 4, paragraph 0050), and the beam splitter is configured to direct a first portion of the light to the normalization channel (Fig. 4 beam splitter 15 sending sub-beam 16 to photodetector 22, paragraph 0051), and direct a second portion of the light to the sample or to the detector for acquiring the spectral measurements from light reflected from the sample (see Fig. 4 beam 6 incident on wafer 4, paragraphs 0050-0051).
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreh (US 2005/0134846 A1, of record) in view of Niu et al. (WO 2023/115949 A1), hereinafter Niu.
Regarding claim 2, Kreh teaches the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches acquiring measurements from light reflected from the sample comprises collecting a plurality of separate measurements (see Kreh paragraph 0053 which recites taking a plurality of images of a wafer). Kreh does not teach synchronizing detection of the light intensity of the light in the normalization channel with the separate measurements.
Niu, which relates to optical metrology methods, teaches synchronizing detection of the light intensity of the light in a normalization channel with measurements (Niu: abstract, paragraphs 0008 and 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Kreh to comprise the step of synchronizing detection of the light intensity of the light in the normalization channel with the separate measurements, as taught by Niu, for the benefit of enhancing measurement stability (see Niu paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 12, Kreh teaches the metrology device of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches the detector is configured to acquire measurements from light reflected from the sample by collecting a plurality of separate measurements (see Kreh paragraph 0053 which recites taking a plurality of images of a wafer). Kreh does not teach the normalization channel is further configured to synchronize detection of the light intensity of the light in the normalization channel with the separate measurements.
Niu, which relates to optical metrology devices, teaches a normalization channel (Niu: Fig. 1 second detector 110 and corresponding channel) configured to synchronize detection of the light intensity of the light in the normalization channel with the measurements (Niu: abstract, paragraphs 0008 and 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the metrology device of Kreh to have the normalization channel be further configured to synchronize detection of the light intensity of the light in the normalization channel with the separate measurements, as taught by Niu, for the benefit of enhancing measurement stability in the metrology device (see Niu paragraph 0056).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreh (US 2005/0134846 A1, of record) in view of Horstmeyer et al. (US 2019/0336006 A1), hereinafter Horstmeyer.
Regarding claim 3, Kreh teaches the method of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach aligning the light intensity detected in the normalization channel with the measurements.
Horstmeyer, which relates to using normalization channels in optical measurements, teaches aligning light intensity detected in a normalization channel with measurements (Horstmeyer: see Fig. 6 delay line 92 as part of a normalization channel comprising waveguide 88e and an optical detector (referred to as detector 94 in paragraph 0094), paragraphs 0092-0094; delay line 92 delays the propagation of the reference light 90b so that the reference path and sample path have the same length, thus making the intensity detected by the normalization channel align with the measurements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Kreh to include aligning the light intensity detected in the normalization channel with the measurements, as taught by Horstmeyer, as doing so beneficially improves the normalization of the measurements by ensuring the sample measurement signal and the normalization channel signal are temporally correlated to each other.
Regarding claim 4, Kreh, as modified by Horstmeyer, teaches the method of claim 3, as outlined above, and further teaches aligning the light intensity detected in the normalization channel with the measurements comprises applying a phase delay to the detection of the light intensity in the normalization channel (Horstmeyer: see Fig. 6 delay line 92, paragraphs 0092-0094; delaying the reference light in the manner disclosed by Horstmeyer results in a phase delay of the reference light 90b that is detected by the optical detector).
Regarding claim 13, Kreh teaches the metrology device of claim 11, as outlined above, but does not teach the normalization channel is further configured to align the light intensity detected in the normalization channel with the measurements.
Horstmeyer, which relates to using normalization channels in optical measurements, teaches a normalization channel (Horstmeyer: Fig. 6 normalization channel comprising at least waveguides 88c, 88d, 88e, delay line 92, and optical detector (unlabeled in Fig. 6 but referred to as 94 in paragraph 0094)) configured to align the light intensity detected in the normalization channel with measurements from a sample (Horstmeyer: see Fig. 6, paragraphs 0092-0094; delay line 92 delays the propagation of the reference light 90b so that the reference path and sample path have the same length, thus making the intensity detected by the normalization channel align with the measurements from the sample arm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the normalization channel of Kreh to be configured to align the light intensity detected in the normalization channel with the measurements, as taught by Horstmeyer, as doing so beneficially improves the normalization of the measurements by ensuring the sample measurement signal and the normalization channel signal are temporally correlated to each other.
Regarding claim 14, Kreh, as modified by Horstmeyer, teaches the metrology device of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches the normalization channel is further configured to align the light intensity detected in the normalization channel with the measurements by applying a phase delay to the detection of the light intensity in the normalization channel (Horstmeyer: see Fig. 6 delay line 92, paragraphs 0092-0094; delaying the reference light in the manner disclosed by Horstmeyer results in a phase delay of the reference light 90b that is detected by the optical detector).
Claims 7 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreh (US 2005/0134846 A1, of record) in view of Simpkin et al. (US 2015/0144791 A1), hereinafter Simpkin.
Regarding claim 7, Kreh teaches the method of claim 6, as outlined above, but does not teach detecting the light intensity of the broadband light in the normalization channel while acquiring the spectral measurements comprises determining a total intensity of the light source, and wherein normalizing the spectral measurements based on the light intensity detected in the normalization channel comprises applying the total intensity of the light source to all wavelengths in the spectral measurements.
Simpkin, which relates to using normalization channels to normalize spectral outputs, teaches detecting light intensity of a broadband light in a normalization channel while acquiring the spectral measurements comprises determining a total intensity of the light source (Simpkin: Fig. 1 source 11 is broadband (paragraph 0508), reference channel is the normalization channel (paragraphs 0207-0209); see paragraphs 0008-0023, namely paragraphs 0010 and 0012-0016), and wherein normalizing the spectral measurements based on the light intensity detected in the normalization channel comprises applying the total intensity of the light source to all wavelengths in the spectral measurements (Simpkin: see paragraphs 0008-0023, namely 0009-0010 and 0012-0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Kreh to include the step of detecting the light intensity of the broadband light in the normalization channel while acquiring the spectral measurements comprises determining a total intensity of the light source, and wherein normalizing the spectral measurements based on the light intensity detected in the normalization channel comprises applying the total intensity of the light source to all wavelengths in the spectral measurements, as taught by Simpkin, for the benefit of enhancing the accuracy of the spectral measurements through an improved normalization technique.
Regarding claim 17, Kreh teaches the metrology device of claim 16, as outlined above, but does not teach the normalization channel is configured to detect the light intensity of the broadband light in the normalization channel while acquiring the spectral measurements by being configured to determine a total intensity of the light source, and the computing system normalizes the spectral measurements based on the light intensity detected in the normalization channel by applying the total intensity of the light source to all wavelengths in the spectral measurements.
Simpkin, which relates to using normalization channels to normalize spectral outputs, a normalization channel is configured to detect light intensity of a broadband light in the normalization channel while acquiring the spectral measurements by being configured to determine a total intensity of a light source (Simpkin: Fig. 1 source 11 is broadband (paragraph 0508), reference channel is the normalization channel (paragraphs 0207-0209); see paragraphs 0008-0023, namely paragraphs 0010 and 0012-0016), and the computing system normalizes the spectral measurements based on the light intensity detected in the normalization channel by applying the total intensity of the light source to all wavelengths in the spectral measurements (Simpkin: Fig. 1 processor 18, see paragraphs 0008-0023, namely 0009-0010 and 0012-0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the optical metrology device of Kreh to have the normalization channel be configured to detect the light intensity of the broadband light in the normalization channel while acquiring the spectral measurements by being configured to determine a total intensity of the light source, and the computing system normalizes the spectral measurements based on the light intensity detected in the normalization channel by applying the total intensity of the light source to all wavelengths in the spectral measurements, as taught by Simpkin, for the benefit of enhancing the accuracy of the spectral measurements through an improved normalization technique.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. QUINTANILHA et al. (US 2017/0357155 A1), Zhao et al. (US 2006/0290931 A1), TINNEMANS et al. (US 2024/0319620 A1), Aiyer (US 2006/0285120 A1), Zhao et al. (US 2021/0302149 A1), and Boosalis (US 2021/0262921 A1) all teach similar optical metrology methods and/or devices as Kreh.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights