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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: In Fig. 2B, the elongated aperture 25a, the diffraction grating element 25b, and the pixelated optical detector 25c. Paras. [0058-0061] refer to Fig. 2B, yet Fig. 2B appears to be mislabeled with reference numbers for different elements shown previously in Figs. 1A,2A.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “521” has been used to designate both the beam splitter and the collimator in Fig. 8. The corresponding sections of the specification, Paras. [0113-0114], also need to be corrected.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Para. [0057], the Examiner assumes that “elongated (line/elliptic) spot 7” should actually be -- elongated (line/elliptic) spot 6--.
In Para. [0057], the Examiner assumes that “may be used located such as” should actually be --may be located such as--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 11,13: Applicant is reminded of Section 608.01(m) of the MPEP: “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).” Currently, each step of the method of claim 1, and each element of the system of claim 11, is enumerated by a letter followed by a period, e.g. “a.”. To comply with the MPEP, the Examiner suggests changing each instance to a letter followed by a parenthesis, e.g. --a)--.
Claim 1: On Line 2, the Examiner assumes that “holding a workpiece” should actually be --holding [[a]]the workpiece--.
Claim 11: On Lines 3-4, the Examiner assumes that “hold a workpiece” should actually be --hold [[a]]the workpiece--.
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 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 limitations are: “workpiece handling subsystem” in claim 11, “optical subsystem” in claims 11 and 19, and “selection mechanism” in claim 13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0225151, disclosed in IDS 11 July 2025), hereinafter Wang, in view of Wang et al. (US 2019/0041266), hereinafter Wang2.
Claims 1,11: Wang discloses a metrology system (100, Fig. 1), and corresponding method, for measuring characteristics of a workpiece (101), the system (100) comprising:
a. an illumination subsystem comprising at least one light source (126) [0040];
b. a workpiece handling subsystem (107) configured to hold the workpiece (101) to be tested at a specific measuring-position [0054];
c. an optical subsystem (152, Fig. 8) configured to form a multi-spot-array over a test area (102) of the workpiece (101) from light from the at least one light source (126), the optical subsystem (152) comprising a multi-spot generator (micro-lens array 153) [0089];
d. at least one spectrometry device (139), the spectrometry device (139) comprising an aperture (inherent to spectrometer) [0083], wherein the optical subsystem (152) is further configured to form a spots-image of the multi-spot-array over the aperture (“each fiber is employed as an illuminator and a collector” [0089]); and
e. a processing and control unit (PCU) (130) configured to:
i. receive data from the spectrometry device (139) corresponding to spectral characteristics of a plurality of spots of the spots-image (at 102) [0056]; and
ii. determine one or more properties of the test area (102) of the workpiece (101) (“In some embodiments, computing system 130 is configured to determine properties of the specimen without reference to a physically based reference model” [0060]) based on the spectral characteristics [0115]; wherein a distribution of energy density of the multi-spot-array over the test area (102) is configured to prevent affecting the workpiece (101) (this is a results-effective variable that is inherently met since Wang discloses the claimed structure).
Wang does not explicitly disclose that the spectrometry device is configured for Raman spectroscopy.
Wang2, however, in the same field of endeavor of spectroscopic metrology, discloses a metrology system (Fig. 1C) for measuring characteristics of a workpiece (124) [0047], the system comprising at least one spectrometry device configured for Raman spectroscopy (claim 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang’s spectrometry device to be configured for Raman spectroscopy for the purpose of determining the elemental makeup of the workpiece. It is evident then, in Wang’s modified metrology system, that the PCU processes data corresponding to Raman spectral characteristic.
Claims 2,12: Wang further discloses wherein the workpiece (101) is a semiconductor wafer (“A hyperspectral imaging system images a wafer over a large field of view”, Abstract), and the system (100) is configured for integration into a high volume manufacturing line for process control based on the determined one or more properties comprising identifying an impairment or a quality characteristic (“Metrology processes are used at various steps during a semiconductor manufacturing process to detect defects on wafers to promote higher yield” [0003]).
Claims 3,15: Wang further discloses wherein the multi-spot generator (153) comprises at least one lenslet array (“array of micro-lenses 153” [0089]).
Claims 4,16: Wang further discloses wherein the multi-spot generator (153) comprises a diffractive optical element [0067] (The fiber optics/micro-lens array act as the objective 115 since they are “configured to focus illumination light provided to specimen 101” [0089]).
Claims 7,17: Wang further discloses wherein the optical subsystem (152) further comprises one or more polarization controlling optical elements for performing polarized Raman spectroscopy [0086].
Claims 8,18: Wang further discloses wherein the multi-spot generator is configured to form the multi-spot-array with spots arranged in at least two parallel rows (the array implies at least a 2x2 configuration: “each micro-lens of the array of micro-lenses 153 is configured to focus illumination light provided to specimen 101” [0089]).
Wang does not explicitly disclose the rows of spots being arranged in an alternating pattern.
However, the alternating pattern for the rows of spots appears to be a design choice for system optimization (Spec. [0159]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang’s multi-spot generator to form the multi-spot-array with spots arranged in at least two parallel rows in an alternating pattern for the purpose of optimizing the efficiency of the metrology system.
Claim 9: Wang discloses wherein the multi-spot-array comprises a plurality of spots (evident from Fig. 8), but does not explicitly disclose the multi-spot-array comprising at least ten spots.
However, Applicant cites a ten-spot-array only as an example and provides no criticality (Spec. [0169]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang’s multi-spot-array to comprise the desired number of spots, such as at least ten, for the purpose of interrogating the workpiece simultaneous at the desired number of locations. It is evident that having at least ten spots will result in parallel acquisition of Raman spectra being enabled from at least ten different locations on the workpiece.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Tsenkova (US 2022/0364920), hereinafter Tsenkova.
Claims 5,13: Wang discloses wherein the illumination subsystem comprises a plurality of single-frequency lasers, each configured to output light of a different wavelength (“illumination source 126 combines multiple narrowband light sources such as multiple single wavelength lasers” [0040]), but does not explicitly disclose comprising at least three single-frequency lasers.
However, Applicant has not provided any criticality for having at least three single-frequency lasers and discloses it only as exemplary (Spec. [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang’s illumination subsystem with the desired number of single-frequency lasers, such as at least three, for the purpose of providing the desired illumination properties.
Wang is silent with respect to a selection mechanism configured to select and operate one of the at least three lasers.
Tsenkova, however, in the same field of endeavor of spectroscopic analysis, discloses a system (1, Figs. 1-2) for measuring characteristics of a sample, the system (1) comprising:
an illumination subsystem (2) comprising:
a plurality of single-frequency light sources (11) , each configured to output light of a different wavelength (“the irradiation unit 2 includes a plurality of light sources 11 such as LEDs that irradiate light having a single wavelength and being different from each other” [0048]), and
a selection mechanism (13) configured to select and operate one of the plurality of light sources (11) (“a light source selection means 13 that selects one or more of the plurality of light sources 11 to irradiate light from the plurality of light sources 11 at the time of measurement” [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang’s illumination subsystem with a selection mechanism to select and operate one of the single-frequency lasers for the purpose of characterizing different components of the workpiece.
Claims 6,14: Wang further discloses wherein each of the at least three lasers (126) is configured to output light in one of an ultraviolet (UV), visible (VIS), or infrared (IR) band [0040], with a wavelength bandwidth of less than 2 picometers (this is inherent in Wang’s disclosure of “single wavelength lasers” [0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10: None of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the method of claim 1, wherein forming the multi-spot-array comprises creating different measurement conditions for different spots, wherein the different measurement conditions are selected from the group consisting of: a different angle-of-incidence (AOI) for each spot, and a different numerical aperture (NA) for each spot.
Claim 19: None of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the optical subsystem is configured to create different measurement conditions for different spots by providing at least one of a different angle-of-incidence (AOI) for each spot or a different numerical aperture (NA) for each spot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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 Chowdhury can be reached on 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 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.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
