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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 03/26/2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 03/26/2025, has been accepted for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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) 1-2, 5 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (2021/0116390 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a substrate evaluation method/apparatus (figs. 1-12), comprising:
a measurement operation of measuring an absorbance spectrum in a wavenumber range including a peak of at least one of a LO (Longitudinal Optical) phonon or a TO (Transverse Optical) phonon [pars. 0032, 0035] by analyzing a substrate (silicon wafer 104) having an anisotropic structure formed thereon [pars. 0004-5 and 0031], as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs. 1-2) with an infrared spectroscopy analysis [pars. 0021, 0024 and 0030]; and
a derivation operation of deriving evaluation information (chemical bonding etc.) about the anisotropic structure from the measured absorbance spectrum [pars. 0029, 0030, 0035 and 0038].
For the purpose of clarity, the method claim 1 also anticipates/provide the means for apparatus claim 14 as rejected above as being anticipated by Chen.
As to claim 2, Chen also discloses wherein the anisotropic structure is a trench a long, narrow excavation in the substrate, as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs. 1-2) formed in the substrate (silicon wafer 104).
As to claim 13, Chen further discloses incident scanning angles of 0 wherein the measurement operation analyzes the substrate (silicon wafer 104) with the infrared spectroscopy analysis by irradiating the substrate with infrared light in a direction close to a plane of the substrate [par. 0035].
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.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (2021/0116390 A1).
As to claim 5, Chen teaches of the features of claim 5, as applied to claim 1, comprising monitoring the progress of a wafer manufacturing process on the basis of measurement results [pars. 0029, 0038] comprising: a substrate processing operation of performing substrate processing on the substrate by the infrared spectroscopy, wherein the measurement operation includes: a pre-substrate-processing measurement operation of performing the infrared spectroscopy analysis on the substrate, which has not been subjected to the substrate processing in the substrate processing operation, to measure an intensity spectrum before the substrate processing; and a post-substrate-processing measurement operation of performing the infrared spectroscopy analysis on the substrate, which has been subjected to the substrate processing in the substrate processing operation, to measure an intensity spectrum after the substrate processing (i.e. post-etch) [pars. 0004].
Chen fails to explicitly specify the constructional change(s) in the device of claim 1 of wherein the derivation operation derives the evaluation information about the anisotropic structure from the intensity spectrum before the substrate processing measured in the pre- substrate-processing measurement operation and the intensity spectrum after the substrate processing measured in the post-substrate-processing measurement operation.
However, even though, Chen fail to teaches the constructional/structural change difference(s) as that claimed by Applicants claim 5, the constructional changes difference(s) are considered obvious adjustment because deriving evaluation information by performing spectrum measurement before and after substrate processing is a matter that could be addressed, as appropriate and as needed, by a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to improve manufacturing/manufacturable microfabrication processes, as per teaching of Chen, (Chen, [pars. 0002, 0004, 0029 and 0038]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen as desired appropriate, such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claim 5, in order to improve manufacturing of microfabrication processes, as per teaching of Chen, (Chen, [pars. 0002, 0004, 0029 and 0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen as desired appropriate, such as in the manner set forth in applicant's claim 5, in order to improve manufacturing of microfabrication processes, as per teaching of Chen, (Chen, [pars. 0002, 0004, 0029 and 0038], since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6-12 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.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed in the attached form PTO-892 teach of other prior art substrate processing method/apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights