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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0035], the seventh sentence will be read as “A second detector 206 b may detect a second set of intensity values associated with a fourth beam of light caused by the [[second beam of light interacting with the substrate 202.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 13, line 6, the word “detecting” will be read as “detect”
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: “one or more optical elements” in claim 13; and “a processing device” in claim 13.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7 and 9-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490 anticipate each limitation of claims 1-8 of the instant application, as shown below.
Instant Application 19/093,677
U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490
1. A method comprising:
scanning a substrate with a plurality of beams of light that differ in at least one of:
a wavelength, or
an angle of incidence on the substrate;
detecting a plurality of spatial interference patterns, wherein each interference pattern is detected using light caused by interaction with the substrate of a respective beam of light of the plurality of beams of light; and
determining, using the plurality of spatial interference patterns, a thickness profile of at least a portion of the substrate.
1. A method comprising:
scanning a substrate with a first beam of light;
obtaining, for each of a plurality of locations of the substrate, a respective one of a first plurality of intensity values associated with a second beam of light, wherein the second beam of light is caused by interaction of the first beam of light with the substrate, and wherein the first plurality of intensity values characterizes one or more spatial interference fringes caused by interference of a first portion of the second beam of light originating at a first surface of the substrate with a second portion of the second beam of light originating at a second surface of the substrate;
scanning the substrate with a third beam of light, wherein the third beam of light is different from the first beam of light in at least one of a wavelength or an angle of incidence on the substrate;
obtaining, for each of the plurality of locations of the substrate, a respective one of a second plurality of intensity values associated with a fourth beam of light, wherein the fourth beam of light is caused by interaction of the third beam of light with the substrate, and wherein the second plurality of intensity values characterizes one or more additional spatial interference fringes caused by interference of a third portion of the third beam of light originating at the first surface of the substrate with a fourth portion of the fourth beam of light originating at the second surface of the substrate; and
determining, using the first plurality of intensity values and the second plurality of intensity values, profile data characterizing variation of a thickness of the substrate.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the plurality of spatial interference patterns comprises:
identifying a first spatial frequency associated with a first spatial interference pattern detected using a first beam of light of the plurality of beams of light; and
identifying a second spatial frequency associated with a second spatial interference pattern detected using a second beam of light of the plurality of beams of light; and
wherein determining the thickness profile is based on the first spatial frequency and the second spatial frequency.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of intensity values associated with the second beam of light comprises:
a first intensity value for a first location of the plurality of locations, and
a second intensity value for a second location of the plurality of locations, and
wherein determining the profile data comprises:
determining a change in the thickness of the substrate between the first location and the second location using the first intensity value and the second intensity value.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the thickness profile comprises:
a magnitude of a change of a thickness of the substrate between a first region of the substrate and a second region of the substrate, and
a sign of the change of the thickness.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the profile data characterizing variation of a thickness of the substrate determines:
a magnitude of a change of the thickness of the substrate between a first region of the substrate and a second region of the substrate; and
a sign of the change of the thickness.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the thickness profile comprises:
identifying that a first relative spatial order between (i) a first spatial interference pattern detected using a first beam of light of the plurality of beams of light at a first region and (ii) a second spatial interference pattern detected using a second beam of light of the plurality of beams at the first region is different from a second relative spatial order between (iii) a third spatial interference pattern detected using the first beam of light at a second region and (iv) a fourth spatial interference pattern detected using the second beam of light at the second region; and
determining, based on the identifying, that a thickness of the substrate is
increasing, in a direction of the scanning, in the first region, and
decreasing, in the direction of scanning, in the second region.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of intensity values identifies:
a first group of interference fringes for a first region of the substrate, and
a second group of interference fringes for a second region of the substrate, and
wherein the second plurality of intensity values identifies:
a third group of interference fringes for a first region of the substrate, and
a fourth group of interference fringes for a second region of the substrate, and
wherein determining the profile data comprises:
identifying that a relative spatial order of the first group of interference fringes and the third group of interference fringes is different from a relative spatial order of the second group of interference fringes and the fourth group of interference fringes; and
determining, based on the identifying, that the thickness of the substrate is increasing, in a direction of scanning, in the first region, and decreasing, in the direction of scanning, in the second region.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein scanning the substrate comprises moving the plurality of beams of light in a spiral pattern relative to the substrate.
5. The method of claim 3, wherein scanning the substrate comprises moving at least one of the first beam of light or the third beam of light in a spiral pattern relative to the substrate.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the light caused by interaction with the substrate of the respective beam of light comprises at least one of:
a light reflected from the substrate, or
a light transmitted through the substrate.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the second beam of light is a reflected beam caused by interaction of the first beam of light with the substrate, and wherein each of the first plurality of intensity values is associated with a reflectivity of the substrate at a respective location of the plurality of locations of the substrate.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the second beam of light is a transmitted beam caused by interaction of the first beam of light with the substrate, and wherein each of the first plurality of intensity values is associated with a transmissivity of the substrate at a respective location of the plurality of locations of the substrate.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
drying at least the portion of the substrate with a flow of gas.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein scanning the substrate with the first beam of light comprises:
drying at least a portion of the substrate with a flow of gas.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
modifying, using the thickness profile, a thickness of the substrate at one or more locations of the substrate.
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
modifying, in view of the determined profile data, the thickness of the substrate in at least one region of the substrate.
Claims 9-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490 in view of Xu et al. (US 2018/0304435 A1).
Regarding Claim 9 of the instant application, claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490 disclose the method of claim 8, but do not specifically teach that modifying the thickness of the substrate comprises:
processing, using a machine learning model (MLM), at least the thickness profile to determine one or more settings for a process tool; and
causing the process tool, configured according to the one or more determined settings, to modify the thickness of the substrate.
However, Xu, in the same field of polishing wafers, teaches that modifying the thickness of the substrate comprises:
processing, using a machine learning model (MLM), at least the thickness profile (Figure 1A; [0067] “the polishing apparatus 100 can use the neural network 500 to generate modified signals used to determine a thickness of multiple locations”) to determine one or more settings for a process tool (Figure 1A; [0073] “The polishing apparatus 100 detects (608) a polishing endpoint and/or modify a polishing parameter based on each estimated measures of thickness”); and
causing the process tool, configured according to the one or more determined settings, to modify the thickness of the substrate ([0026] “The polishing rate can be adjusted so that the locations of the layer are substantially the same thickness after polishing”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490 with the teachings of Xu, wherein modifying the thickness of the substrate comprises: processing, using a machine learning model (MLM), at least the thickness profile to determine one or more settings for a process tool; and causing the process tool, configured according to the one or more determined settings, to modify the thickness of the substrate, because “the apparatus 100 updates each measured signal by normalizing the value of the signals. Such normalization can increase the likelihood that at least some of the inputs 504 to the neural network system 500 fall within a particular range, which in turn can increase the quality of training of the neural network and/or the accuracy of the inference made by the neural network 500.” (Xu, para 71)
Regarding Claim 10 of the instant application, claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490 modified by Xu disclose the method of claim 9, but do not specifically teach that the MLM further processes at least one of:
a time associated with a duration of a technological process, or
specification data associated with the technological process.
However, Xu, in the same field of polishing wafers, teaches that the MLM further processes at least one of:
a time associated with a duration of a technological process (moot), or
specification data associated with the technological process ([0008] “One or more computer programs can be configured to perform particular operations or actions by virtue of including instructions that, when executed by data processing apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform the actions”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490 with the teachings of Xu, wherein the MLM further processes: specification data associated with the technological process, for improving the efficiency of the process.
Claims 13-15 and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12, 15-16, 14 and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 12, 15-16, 14 and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490 anticipate each limitation of Claims 13-15 and 17-19 of the instant application, as shown below.
Instant Application 19/093,677
U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490
13. A system comprising:
a light illumination system to generate a plurality of beams of light that differ in at least one of:
a wavelength, or
an angle of incidence on a substrate;
a plurality of optical sensors to detecting a plurality of spatial interference patterns, wherein each interference pattern is detected using light caused by interaction with the substrate of a respective beam of light of the plurality of beams of light;
one or more optical elements to direct a third beam of light to the substrate; and
a processing device to determine, using the plurality of spatial interference patterns, a thickness profile of at least a portion of the substrate.
12. A system configured to scan a substrate, the system comprising:
a first light source to emit a first beam of light;
a first optical sensor to obtain, for each of a plurality of locations of the substrate, a respective one of a first plurality of intensity values associated with a second beam of light, wherein the second beam of light is caused by interaction of the first beam of light with the substrate, and wherein the first plurality of intensity values characterizes one or more spatial interference fringes caused by interference of a first portion of the second beam of light originating at a first surface of the substrate with a second portion of the second beam of light originating at a second surface of the substrate;
one or more optical elements to direct a third beam of light to the substrate;
a second optical sensor to obtain, for each of the plurality of locations of the substrate, a respective one of a second plurality of intensity values associated with a fourth beam of light, wherein the second beam of light is caused by interaction of the third beam of light with the substrate, and wherein the second plurality of intensity values characterizes one or more additional spatial interference fringes caused by interference of a third portion of the third beam of light originating at the first surface of the substrate with a fourth portion of the fourth beam of light originating at the second surface of the substrate; and
a processing device configured to determine, using the first plurality of intensity values and the second plurality of intensity values, profile data characterizing variation of a thickness of the substrate.
15. The system of claim 12, wherein an angle of incidence of the third beam of light on the substrate is different from an angle of incidence of the first beam of light on the substrate.
16. The system of claim 12, wherein a wavelength of the third beam of light is different from a wavelength of the first beam of light.
14. The system of claim 13, wherein to determine the thickness profile, the processing device is to:
obtain an indication that a first relative spatial order between (i) a first spatial interference pattern detected using a first beam of light of the plurality of beams of light at a first region and (ii) a second spatial interference pattern detected using a second beam of light of the plurality of beams at the first region is different from a second relative spatial order between (iii) a third spatial interference pattern detected using the first beam of light at a second region and (iv) a fourth spatial interference pattern detected using the second beam of light at the second region; and
determine, based on the obtained indication, that a thickness of the substrate is increasing, in a direction of scanning, in the first region, and decreasing, in the direction of scanning, in the second region.
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the first plurality of intensity values identifies:
a first group of interference fringes for a first region of the substrate, and
a second group of interference fringes for a second region of the substrate, and
wherein the second plurality of intensity values identifies:
a third group of interference fringes for a first region of the substrate, and
a fourth group of interference fringes for a second region of the substrate, and
wherein to determine the profile data, the processing device is configured to:
identify that a relative spatial order of the first group of interference fringes and the third group of interference fringes is different from a relative spatial order of the second group of interference fringes and the fourth group of interference fringes; and
determine, based on the relative spatial order, that the thickness of the substrate is
increasing, in a direction of scanning, in the first region, and
decreasing, in the direction of scanning, in the second region.
15. The system of claim 13, further comprising:
a movable stage to move the plurality of beams of light in a spiral pattern relative to the substrate.
17. The system of claim 12, wherein the first light source and the first optical sensor are mounted on an optical head, and wherein to scan the substrate, the first beam of light is moved relative to the substrate by moving at least one of the substrate or the optical head.
17. The system of claim 13, further comprising a directed gas source to dry at least a portion of the substrate with a flow of gas.
18. The system of claim 12, further comprising a directed gas source to dry at least a portion of the substrate with a flow of gas.
18. The system of claim 13, further comprising:
a process tool to modify, using the thickness profile, a thickness of the substrate at one or more locations of the substrate.
19. The system of claim 12, further comprising a substrate-processing tool configured to modify the thickness of the substrate, and wherein the processing device is further configured to apply a machine-learning model to the first plurality of intensity values to determine adjusted tool settings for the substrate-processing tool.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein the processing device is to:
process, using a machine learning model (MLM), at least the thickness profile to determine one or more settings for the process tool; and
cause the process tool, configured according to the one or more determined settings, to modify the thickness of the substrate.
19. The system of claim 12, further comprising a substrate-processing tool configured to modify the thickness of the substrate, and wherein the processing device is further configured to apply a machine-learning model to the first plurality of intensity values to determine adjusted tool settings for the substrate-processing tool.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490 in view of McMillen et al. (US 2002/0057437 A1).
Regarding Claim 16 of the instant application, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490 discloses the system of claim 13, but does not specifically teach that the light caused by interaction with the substrate of the respective beam of light comprises at least one of:
a light reflected from the substrate, or
a light transmitted through the substrate.
However, McMillen, in the same field of thickness measurement, teaches that the light caused by interaction with the substrate of the respective beam of light (Figure 2; [0017] “a light projected through an illumination lens 120 and a beam splitter 125 and then focused by a microscopic objective lens 130 on the top surface of the substrate 105”) comprises at least one of:
a light reflected from the substrate (Figure 2; [0017] “reflected light-beams from the silicon wafer 105 and from the thin film”), or
a light transmitted through the substrate (moot).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490 with the teachings of McMillen, wherein the light caused by interaction with the substrate of the respective beam of light comprises: a light reflected from the substrate, because “an optimal wavelength is determined in identifying a light frequency that provides a point in the interference pattern having relative maximum change-rate of reflectivity variations.” (McMillen, para 48)
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490 in view of Xu et al. (US 2018/0304435 A1).
Regarding Claim 20 of the instant application, claims 12 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490 disclose the system of claim 19, but do not specifically teach that the MLM further processes at least one of:
a time associated with a duration of a technological process, or
specification data associated with the technological process.
However, Xu, in the same field of polishing wafers, teaches that the MLM further processes at least one of:
a time associated with a duration of a technological process (moot), or
specification data associated with the technological process ([0008] “One or more computer programs can be configured to perform particular operations or actions by virtue of including instructions that, when executed by data processing apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform the actions”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify claims 12 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,276,490 with the teachings of Xu, wherein the MLM further processes: specification data associated with the technological process, for improving the efficiency of the process.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tahara (US 2019/0293407 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 13, Tahara discloses a system comprising:
a light illumination system to generate a plurality of beams of light (Figure 5; [0046] “1-1st A surface modulated measuring light to be emitted from the A surface interference unit 2A”, wherein “1-1st A surface modulated measuring light” is a first beam of light; [0046] “1-1st B surface modulated measuring light to be emitted from the B surface interference unit 2B”, wherein “1-1st B surface modulated measuring light” is a third beam of light) that differ in at least one of:
a wavelength (moot), or
an angle of incidence on a substrate (Figure 5: the 1-1st B surface modulated measuring light is directed vertically upwards to the B surface, while the 1-1st A surface modulated measuring light is directed vertically downwards to the A surface);
a plurality of optical sensors (Figure 4; [0050] “The A surface detector 31A”; [0095] “a B surface detector [31B]”) to detect a plurality of spatial interference patterns (Figure 4; [0050] “The A surface detector 31A … is a device that detects light intensity signals of the A surface measuring interference light and the A surface reference interference light in the A surface interference unit 2A”; [0095] “a B surface detector [31B] that detects light intensity signals of the B surface measuring interference light and the B surface reference interference light in the B surface interference unit [2B]”), wherein each interference pattern is detected using light caused by interaction with the substrate of a respective beam of light of the plurality of beams of light ([0044] “The 1-1st A surface modulated measuring light that has reflected from the portion MP of the first measurement position on the A surface of the object to be measured WA”; [0091] “reflecting the 1-1st B surface modulated measuring light … from the portion of the second measurement position”);
one or more optical elements to direct a third beam of light to the substrate (Figure 5; [0046] “A 1-1st B surface modulated measuring light to be emitted from the B surface interference unit 2B may be guided by a light guiding member such as an optical fiber so as to be emitted to a portion of the second measurement position on the B surface of the object to be measured WA”, wherein “1-1st B surface modulated measuring light” is a third beam of light); and
a processing device (Figure 1; [0060] “The thickness arithmetic unit 41”) to determine, using the plurality of spatial interference patterns, a thickness profile of at least a portion of the substrate (Figure 1; [0060] “The thickness arithmetic unit 41 obtains a variation in the thickness of the object to be measured WA based on the first phase obtained by the A surface phase detector 3Aa detecting the phases of the A surface measuring interference light and the A surface reference interference light generated by the A surface interference unit 2A and the second phase obtained by the B surface phase detector 3Ba detecting the phases of the B surface measuring interference light and the B surface reference interference light generated by the B surface interference unit 2B”).
Regarding Claim 15, Tahara discloses the system of claim 13, further comprising:
a movable stage (Figure 5; [0053] “stage 5 rotationally moves the object to be measured WA, and moves it also in a radial direction of the rotation”) to move the plurality of beams of light in a spiral pattern relative to the substrate (Figure 6; [0067] “while the first and second measurement positions on the object to be measured WA are sequentially changed so that loci of a plurality of the first and second measurement positions trace spirals”).
Regarding Claim 16, Tahara discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the light caused by interaction with the substrate of the respective beam of light comprises at least one of:
a light reflected from the substrate ([0044] “The 1-1st A surface modulated measuring light that has reflected from the portion MP of the first measurement position on the A surface of the object to be measured WA”; [0091] “reflecting the 1-1st B surface modulated measuring light … from the portion of the second measurement position”), or
a light transmitted through the substrate (moot).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillen et al. (US 2002/0057437 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, McMillen discloses a method comprising:
scanning a substrate with a plurality of beams of light (Figure 2; [0009] “the entire wafer surface is scanned with the optimal wavelength”) that differ in at least one of:
a wavelength ([0012] “a measuring light beam having a range of wavelengths”, wherein “a range of wavelengths” is interpreted as comprising different wavelengths), or
an angle of incidence on the substrate (moot);
detecting a plurality of spatial interference patterns ([0014] “FIGS. 1A and 1B are interferogram diagrams showing the relative intensity of reflective light beams”, wherein “interferogram diagrams” are records of optical interference), wherein each interference pattern is detected using light caused by interaction with the substrate of a respective beam of light of the plurality of beams of light (inherent for a reflected beam to be caused by interaction of an incident beam with a substrate); and
determining, using the plurality of spatial interference patterns, a thickness profile of at least a portion of the thin film ([0011] “thickness variations are then calculated from the intensity of the reflection data”), but does not specifically teach determining, using the plurality of spatial interference patterns, a thickness profile of at least a portion of the substrate.
However, McMillen teaches a substrate (Figure 2: element 105 is a substrate; [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of McMillen, for determining, using the plurality of spatial interference patterns, a thickness profile of at least a portion of the substrate, because the manner in which steps are carried out to determine a thickness profile for a thin film can also be employed to determine a thickness profile for a substrate without changing any operational principle.
Regarding Claim 2, modified McMillen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the plurality of spatial interference patterns comprises:
identifying a first spatial frequency associated with a first spatial interference pattern (Figure 1A: the plot for thickness T = 2000A is interpreted to have a first frequency) detected using a first beam of light of the plurality of beams of light ([0012] “a measuring light beam having a range of wavelengths”, wherein “a range of wavelengths” is interpreted as comprising a first wavelength of a plurality of wavelengths); and
identifying a second spatial frequency associated with a second spatial interference pattern (Figure 1A: the plot for thickness T = 3000A is interpreted to have a second frequency) detected using a second beam of light of the plurality of beams of light ([0012] “a measuring light beam having a range of wavelengths”, wherein “a range of wavelengths” is interpreted as comprising a second wavelength of a plurality of wavelengths); and
wherein determining the thickness profile is based on the first spatial frequency (Figure 1A: the plot for thickness T = 2000A is interpreted to have a first frequency) and the second spatial frequency (Figure 1A: the plot for thickness T = 3000A is interpreted to have a second frequency).
Regarding Claim 5, modified McMillen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein scanning the substrate comprises moving the plurality of beams of light in a spiral pattern relative to the substrate (Figure 2; [0018] “A scan process over the entire wafer 105 is performed with the motorized two-dimensional (X-Y or R-θ) table 110 making movements according to a raster fashion or circular rings”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillen et al. (US 2002/0057437 A1) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2002/0030823 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified McMillen discloses the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the thickness profile comprises:
a magnitude of a change of a thickness of the substrate between a first region of the substrate and a second region of the substrate, and
a sign of the change of the thickness.
However, Kobayashi, in the same field of thickness measurement, teaches that the thickness profile ([0019] “FIG. 5 shows the relationship between a cross-section of a crystal model having an inclined plane and a horizontal plane”) comprises:
a magnitude of a change of a thickness of the substrate between a first region of the substrate and a second region of the substrate ([0020] “The light intensity periodically changes from the edge where the thickness of the crystal model 24 is thinnest, toward the center where the thickness is thickest”), and
a sign of the change of the thickness ([0058] “If the thickness does not change, then Δ=0, where Δ increases as the change of thickness increases, and the sign of the value Δ inverts if the increase/decrease of the thickness change inverts”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of McMillen with the teachings of Kobayashi, wherein the thickness profile comprises: a magnitude of a change of a thickness of the substrate between a first region of the substrate and a second region of the substrate, and a sign of the change of the thickness, because “According to the present invention, thickness can be instantaneously measured by a simple configuration where merely a wedge prism is disposed on the optical path. Even if a plurality of measurement points are scattered, high-speed measurement is possible. Since the wedge prism disposed on the optical path is secured, structure is more simplified compared with a device which measures thickness by rotating an analyzer for each measurement.” (Kobayashi, para 92)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillen et al. (US 2002/0057437 A1) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2006/0279744 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified McMillen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the light caused by interaction with the substrate of the respective beam of light (Figure 2; [0017] “a light projected through an illumination lens 120 and a beam splitter 125 and then focused by a microscopic objective lens 130 on the top surface of the substrate 105”) comprises at least one of:
a light reflected from the substrate (Figure 2; [0017] “reflected light-beams from the silicon wafer 105 and from the thin film”), but does not specifically teach a light transmitted through the substrate.
However, Takeda, in the same field of measuring thickness, teaches a light transmitted (Figure 1: arrow pointing at transmission light intensity monitor element 4 is a transmitted beam of light) through the substrate (Figure 1; [0023] “the amorphous silicon thin film 3 deposited on the glass substrate 2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of McMillen with the teachings of Takeda, wherein the light caused by interaction with the substrate of the respective beam of light comprises at least one of: a light transmitted through the substrate, because “By this procedure, film thickness can be determined on 10,000 substrates or more per minute and film thickness of thin film can be measured over the entire substrate surface.” (Takeda, Abstract)
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillen et al. (US 2002/0057437 A1) in view of Kimba et al. (US 2019/0022820 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified McMillen discloses the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach:
drying at least the portion of the substrate with a flow of gas.
However, Kimba, in the same field of polishing wafers, teaches drying at least the portion of the substrate (Figure 1: element W is a wafer; [0023]) with a flow of gas (Figure 1; [0031] “a gas (e.g. clean air or nitrogen gas) flows through the gas supply line 63 into the flow passage 7, and comes into contact with the distal end 34 a of the illuminating fiber 34 and the distal end 50 a of the light-receiving fiber 50, located in the flow passage 7”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of McMillen with the teachings of Kimba, for drying at least the portion of the substrate with a flow of gas, because “Since the gas does not dilute the slurry, the polishing apparatus can measure a thickness of a film with high accuracy without decreasing a polishing rate of the wafer.” (Kimba, para 14)
Regarding Claim 8, modified McMillen discloses the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach:
modifying, using the thickness profile, a thickness of the substrate at one or more locations of the substrate.
However, Kimba, in the same field of polishing wafers, teaches modifying, using the thickness profile, a thickness of the substrate at one or more locations of the substrate ([0052] “The polishing controller 12 controls polishing operations (e.g., a polishing terminating operation) based on the film thickness t1 sent from the processor 27. For example, if the film thickness t1 reaches a preset target value, the polishing controller 12 terminates polishing of the wafer W”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of McMillen with the teachings of Kimba, for modifying, using the thickness profile, a thickness of the substrate at one or more locations of the substrate, because “the polishing apparatus can measure a thickness of a film with high accuracy without decreasing a polishing rate of the wafer.” (Kimba, para 14)
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillen et al. (US 2002/0057437 A1) and Kimba et al. (US 2019/0022820 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2018/0304435 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified McMillen discloses the method of claim 8, but does not specifically teach that modifying the thickness of the substrate comprises:
processing, using a machine learning model (MLM), at least the thickness profile to determine one or more settings for a process tool; and
causing the process tool, configured according to the one or more determined settings, to modify the thickness of the substrate.
However, Xu, in the same field of polishing wafers, teaches that modifying the thickness of the substrate comprises:
processing, using a machine learning model (MLM), at least the thickness profile (Figure 1A; [0067] “the polishing apparatus 100 can use the neural network 500 to generate modified signals used to determine a thickness of multiple locations”) to determine one or more settings for a process tool (Figure 1A; [0073] “The polishing apparatus 100 detects (608) a polishing endpoint and/or modify a polishing parameter based on each estimated measures of thickness”); and
causing the process tool, configured according to the one or more determined settings, to modify the thickness of the substrate ([0026] “The polishing rate can be adjusted so that the locations of the layer are substantially the same thickness after polishing”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of McMillen with the teachings of Xu, wherein modifying the thickness of the substrate comprises: processing, using a machine learning model (MLM), at least the thickness profile to determine one or more settings for a process tool; and causing the process tool, configured according to the one or more determined settings, to modify the thickness of the substrate, because “the apparatus 100 updates each measured signal by normalizing the value of the signals. Such normalization can increase the likelihood that at least some of the inputs 504 to the neural network system 500 fall within a particular range, which in turn can increase the quality of training of the neural network and/or the accuracy of the inference made by the neural network 500.” (Xu, para 71)
Regarding Claim 10, modified McMillen discloses the method of claim 9, but does not specifically teach that the MLM further processes at least one of:
a time associated with a duration of a technological process, or
specification data associated with the technological process.
However, Xu, in the same field of polishing wafers, teaches that the MLM further processes at least one of:
a time associated with a duration of a technological process (moot), or
specification data associated with the technological process ([0008] “One or more computer programs can be configured to perform particular operations or actions by virtue of including instructions that, when executed by data processing apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform the actions”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of McMillen with the teachings of Xu, wherein the MLM further processes: specification data associated with the technological process, for improving the efficiency of the process.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara (US 2019/0293407 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 2018/0304435 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 11, Tahara discloses a method comprising:
scanning a substrate (Figure 5: element WA is a thin plate-shaped object to be measured such as a semiconductor wafer; [0053]) with one or more beams of light (Figure 5; [0046] “1-1st A surface modulated measuring light to be emitted from the A surface interference unit 2A”, wherein “1-1st A surface modulated measuring light” is a first beam of light);
detecting one or more spatial interference patterns of light (Figure 4; [0050] “The A surface detector 31A … is a device that detects light intensity signals of the A surface measuring interference light and the A surface reference interference light in the A surface interference unit 2A”) caused by interaction, with the substrate, of the one or more beams of light ([0044] “The 1-1st A surface modulated measuring light that has reflected from the portion MP of the first measurement position on the A surface of the object to be measured WA”); and
determining, using the one or more spatial interference patterns (Figure 4; [0050] “The A surface detector 31A … is a device that detects light intensity signals of the A surface measuring interference light and the A surface reference interference light in the A surface interference unit 2A”), a thickness profile of at least a portion of the substrate (Figure 1; [0060] “The thickness arithmetic unit 41 obtains a variation in the thickness of the object to be measured WA based on the first phase obtained by the A surface phase detector 3Aa detecting the phases of the A surface measuring interference light and the A surface reference interference light generated by the A surface interference unit 2A and the second phase obtained by the B surface phase detector 3Ba detecting the phases of the B surface measuring interference light and the B surface reference interference light generated by the B surface interference unit 2B”), but does not specifically teach:
processing, using a machine learning model (MLM), at least the thickness profile to generate one or more settings for a process tool; and
causing the process tool, configured according to the one or more determined settings, to modify a thickness of the substrate.
However, Xu, in the same field of polishing wafers, teaches:
processing, using a machine learning model (MLM), at least the thickness profile (Figure 1A; [0067] “the polishing apparatus 100 can use the neural network 500 to generate modified signals used to determine a thickness of multiple locations”) to generate one or more settings for a process tool (Figure 1A; [0073] “The polishing apparatus 100 detects (608) a polishing endpoint and/or modify a polishing parameter based on each estimated measures of thickness”); and
causing the process tool, configured according to the one or more determined settings, to modify a thickness of the substrate ([0026] “The polishing rate can be adjusted so that the locations of the layer are substantially the same thickness after polishing”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Tahara with the teachings of Xu, for processing, using a machine learning model (MLM), at least the thickness profile to generate one or more settings for a process tool; and causing the process tool, configured according to the one or more determined settings, to modify a thickness of the substrate, because “the apparatus 100 updates each measured signal by normalizing the value of the signals. Such normalization can increase the likelihood that at least some of the inputs 504 to the neural network system 500 fall within a particular range, which in turn can increase the quality of training of the neural network and/or the accuracy of the inference made by the neural network 500.” (Xu, para 71)
Regarding Claim 12, modified Tahara discloses the method of claim 11, but does not specifically teach that the MLM further processes at least one of:
a time associated with a duration of a technological process, or
specification data associated with the technological process.
However, Xu, in the same field of polishing wafers, teaches that the MLM further processes at least one of:
a time associated with a duration of a technological process (moot), or
specification data associated with the technological process ([0008] “One or more computer programs can be configured to perform particular operations or actions by virtue of including instructions that, when executed by data processing apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform the actions”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Tahara with the teachings of Xu, wherein the MLM further processes: specification data associated with the technological process, for improving the efficiency of the process.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara (US 2019/0293407 A1) in view of Kimba et al. (US 2019/0022820 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Tahara discloses the system of claim 13, but does not specifically teach a directed gas source to dry at least a portion of the substrate with a flow of gas.
However, Kimba, in the same field of polishing wafers, teaches a directed gas source to dry at least a portion of the substrate (Figure 1: element W is a wafer; [0023]) with a flow of gas (Figure 1; [0031] “a gas (e.g. clean air or nitrogen gas) flows through the gas supply line 63 into the flow passage 7, and comes into contact with the distal end 34 a of the illuminating fiber 34 and the distal end 50 a of the light-receiving fiber 50, located in the flow passage 7”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Tahara with the teachings of Kimba, for a directed gas source to dry at least a portion of the substrate with a flow of gas, because “Since the gas does not dilute the slurry, the polishing apparatus can measure a thickness of a film with high accuracy without decreasing a polishing rate of the wafer.” (Kimba, para 14)
Regarding Claim 18, modified Tahara discloses the system of claim 13, but does not specifically teach:
a process tool to modify, using the thickness profile, a thickness of the substrate at one or more locations of the substrate.
However, Kimba, in the same field of polishing wafers, teaches a process tool to modify, using the thickness profile, a thickness of the substrate at one or more locations of the substrate ([0052] “The polishing controller 12 controls polishing operations (e.g., a polishing terminating operation) based on the film thickness t1 sent from the processor 27. For example, if the film thickness t1 reaches a preset target value, the polishing controller 12 terminates polishing of the wafer W”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Tahara with the teachings of Kimba, for a process tool to modify, using the thickness profile, a thickness of the substrate at one or more locations of the substrate, because “the polishing apparatus can measure a thickness of a film with high accuracy without decreasing a polishing rate of the wafer.” (Kimba, para 14)
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara (US 2019/0293407 A1) and Kimba et al. (US 2019/0022820 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2018/0304435 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Tahara discloses the system of claim 18, but does not specifically teach that the processing device is to:
process, using a machine learning model (MLM), at least the thickness profile to determine one or more settings for the process tool; and
cause the process tool, configured according to the one or more determined settings, to modify the thickness of the substrate.
However, Xu, in the same field of polishing wafers, teaches that the processing device (Figure 1A; [0040] “controller 190 can include a processor”) is to:
process, using a machine learning model (MLM), at least the thickness profile (Figure 1A; [0067] “the polishing apparatus 100 can use the neural network 500 to generate modified signals used to determine a thickness of multiple locations”) to determine one or more settings for the process tool (Figure 1A; [0073] “The polishing apparatus 100 detects (608) a polishing endpoint and/or modify a polishing parameter based on each estimated measures of thickness”); and
cause the process tool, configured according to the one or more determined settings, to modify the thickness of the substrate ([0026] “The polishing rate can be adjusted so that the locations of the layer are substantially the same thickness after polishing”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Tahara with the teachings of Xu, wherein the processing device is to: process, using a machine learning model (MLM), at least the thickness profile to determine one or more settings for the process tool; and cause the process tool, configured according to the one or more determined settings, to modify the thickness of the substrate, because “the apparatus 100 updates each measured signal by normalizing the value of the signals. Such normalization can increase the likelihood that at least some of the inputs 504 to the neural network system 500 fall within a particular range, which in turn can increase the quality of training of the neural network and/or the accuracy of the inference made by the neural network 500.” (Xu, para 71)
Regarding Claim 20, modified Tahara discloses the system of claim 19, but does not specifically teach that the MLM further processes at least one of:
a time associated with a duration of a technological process, or
specification data associated with the technological process.
However, Xu, in the same field of polishing wafers, teaches that the MLM further processes at least one of:
a time associated with a duration of a technological process (moot), or
specification data associated with the technological process ([0008] “One or more computer programs can be configured to perform particular operations or actions by virtue of including instructions that, when executed by data processing apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform the actions”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Tahara with the teachings of Xu, wherein the MLM further processes: specification data associated with the technological process, for improving the efficiency of the process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest identifying that a first relative spatial order between (i) a first spatial interference pattern detected using a first beam of light of the plurality of beams of light at a first region and (ii) a second spatial interference pattern detected using a second beam of light of the plurality of beams at the first region is different from a second relative spatial order between (iii) a third spatial interference pattern detected using the first beam of light at a second region and (iv) a fourth spatial interference pattern detected using the second beam of light at the second region.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest that to determine the thickness profile, the processing device is to:
obtain an indication that a first relative spatial order between (i) a first spatial interference pattern detected using a first beam of light of the plurality of beams of light at a first region and (ii) a second spatial interference pattern detected using a second beam of light of the plurality of beams at the first region is different from a second relative spatial order between (iii) a third spatial interference pattern detected using the first beam of light at a second region and (iv) a fourth spatial interference pattern detected using the second beam of light at the second region.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-2020/0340801-A1 discloses a thickness measuring apparatus for measuring the thickness of a workpiece held on a chuck table including the following: a light source configured to emit white light; an optical branching unit configured to branch, to a second optical path, reflected light applied from the light source to the workpiece held on the chuck table via a first optical path and reflected from the workpiece; a diffraction grating disposed in the second optical path; an image sensor configured to detect an optical intensity signal of light separated into each wavelength by the diffraction grating; and a thickness output unit configured to generate a spectral interference waveform on the basis of the optical intensity signal detected by the image sensor, determine the thickness on the basis of the spectral interference waveform, and output the thickness.
US-2012/0218561-A1 discloses a film thickness measurement apparatus for measuring a temporal change in film thickness of a film-shaped measuring object having a first surface and a second surface, comprising: a measurement light source supplying measurement light containing wavelength components over a predetermined band to the measuring object; detection means detecting intensities of output light, formed by superimposing reflected light of the measurement light from the first surface of the measuring object and reflected light of the measurement light from the second surface, at each time point by wavelength; and film thickness analysis means obtaining a temporal change in film thickness of the measuring object, wherein the film thickness analysis means obtains a value corresponding to a peak wavelength where an intensity of interfering light generated by the reflected light from the first surface and the reflected light from the second surface interfering with each other is maximized or minimized or an interval of the adjacent peak wavelengths based on spectral waveforms of the output light respectively detected at two or more time points different from each other by the detection means, and obtains a temporal change in film thickness of the measuring object from a temporal change in the value corresponding to the peak wavelength or the interval of the adjacent peak wavelengths.
US-2002/0145739-A1 discloses a method for measuring an optical thickness of a test object, the method including: interfering a first optical wave front from the test object and a second optical wave front from a reference surface to produce an interference signal; for a selected location on the test object, obtaining an interference pattern of the test object at a first wavelength λ1; for the selected location, calculating a first estimate of the optical thickness from the interference pattern recorded at wavelength λ1; for the selected location obtaining an interference pattern of the test object at a second wavelength λ2; for the selected location, calculating a second estimate of the optical thickness from the interference pattern recorded at wavelength λ2; and for the selected location, calculating a third estimate of the optical thickness by combining the first and second estimates of optical thickness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akbar H Rizvi whose telephone number is (571) 272-5085. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/AKBAR H. RIZVI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights