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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, the end of line 3 “,” should be corrected to –;--.
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:
optical elements 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: how optical fibers can be configured as optical circulators.
This limitation is unclear because an optical fiber cannot be configured to act as a circulator because an optical circulator requires non‑reciprocal, multi‑port optical routing, which an optical fiber alone cannot accomplish. Specification paragraph [0049] states, “The individual ports of circulator 700 may be formed from multiple individual multi-mode optical fibers and a single optical fiber can be connected to each port. Accordingly, the multi-mode optical circulator 700 can enable using a single optical fiber on port 2 for both an interrogation subbeam and a collection subbeam”. Thus, an optical circulator can comprise of a plurality of optical fibers. The claim limitation is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of the first optical fibers, the second optical fibers and the plurality of optical circulators. To fix this, Examiner respectfully suggests further limiting the optical fibers in relation to the optical circulators. For examination purposes, the limitation is understood to mean “The semiconductor processing system as recited in Claim 11, further comprising a plurality of optical circulators”.
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 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al. (US20130063721A1), hereinafter Fujii, in view of Lester (US7581863B2).
As to claim 1, Fujii teaches an optical system, comprising:
a light source (Fujii fig. 9; [0070]; “supercontinuum light source 31”);
optical elements configured to modify each of the plurality of first subbeams (Fujii fig. 9; subbeams entering the wafer 21 after the convex lens 12 and the first cylindrical lens 13) to form a plurality of interrogation spots on a wafer according to a predetermined pattern (Fujii [0071]; fig. 9; “the line beam reflected from the wafer 21” comprises a plurality of interrogation spots, creating the line beam, i.e. the predetermined pattern),
the optical elements further configured to modify each of the plurality of first subbeams upon reflection from the wafer to form a plurality of second subbeams upon an image plane (Fujii fig. 9; [0071]; upon reflection from the wafer 21, the prism 32 disperses the line beam and the CMOS sensor 33 detects the dispersed line beam, i.e. the image plane);
and a spectrometer configured to receive collected light from the plurality of second subbeams (Fujii [0021]; fig. 1; “The line beam is then dispersed by the grating 16. The grating 16 is an example of a spectrometer”. Thus, the spectrometer receives collected light from the second subbeams formed upon reflection from the wafer 21).
However, Fujii does not explicitly disclose the light source configured to provide source light to a source plane to form a plurality of first subbeams.
Lester, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the light source configured to provide source light to a source plane to form a plurality of first subbeams (Lester claim 1; fig. 3; The light source comprises a first and a second optical fiber, providing source light to the first edge of the light pipe, i.e. the source plane. Thus, the light source forms a plurality of first subbeams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujii to incorporate the teachings of Lester to include the light source configured to provide source light to a source plane to form a plurality of first subbeams; for the advantage of flexibility and resilience in different environments (Lester col. 4 ln. 43-50).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fujii Fig 9
PNG
media_image2.png
405
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lester Fig. 3
As to claim 2, Fujii does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical system further includes a light pipe proximate to the source plane.
Lester, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the optical system further includes a light pipe proximate to the source plane (Lester claim 1; fig. 3; The light source comprises a first and a second optical fiber, providing source light to the first edge of the light pipe, i.e. the source plane).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujii to incorporate the teachings of Kim to include wherein the optical system further includes a light pipe proximate to the source plane; for the advantage of substantially uniform light intensity (Lester col. 4 ln. 25-31).
As to claim 3, Fujii teaches wherein the predetermined pattern of interrogation spots is adaptable (Fujii [0076]; fig. 9; “A symbol α shown in FIG. 9 represents an angle of an illumination optical system against the wafer 21, i.e., an incidence angle of the line beam. A symbol β represents an angle of an imaging optical system against the wafer 21, i.e., an output angle of the line beam. If those angles are equal to each other, the optical system in the pattern inspection apparatus becomes a bright field optical system. If those angles are different from each other, the optical system in the pattern inspection apparatus becomes a dark field optical system. The present embodiment can be applied to both optical systems”. Thus, the line beam is adaptable to different angles α, β).
As to claim 4, Fujii does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of first subbeams includes between two and ten subbeams.
Lester, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the plurality of first subbeams includes between two and ten subbeams (Lester claim 1; fig. 3; the first and the second optical fibers allow for the system to have two subbeams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujii to incorporate the teachings of Kim to include wherein the plurality of first subbeams includes between two and ten subbeams; for the advantage of flexibility and resilience in different environments (Lester col. 4 ln. 43-50).
As to claim 6, Fujii teaches wherein the optical elements include at least one of a lens, a beamsplitter, a beam stop, and an optical circulator (Fujii fig. 9; subbeams entering the wafer 21 after the convex lens 12 and the first cylindrical lens 13).
As to claim 7, Fujii teaches wherein the pattern of the interrogation spots is one of a linear pattern, a circular pattern, a hexagonal pattern or a rectangular pattern (Fujii [0071]; fig. 9; The white light is further shaped into a line beam by the first cylindrical lens 13 to illuminate a wafer 21 with the line beam; i.e. a linear pattern).
As to claim 8, Fujii does not explicitly disclose wherein the light source provides the source light to the source plane fiberoptically and each of the plurality of first subbeams is defined by an individual optical fiber.
Lester, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the light source provides the source light to the source plane fiberoptically and each of the plurality of first subbeams is defined by an individual optical fiber (Lester claim 1; The light source comprises a first and a second optical fiber, providing source light to the edge comprised in the light pipe).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujii to incorporate the teachings of Lester to include wherein the light source provides the source light to the source plane fiberoptically and each of the plurality of first subbeams is defined by an individual optical fiber; for the advantage of optimizing light source placement (Lester col. 3 ln. 44-49).
Claims 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of Lester, further in view of Kueny et al. (US10365212B2), hereinafter Kueny.
As to claim 5, Fujii in view of Lester does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of second subbeams is collected and processed independently.
Kueny, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein each of the plurality of second subbeams is collected and processed independently (Kueny claim 12; “the optical coupling system includes a fiber optical cable, and the spectrometer includes an optical port for receiving the calibrating light via the fiber optical cable”; col. 5 ln. 27-31; “the optical signal data can include a ratio of signals measured (as modified by transmission and recording) from the standardized light source in different wavelength bands that can be related to the true (known) energy ratios characteristic of the standardized light source”; thus, the plurality of second subbeams is collected and processed independently through each fiber in the fiber optical cable, to the spectrometer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujii in view of Lester to incorporate the teachings of Kueny to include wherein each of the plurality of second subbeams is collected and processed independently; for the advantage of compensation of nonuniform sensitivity (Kueny col. 5 ln. 8-17).
As to claim 9, Fujii in view of Lester does not explicitly disclose wherein the spectrometer is configured to receive the collected light from the image plane fiberoptically and each of the plurality of second subbeams is defined by an individual optical fiber.
Kueny, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the spectrometer is configured to receive the collected light from the image plane fiberoptically (Kueny claim 12; “the optical coupling system includes a fiber optical cable, and the spectrometer includes an optical port for receiving the calibrating light via the fiber optical cable”) and each of the plurality of second subbeams is defined by an individual optical fiber (col. 5 ln. 27-31; “the optical signal data can include a ratio of signals measured (as modified by transmission and recording) from the standardized light source in different wavelength bands”; thus, the different wavelength bands are inherently defined by the individual optical fibers in the fiber optical cable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujii in view of Lester to incorporate the teachings of Kueny to include wherein the spectrometer is configured to receive the collected light from the image plane fiberoptically and each of the plurality of second subbeams is defined by an individual optical fiber; for the advantage of compensation of nonuniform sensitivity (Kueny col. 5 ln. 8-17).
As to claim 10, Fujii in view of Lester and Kueny does not explicitly disclose wherein the individual optical fibers defining the plurality of first subbeams and the individual optical fibers defining the plurality of second subbeams are pairwise radially symmetric with respect to an axis of the optical system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to ensure that the individual optical fibers defining the plurality of second subbeams are pairwise radially symmetric with respect to an axis of the optical system, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of pairwise radial symmetry, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed radial symmetry or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Specification para. [0034] and [0051] merely state that the source and receive fibers can be radially symmetric with respect to an axis of the optical system. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen radial symmetry or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen radial symmetries are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Fujii in view of Lester and Kueny to include wherein the individual optical fibers defining the plurality of first subbeams and the individual optical fibers defining the plurality of second subbeams are pairwise radially symmetric with respect to an axis of the optical system; for the advantage of an ideal, perfectly circular diameter fiber optical cable in order to optimize performance and manufacturability.
Claims 11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueny in view of Lester, further in view of Fujii.
As to claims 11 and 17, Kueny teaches a semiconductor processing system and a method for processing a semiconductor wafer (Kueny col. 1 ln. 20-23; “This disclosure relates generally to optical measurements for semiconductor processing systems”), comprising:
a processing chamber (Kueny abstract; “a processing chamber”);
a light source (Kueny claim 1; “an optical source located within the enclosure and configured to provide a source light”);
a spectrometer configured to receive collected light from a plurality of second optical fibers (Kueny claim 12; “the optical coupling system includes a fiber optical cable, and the spectrometer includes an optical port for receiving the calibrating light via the fiber optical cable”);
an interrogation region on a wafer within the processing chamber (Kueny col. 39-42; “a processing chamber that generally encloses a wafer” to be interrogated);
and [claim 17] one or more control trends for controlling the processing of the wafer according to the processing (Kueny col. 6 ln. 17-20; “The processing line 100 illustrates a distributed control system wherein the control logic for matching of the various chambers/modules of processing line 100 may be located in multiple devices”. Thus, there are one or more control trends to control the wafer processing).
However, Kueny does not explicitly disclose the light source configured to provide source light to a plurality of first optical fibers; and the interrogation region including a plurality of interrogation spots; wherein each of the plurality of interrogation spots is defined by a pairwise arrangement of the pluralities of first and second optical fibers.
Lester, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the light source configured to provide source light to a plurality of first optical fibers (Lester claim 1; fig. 3; The light source comprises a first and a second optical fiber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kueny to incorporate the teachings of Lester to include the light source configured to provide source light to a plurality of first optical fibers; for the advantage of flexibility and resilience in different environments (Lester col. 4 ln. 43-50).
Still lacking the limitations such as the interrogation region including a plurality of interrogation spots; wherein each of the plurality of interrogation spots is defined by a pairwise arrangement of the pluralities of first and second optical fibers.
Fujii, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the interrogation region including a plurality of interrogation spots (Fujii [0071]; fig. 9; “the line beam reflected from the wafer 21” comprises a plurality of interrogation spots, creating the line beam, i.e. the predetermined pattern);
wherein each of the plurality of interrogation spots is defined by a pairwise arrangement of the pluralities of first and second optical fibers (Lester fig. 3; The prior art in combination teaches the optical fibers on the light source side of Lester and the fiber optical cable of fibers after the wafer of Kueny. Fujii fig. 9; The wafer of Fujii comprises a plurality of interrogation spots forming a line beam. Thus, the pairwise arrangement of first optical fibers (taught by Lester) and the pairwise arrangement of second optical fibers (taught by Kueny) define the plurality of interrogation spots on the wafer (taught by Fujii)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kueny in view of Lester to incorporate the teachings of Fujii to include the interrogation region including a plurality of interrogation spots; wherein each of the plurality of interrogation spots is defined by a pairwise arrangement of the pluralities of first and second optical fibers; for the advantage of high precision and fast throughput (Fujii [0083]).
As to claim 13, Kueny does not explicitly disclose a light pipe proximate to the light source and plurality of first optical fibers.
Lester, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a light pipe proximate to the light source and plurality of first optical fibers (Lester claim 1; fig. 3; The light source comprises a first and a second optical fiber, providing source light to the first edge of the light pipe. Thus, the light pipe is proximate to the light source and to the first and second optical fibers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kueny to incorporate the teachings of Lester to include a light pipe proximate to the light source and plurality of first optical fibers; for the advantage of flexibility and resilience in different environments (Lester col. 4 ln. 43-50).
As to claim 14, Kueny does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of interrogation spots includes between two and ten interrogation spots.
Lester, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches the plurality of first optical fibers (Lester claim 1; fig. 3; The light source comprises a first and a second optical fiber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kueny to incorporate the teachings of Lester to include the plurality of first optical fibers; for the advantage of flexibility and resilience in different environments (Lester col. 4 ln. 43-50).
Still lacking the limitation such as wherein the plurality of interrogation spots includes between two and ten interrogation spots.
Fujii, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the plurality of interrogation spots includes between two and ten interrogation spots (Fujii [0071]; fig. 9; “The line beam reflected from the wafer 21” comprises a plurality of interrogation spots, creating the line beam, i.e. the predetermined pattern. Lester fig. 3; Fujii fig. 9; The line beam of Fujii is comprised of spot beams. The number of spot beams is two, when in combination with the two optical fibers of Lester. Thus, in combination, Kueny in view of Lester and Fujii teaches wherein the plurality of interrogation spots includes between two and ten interrogation spots).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kueny in view of Lester to incorporate the teachings of Fujii to include wherein the plurality of interrogation spots includes between two and ten interrogation spots; for the advantage of high precision and fast throughput (Fujii [0083]).
As to claim 15, Kueny teaches wherein the spectrometer individually processes the collected light from the plurality of second optical fibers (Kueny claim 12; “the optical coupling system includes a fiber optical cable, and the spectrometer includes an optical port for receiving the calibrating light via the fiber optical cable”; col. 5 ln. 27-31; “the optical signal data can include a ratio of signals measured (as modified by transmission and recording) from the standardized light source in different wavelength bands that can be related to the true (known) energy ratios characteristic of the standardized light source”; thus, the plurality of second subbeams is collected and processed individually through each fiber in the fiber optical cable, to the spectrometer).
As to claim 16, Kueny in view of Lester does not explicitly disclose wherein the pattern of the interrogation spots is one of a linear pattern, a circular pattern, a hexagonal pattern or a rectangular pattern.
Fujii, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches wherein the pattern of the interrogation spots is one of a linear pattern, a circular pattern, a hexagonal pattern or a rectangular pattern (Fujii [0071]; fig. 9; The white light is further shaped into a line beam by the first cylindrical lens 13 to illuminate a wafer 21 with the line beam; i.e. a linear pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kueny in view of Lester to incorporate the teachings of Fujii to include wherein the pattern of the interrogation spots is one of a linear pattern, a circular pattern, a hexagonal pattern or a rectangular pattern; for the advantage of high precision and fast throughput (Fujii [0083]).
As to claims 18 and 19, Kueny in view of Lester does not explicitly disclose defining a plurality of interrogation spots on the semiconductor wafer according to a predetermined pattern, wherein the predetermined pattern is selected according to features to be monitored on the semiconductor wafer.
Fujii, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches defining a plurality of interrogation spots on the semiconductor wafer according to a predetermined pattern, wherein the predetermined pattern is selected according to features to be monitored on the semiconductor wafer (Fujii [0071]; fig. 9; “the line beam reflected from the wafer 21” comprises a plurality of interrogation spots, creating the line beam, i.e. the predetermined pattern, selected according to features to be monitored on the semiconductor wafer, i.e. the features along the line beam of the wafer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kueny in view of Lester to incorporate the teachings of Fujii to include defining a plurality of interrogation spots on the semiconductor wafer according to a predetermined pattern, wherein the predetermined pattern is selected according to features to be monitored on the semiconductor wafer; for the advantage of high precision and fast throughput (Fujii [0083]).
As to claim 20, Kueny teaches wherein the processing the collected light to provide one or more control trends for controlling the processing of the wafer includes combining collected light from a multiple of the plurality of second optical fibers (Kueny claim 12; “the optical coupling system includes a fiber optical cable, and the spectrometer includes an optical port for receiving the calibrating light via the fiber optical cable”; col. 5 ln. 27-31; “the optical signal data can include a ratio of signals measured (as modified by transmission and recording) from the standardized light source in different wavelength bands that can be related to the true (known) energy ratios characteristic of the standardized light source”; thus, controlling the wafer processing includes combining collected light from the fiber optical cable fibers).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kueny in view of Lester and Fujii, further in view of O’Banion et al. (US10861682B2), hereinafter O’Banion.
As to claim 12, Kueny in view of Lester and Fujii does not explicitly disclose a plurality of optical circulators [wherein the pairwise arrangement of the pluralities of first and second optical fibers is configured as a plurality of optical circulators].
O’Banion, in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, teaches a plurality of optical circulators (O’Banion fig. 10; “FBG fiber-optic sensors A111-1 through A111-N coupled through corresponding optical multiplexers or optical circulators 801-1 through 801-N”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kueny in view of Lester and Fujii to incorporate the teachings of O’Banion to include a plurality of optical circulators; for the advantage of facilitating high-speed parallel processing and real time spectrum inspection (O’Banion col. 17 ln. 35-39).
PNG
media_image3.png
1145
1116
media_image3.png
Greyscale
O’Banion Fig. 10
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claim 1: Kim et al. (US20040263793A1), hereinafter Kim teaches the light source configured to provide source light to a source plane to form a plurality of first subbeams (Kim [0058]-[0059]; fig. 3; The light source 60 includes a lamp 61. The light pipe 70 separates incident light, creating a plurality of first subbeams. [0060]; “The light pipe 70 includes first, second, and third dichroic prisms 79, 81, and 83 for separating the incident light L into first, second, and third color beams L1, L2, and L3”. [0061]; “The first dichroic prism 79 has a first mirror plane 80”. Thus, the source light is provided to a source plane, i.e. the first mirror plane 80).
PNG
media_image4.png
490
868
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kim Fig. 3
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
Prosecution Insights