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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/16/2026 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claim 10 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection of claim 10 is withdrawn.
Claim 13 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection of claim 13 is withdrawn.
Claim 14 has been amended to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection, therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection of claim 14 is withdrawn.
Claim 20 has been amended to overcome the previous claim objection for having a double comma, therefore, the previous claim objection of claim 20 is withdrawn. However, the Applicant has not amended claim 20 to overcome the other claim objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 12/16/2025. Please see claim objection section below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-18, filed 04/16/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Madsen et al (“Alignment-free characterization of 2D gratings”, 2016, Applied Optics, Vol. 55, No. 2.) and Boher et al (“Polarimetric multispectral bidirectional reflectance distribution function measurements using a Fourier transform instrument”, 2017, IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2017). Please see detailed rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claims 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 5-6 of claim 20 recites “…the distribution in the further focal plane comprising a plurality of diffraction orders the image being obtainable by focusing illumination light on the focal plane…” when it should instead recite “…the distribution in the further focal plane comprising a plurality of diffraction orders, the image being obtainable by focusing illumination light on the focal plane…”.
Regarding Claim 21, some of the steps as claimed in claim 21 are not indented from one another. MPEP 608.01(m) recites “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). There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps.”
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:
Light focusing system in claim 19. Here the word “system” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language “configured to focus illumination light”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Imaging system in claim 19. Here the word “system” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language “configured capture an image”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Data processing system in claim 19. Here the word “system” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by the functional language “configured to process data”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
Examples of structure for a light focusing system are found in the specification on page 17 (lines 8-12) where a light focusing system comprises lenses.
Examples of structure for an imaging system are found in the specification on pages 18 (lines 28-30) and 21 (line 36) where an imaging system can be a CCD camera.
Examples of structure for a data processing system are found in the specification on pages 13 (lines 34-35) and 25 (lines 29-36) where a data processing system may include a processor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the focal plane” in lines 10 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a back focal plane”, therefore, it is unclear which focal plane is being referred to in claim 1 and whether the focal plane being referred to is the back focal plane or another focal plane altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, the focal plane in claim 1 is the back focal plane.
Claims 2-18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Lines 5-6 of claim 3 recites the limitation "said focal plane" in “…intensities of light in said focal plane or said further focal plane, the reference distribution of intensities of light in the focal plane or the further focal plane representing a diffraction pattern…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a back focal plane”, therefore, it is unclear which focal plane is being referred to in claim 3 and whether the focal plane being referred to is the back focal plane or another focal plane altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, the focal plane in claim 3 is the back focal plane as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 3.
Lines 4-10 of claim 8 recites the limitation "the focal plane" in “…a first point in the focal plane, the first point having a first position relative to the lens system…a second point in the focal plane, the second point having a second position relative to the lens system…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites “the back focal plane”, therefore, it is unclear which focal plane is being referred to in claim 8 and whether the focal plane being referred to is the back focal plane or another focal plane altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, the focal plane in claim 8 is the back focal plane as claimed in claim 5.
Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 8.
Lines 2-3 of claim 9 recites the limitation "the focal plane" in “…the first point in the focal plane and then at the second point in the focal plane…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites “the back focal plane”, therefore, it is unclear which focal plane is being referred to in claim 9 and whether the focal plane being referred to is the back focal plane or another focal plane altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, the focal plane in claim 9 is the back focal plane as claimed in claim 5.
Claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 9.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the focal plane" in lines 2, 7-8, and 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites “the back focal plane”, therefore, it is unclear which focal plane is being referred to in claim 13 and whether the focal plane being referred to is the back focal plane or another focal plane altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, the focal plane in claim 13 is the back focal plane as claimed in claim 5.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the first collimated illumination light beam” in line 5 and “the second collimated illumination light beam” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear whether these collimated illumination light beams are referring to the first collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam or the second collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam, respectively, as claimed in claim 5. As best understood and therefore interpreted, the first collimated illumination light beam is the first collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam claimed in claim 5 and the second collimated illumination light beam is the second collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam claimed in claim 5.
Claim 14 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 13.
Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 14.
Lines 2-3 of claim 15 recites the limitation "the focal plane" in “…a plurality of pixels representing an intensity in the focal plane or the further focal plane…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a back focal plane”, therefore, it is unclear which focal plane is being referred to in claim 15 and whether the focal plane being referred to is the back focal plane or another focal plane altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, the focal plane in claim 15 is the back focal plane as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 15.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the focal plane" in lines 3 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a back focal plane”, therefore, it is unclear which focal plane is being referred to in claim 16 and whether the focal plane being referred to is the back focal plane or another focal plane altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, the focal plane in claim 16 is the back focal plane as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the focal plane" in lines 3, 8, 13, and 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 recites “the back focal plane”, therefore, it is unclear which focal plane is being referred to in claim 17 and whether the focal plane being referred to is the back focal plane or another focal plane altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, the focal plane in claim 17 is the back focal plane as claimed in claim 5.
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, 5-6, 8, 13, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al (“Alignment-free characterization of 2D gratings”, 2016, Applied Optics, Vol. 55, No. 2) in view of Boher et al (“Polarimetric multispectral bidirectional reflectance distribution function measurements using a Fourier transform instrument”, 2017, IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2017).
Regarding Claims 1 and 19, Madsen et al teaches a system and method for determining one or more dimensions of one or more structures on a sample surface (Page 319, Col. 1, 1st paragraph: Average pitch of diffraction grating is calculated.), the system and method comprising
a lens system (Shown in Fig. 2a), and
a light focusing system (Fig. 2a: Fourier optics) that is configured to focus illumination light on a back focal plane (Fig. 2(a): Full Fourier plane) of a lens system (Fig. 2(a): Fourier optics) so that the lens system forms a collimated illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface (Shown in Fig. 2(a) where Fourier optics collimates light that is incident onto sample surface) and that is reflected (Shown in Fig. 2(a) where reflected light from sample is directed to CCD) from or transmitted through the sample surface, and
using the lens system (Fig. 2(a): Fourier optics) to collect illumination light reflected from the sample surface (Shown in Fig. 2(a) where reflected light from sample is directed to CCD; Page 318, Col. 2, fourth paragraph: “The used Fourier lens system collects quasi all light coming from one spot on the sample surface and projects it to a first Fourier plane.”), or using a further lens system to collect illumination light transmitted through the sample surface;
an imaging system (Fig. 2a: CCD) that is configured to capture an image of the back focal plane of the lens system (Page 318, Col. 2: fourth paragraph: “This first Fourier plane (back focal plane/Full Fourier plane) is reimaged on an imaging sensor via a field lens and an imaging lens.”) to provide a captured image, the captured image representing a distribution in the focal plane of intensities of the reflected illumination light (Shown in Fig. 2(b) which shows a multiwavelength image used to extract positions of the diffraction spots where the images taken by the CCD (shown in Fig. 2a) necessarily represents a distribution in the BFP (Full Fourier plane in Fig. 2a) of the reflected illumination light; Page 318, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: “In this paper, the positions of diffraction spots for 2D gratings are calculated for a screen in the back focal plane. We follow the approach described in [14] where the specific case of imaging the diffraction spots on a semitransparent screen is derived.”) or transmitted illumination light, the distribution in the focal plane or the distribution in the further focal plane comprising a plurality of diffraction orders (Page 318, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: “In this paper, the positions of diffraction spots for 2D gratings are calculated for a screen in the back focal plane. We follow the approach described in [14] where the specific case of imaging the diffraction spots on a semitransparent screen is derived.” The diffracted field in the back focal plane (BFP)/Full Fourier plane (as shown in Fig. 2a of Madsen et al) is imaged onto a CCD camera where the images would have pixels. The intensity data from the images would represent intensity of the reflected illumination light associated with the different diffraction orders.); or capturing an image of a further focal plane of the further lens system to provide a captured image of the further focal plane representing a distribution in the further focal plane of intensities of the transmitted illumination light, and the distribution of intensities in the focal plane or the distribution of intensities in the further focal plane comprising a plurality of diffraction orders; and
a data processing system (There would necessarily be a data processing system to do all the calculations and data processing as disclosed in Madsen et al.) that is configured to, based on the captured image (Page 318, Col. 2, fourth paragraph: Fourier plane is reimaged on an imaging sensor via a field lens and an imaging lens.), determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface (Page 319, Col. 1, 1st paragraph: Average pitch of diffraction grating is calculated.).
Madsen et al appears to be silent to focusing a transverse electric (TE) and/or transverse magnetic (TM) polarized illumination light on a back focal plane of a lens system so that the lens system forms a collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface and that is reflected from or transmitted through the sample surface.
Boher et al, related to a Fourier optics system for measuring sample surfaces, does teach focusing a transverse electric (TE) and/or transverse magnetic (TM) polarized (Fig. 1: polarizer after illumination Fourier plane and before beam splitter provides TE and/or TM polarized light. Different polarizers can be added inside the illumination path near the beam splitter to fix the polarization state of the illumination where two examples are 0˚ and 90˚ polarizations (which provide TE or TM polarized light) (Page 20, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph).) illumination light on a back focal plane (Fig. 1: Full Fourier plane is a back focal plane of Fourier optics) of a lens system (Fig. 1: Fourier optics) so that the lens system forms a collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface (Shown in Fig. 1 where incident light is collimated and polarized) and that is reflected from (Shown in Fig. 1 where reflected light from sample is detected by CCD) or transmitted through the sample surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Madsen et al to incorporate focusing a transverse electric (TE) and/or transverse magnetic (TM) polarized illumination light on a back focal plane of a lens system so that the lens system forms a collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface and that is reflected from or transmitted through the sample surface, as disclosed by Boher et al. The advantage of using and measuring polarized light is that measuring polarization dependence can allow for a better understanding of the scattering processes involved in different samples (Page 19, Col. 1, paragraph 2 of Boher et al).
Regarding Claim 5, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according to claim 1.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al further teaches that the step of focusing TE and/or TM polarized illumination light (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer provides TE and/or TM polarized light) on the back focal plane (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Full Fourier plane is back focal plane of Fourier optics) of the lens system (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Fourier optics) comprises
focusing TE and/or TM polarized illumination light (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer provides TE and/or TM polarized light) on the back focal plane (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Full Fourier plane is back focal plane of Fourier optics) of the lens system (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Fourier optics) so that the lens system forms a first collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam that is incident at a first angle on an area of the sample surface (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a shows red, green, and light beam where each beam is incident onto the sample first at a first, second, and third angle, respectively.) and that is reflected from (Madsen et al, Shown in Fig. 2a where reflected light from the sample is received by the CCD.) or transmitted through the area of the sample surface;
and focusing TE and/or TM polarized illumination light (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer provides TE and/or TM polarized light) on the back focal plane (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Full Fourier plane is back focal plane of Fourier optics) of the lens system (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Fourier optics) so that the lens system forms a second collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam that is incident at a second angle on an area of the sample surface (Madsen et al, Shown in Fig. 2(a) where the red, green, and blue beam are focused and incident onto the surface of the sample at a first, second, and third angle, respectively.), the first angle being different from the second angle (Madsen et al, Shown in Fig. 2(a) where the focused red, green, and blue beam have different incident angles from each other), and that is reflected from (Madsen et al, Shown in Fig. 2a where reflected light from the sample is received by the CCD.) or transmitted through the area of the sample surface;
Regarding Claim 6, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according to claim 5.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al further teaches that the first collimated (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a shows a collimated incident beam) TE and/or TM polarized (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer provides TE and/or TM polarized light) illumination light beam and the second TE and/or TM polarized (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer provides TE and/or TM polarized light) collimated illumination light beam are incident on the area of the sample surface simultaneously (Madsen et al, Page 321, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: Experimental setup has multiple simultaneous illumination angles.; Page 320, Col. 1, last paragraph to Col. 2, 1st paragraph: “For the 700 nm hexagonal grating, a total of 14 points were simultaneously illuminated, as shown in Fig. 5(b).”).
Regarding Claim 8, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according to claim 5.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al further teaches that the step of focusing the TE and/or TM polarized (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer after illumination Fourier plane) illumination light on the focal plane (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Full Fourier plane/back focal plane) of the lens system (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Fourier optics) comprises
focusing the TE and/or TM polarized (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer after illumination Fourier plane) illumination light at a first point in the focal plane (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Red light beam focused at Full Fourier plane/back focal plane), the first point having a first position relative to the lens system, so that the lens system forms the first collimated (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Red light beam is collimated and incident onto the sample) TE and/or TM polarized (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer after illumination Fourier plane) illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface while having a first orientation relative to the sample surface (Madsen et al, shown in Fig. 2a with red light beam); and
focusing the TE and/or TM polarized (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer after illumination Fourier plane) illumination light at a second point in the focal plane (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Green light beam is focused on the Full Fourier plane/back focal plane at a second point), the second point having a second position relative to the lens system different from the first position (Madsen et al, Shown in Fig. 2a where the green light and red light are focused at different positions), so that the lens system forms the second collimated (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Green beam that is collimated and incident onto the sample) TE and/or TM polarized (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer after illumination Fourier plane) illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface while having a second orientation relative to the sample surface that is different from the first orientation (Madsen et al, Shown in Fig. 2a where the red beam and green beam are incident at different orientations relative to the sample surface.).
Regarding Claim 13, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according to claim 5.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al further teaches capturing an image of the focal plane or of the further focal plane of the further lens system comprises
using the lens system or the further lens system (Madsen et al, Page 318, Col. 2, 3rd paragraph: The first Fourier plane (Full Fourier plane in Fig. 2a) is reimaged onto an imaging sensor (CCD from Fig. 2a) via a field lens and an imaging lens.), to collect first reflected (Madsen et al, shown in Fig. 2(a) where Full Fourier plane/back focal plane collects reflected light to be imaged onto CCD.) or transmitted illumination light, the first reflected or transmitted light being light from the first collimated illumination light beam reflected from (Madsen et al, shown in Fig. 2a where the red beam is the first reflected collimated light beam) or transmitted through the sample surface (Madsen et al, Fig. 2(a): sample), and
capturing a first said image of the focal plane (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Full Fourier plane/back focal plane) or of the further focal plane, the first image representing a distribution in the focal plane or further focal plane of intensity of the first reflected or transmitted illumination light (Madsen et al, Page 318, Col. 2, 3rd paragraph: The first Fourier plane (which is the Full Fourier plane/back focal plane shown in Fig. 2a) is reimaged on an imaging sensor (CCD shown in Fig. 2a where a CCD camera necessarily captures the spatial distribution of light intensity).), and
using the lens system (Madsen et al, Fig. 2(a): Fourier optics) or the further lens system, collecting second reflected or transmitted illumination light that is light from the second collimated illumination light beam reflected from (Madsen et al, Shown in Fig. 2(a) where the green light beam is second collimated illumination light beam that is reflected from the sample surface and collected by the Fourier optics) or transmitted through the sample surface.
capturing a second said image of the focal plane or of the further focal plane, the second image representing a distribution in the focal plane or further focal plane of intensity of the second reflected or transmitted illumination light (Madsen et al, Page 318, Col. 2, 3rd paragraph: The first Fourier plane (which is the Full Fourier plane/back focal plane shown in Fig. 2a) is reimaged on an imaging sensor (CCD shown in Fig. 2a where a CCD camera necessarily captures the spatial distribution of light intensity).), and
based on the first image and second image, determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface (Madsen et al, Page 319, Col. 1, 1st paragraph: Average pitch of diffraction grating is calculated.).
Regarding Claim 15, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according to claim 1.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al further teaches determining a region in the captured image comprising a plurality of pixels representing an intensity in the focal plane or the further focal plane of the reflected or transmitted illumination light associated with a diffraction order (Madsen et al, Page 318, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: “In this paper, the positions of diffraction spots for 2D gratings are calculated for a screen in the back focal plane. We follow the approach described in [14] where the specific case of imaging the diffraction spots on a semitransparent screen is derived.” The diffracted field in the back focal plane (BFP)/Full Fourier plane (as shown in Fig. 2a of Madsen et al) is imaged onto a CCD camera where the images would have pixels. The intensity data from the images would represent intensity of the reflected illumination light associated with the different diffraction orders.), and
determining the intensity associated with the diffraction order based on the plurality of pixels in the region (Madsen et al, Page 318, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: The images taken of the diffraction pattern by a CCD would necessarily show the lightness or darkness of the diffraction fringes which would represent intensity where the diffraction fringes represent the diffraction orders.), and
determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface based on the determined intensity associated with the diffraction order (Madsen et al, Page 319, Col. 1, 1st paragraph: Average pitch of diffraction grating is calculated).
Regarding Claim 16, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according to claim 15.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al further teaches determining a first region in the captured image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a first intensity in the focal plane or the further focal plane of the reflected or transmitted illumination light associated with a first diffraction order (Madsen et al, page 318, Col. 1, 1st paragraph to Col. 2, 4th paragraph: Positions of diffraction spots for 2D gratings are calculated for a screen in the back focal plane (AKA Full Fourier plane in Fig. 2a) where the diffraction spots would necessarily be associated with a first diffraction order and the CCD from Fig. 2a would necessarily capture an image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a first intensity in the BFP/Full Fourier plane.).
and determining the first intensity associated with the first diffraction order based on the plurality of pixels in the first region (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: CCD measures intensity of diffraction spots associated with a first diffraction order),
and determining a second region in the captured image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a second intensity in the focal plane or the further focal plane of the reflected or transmitted illumination light associated with a further diffraction order (Madsen et al, page 318, Col. 1, 1st paragraph to Col. 2, 4th paragraph: Positions of diffraction spots for 2D gratings are calculated for a screen in the back focal plane (AKA Full Fourier plane in Fig. 2a) where the diffraction spots would necessarily be associated with diffraction orders and the CCD from Fig. 2a would necessarily capture an image comprising a plurality of pixels representing intensities in the BFP/Full Fourier plane.),
and determining the second intensity associated with the further diffraction order based on the plurality of pixels in the second region (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: CCD measures intensity of diffraction spots associated with a first diffraction order.),
determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface based on the determined first intensity associated with the first diffraction order and the determined second intensity associated with the further diffraction order (Madsen et al, Page 319, Col. 1, 1st paragraph: Average pitch of diffraction grating is calculated.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al (“Alignment-free characterization of 2D gratings”, 2016, Applied Optics, Vol. 55, No. 2) in view of Boher et al (“Polarimetric multispectral bidirectional reflectance distribution function measurements using a Fourier transform instrument”, 2017, IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2017) and further in view of Seitz (US 2015/0198798 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according to claim 1.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al further teaches a collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam (Boher et al, Shown in Fig. 1 where incident light is collimated and polarized).
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al appears to be silent to a cross section of the collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam has a diameter of at least 5 micrometers.
Seitz, related to mask inspection, does teach a cross section of the collimated illumination light beam (Shown in Fig. 1 where the illumination optics 30 would produce a collimated illumination light beam) has a diameter of at least 5 micrometers ([0019]: “The diameter d of the illumination area of the mask inspection microscopes can be in a range from 5 µm to 100 µm…”.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Madsen et al combined with Boher et al so that a cross section of the collimated illumination light beam has a cross-sectional diameter of at least 5 micrometers, as disclosed by Seitz. The use of 5 micrometers for a spot size/diameter of a light beam is known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to combine prior art elements according to known methods (use of 5 micrometers for a spot size/diameter of a light beam) to yield predictable results (for illuminating a sample area for a mask inspection device) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claims 3 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al (“Alignment-free characterization of 2D gratings”, 2016, Applied Optics, Vol. 55, No. 2) in view of Boher et al (“Polarimetric multispectral bidirectional reflectance distribution function measurements using a Fourier transform instrument”, 2017, IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2017) and further in view of Bovero (US 2017/0276614 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according to claim 1.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al appears to be silent to storing one or more reference images, each of the one or more reference images being associated with a reference sample surface comprising one or more structures having known dimensions, and each said reference image representing a reference distribution of intensities of light in said focal plane or said further focal plane, the reference distribution of intensities of light in the focal plane or the further focal plane representing a diffraction pattern comprising a plurality of diffraction orders,
wherein determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface comprises comparing the captured image with the one or more reference images.
Bovero, related to a method and device for detecting deformation on a sample surface, does teach storing one or more reference images (reference image from [0108] would necessarily be stored somewhere for reference), each of the one or more reference images being associated with a reference sample surface comprising one or more structures having known dimensions ([0107-0108]: reference image would have known dimensions), and each said reference image representing a reference distribution of intensities of light in said focal plane or said further focal plane, the reference distribution of intensities of light in the focal plane or the further focal plane representing a diffraction pattern comprising a plurality of diffraction orders ([0108]: “…the quantification can be confirmed by comparing the diffraction pattern or the wavelength image (color image or photo-graph) with a reference image taken when the structure is applied or at a significant point in time.” The reference image has to have diffraction pattern information to be used as a reference image where the diffraction pattern would have a plurality of diffraction orders.),
wherein determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface comprises comparing the captured image with the one or more reference images ([0107-0108]: Quantification is confirmed for photonic structure using a reference image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Madsen et al combined with Boher et al to incorporate storing one or more reference images, each of the one or more reference images being associated with a reference sample surface comprising one or more structures having known dimensions, and each said reference image representing a reference distribution intensities of light in said focal plane or said further focal plane, the reference distribution if intensities of light in the focal plane or the further focal plane representing a diffraction pattern, wherein determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface comprises comparing the captured image with the one or more reference images, as disclosed by Bovero. The advantage of the above-mentioned method is that quantification of a structure can be confirmed by using a baseline (reference image) in situations where the initial variation is too large and distorted (Ex: surface that is not smooth from the start) ([0108] from Bovero).
Regarding Claims 20-21, Madsen et al teaches a computer-implemented method, a data processing system, and a computer comprising instructions for determining one or more dimensions of one or more structures on a sample surface (Page 319, Col. 1, 1st paragraph: Average pitch of diffraction grating is calculated), the method comprising
obtaining an image, the image representing a distribution in a focal plane (Page 318, Col. 2: fourth paragraph: “This first Fourier plane (Full Fourier plane is a focal plane) is reimaged on an imaging sensor via a field lens and an imaging lens.”) or a further focal plane of intensities of reflected or transmitted illumination light, the distribution in the focal plane or the distribution in the further focal plane comprising a plurality of diffraction orders (Shown in Fig. 2(b) which shows a multiwavelength image used to extract positions of the diffraction spots where the images taken by the CCD (shown in Fig. 2a) necessarily represents a distribution in the BFP (Full Fourier plane in Fig. 2a) of the reflected illumination light; Page 318, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: “In this paper, the positions of diffraction spots for 2D gratings are calculated for a screen in the back focal plane. We follow the approach described in [14] where the specific case of imaging the diffraction spots on a semitransparent screen is derived.”), the image being obtainable by focusing illumination light on said the focal plane (Fig. 2(a): Full Fourier plane) of a lens system (Fig. 2(a): Fourier optics) so that the lens system forms a collimated illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface (Shown in Fig. 2(a) where Fourier optics collimates light that is incident onto sample surface);
using said the lens system to collect illumination light reflected from (Shown in Fig. 2(a) where reflected light from sample is directed to CCD) or, using a further lens system to collect illumination light transmitted through the sample surface, and capturing the image of the focal plane or the further focal plane (Page 318, Col. 2: fourth paragraph: “This first Fourier plane (back focal plane/Full Fourier plane) is reimaged on an imaging sensor via a field lens and an imaging lens.”);
determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surfaces (Page 319, Col. 1, 1st paragraph: Average pitch of diffraction grating is calculated).
Madsen et al appears to be silent to focusing TE and/or TM polarized illumination light on the focal plane of a lens system so that the lens system forms a collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface.
Boher et al, related to Fourier optics system for measurement sample surfaces, does teach focusing TE and/or TM polarized (Fig. 1: polarizer provides TE and/or TM polarized light) illumination light on the focal plane (Fig. 1: Full Fourier plane is a back focal plane of Fourier optics) of a lens system (Fig. 1: Fourier optics) so that the lens system forms a collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface (Shown in Fig. 1 where incident light is collimated and polarized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Madsen et al to incorporate focusing TE and/or TM polarized illumination light on the focal plane of a lens system so that the lens system forms a collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface, as disclosed by Boher et al. The advantage of using and measuring polarized light is that measuring polarization dependence can allow for a better understanding of the scattering processes involved in different samples (Page 19, Col. 1, paragraph 2 of Boher et al).
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al appears to be silent to storing one or more reference images, each of the one or more reference images being associated with a reference sample surface comprising one or more structures having known dimensions, and each said reference image representing a reference distribution of intensities of light in said focal plane or said further focal plane, the reference distribution of intensities of light in the focal plane or the further focal plane representing a diffraction pattern, wherein
determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface comprises comparing the captured image with the one or more reference images.
Bovero, related to a method and device for detecting deformation on a sample surface, does teach storing one or more reference images (reference image from [0108] would necessarily be stored somewhere for reference), each of the one or more reference images being associated with a reference sample surface comprising one or more structures having known dimensions ([0107-0108]: reference image would have known dimensions), and each said reference image representing a reference distribution of intensities power of light in said focal plane or said further focal plane, the reference distribution of intensities of light in the focal plane or the further focal plane representing a diffraction pattern ([0108]: “…the quantification can be confirmed by comparing the diffraction pattern or the wavelength image (color image or photo-graph) with a reference image taken when the structure is applied or at a significant point in time.” The reference image has to have diffraction pattern information to be used as a reference image), wherein
determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface comprises comparing the captured image with the one or more reference images ([0107-0108]: Quantification is confirmed for photonic structure using a reference image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Madsen et al combined with Boher et al to incorporate storing one or more reference images, each of the one or more reference images being associated with a reference sample surface comprising one or more structures having known dimensions, and each said reference image representing a reference distribution of intensities of light in said focal plane or said further focal plane, the reference distribution of intensities of light in the focal plane or the further focal plane representing a diffraction pattern, wherein determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface comprises comparing the captured image with the one or more reference images, as disclosed by Bovero. The advantage of the above-mentioned method is that quantification of a structure can be confirmed by using a baseline (reference image) in situations where the initial variation is too large and distorted (Ex: surface that is not smooth from the start) ([0108] from Bovero).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al (“Alignment-free characterization of 2D gratings”, 2016, Applied Optics, Vol. 55, No. 2) in view of Boher et al (“Polarimetric multispectral bidirectional reflectance distribution function measurements using a Fourier transform instrument”, 2017, IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2017) and Bovero (US 2017/0276614 A1), and further in view of Cai (US 2005/0190957 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al and Bovero teaches the method according to claim 3.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al and Bovero further teaches that each of the one or more reference images (Bovero, reference image from [0108]) has been obtained by an image taken (Bovero, reference image from [0108] is taken of sample surface) of a TE and/or TM polarized collimated illumination light beam incident on the reference sample surface (Boher, Fig. 1 show a collimated light beam incident onto a sample surface) associated with the one or more reference images.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al and Bovero appears to be silent to the one or more reference images has been obtained by performing a simulation.
Cai, related to defect inspection, does teach to the one or more reference images has been obtained by performing a simulation ([0018]: A defect-free reference image can be a simulated image of the layout of the physical mask.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Madsen et al combined with Boher et al and Bovero so that the one or more reference images is obtained by performing a simulation, as disclosed by Cai. Simulating a reference image has the advantage of providing flexibility in optimizing system parameters before actual fabrication ([0023] from Cai).
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al (“Alignment-free characterization of 2D gratings”, 2016, Applied Optics, Vol. 55, No. 2) in view of Boher et al (“Polarimetric multispectral bidirectional reflectance distribution function measurements using a Fourier transform instrument”, 2017, IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2017) and further in view of Meng (US 2016/0202048 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according to claim 5.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al further teaches that the first collimated (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a shows a collimated incident beam) TE and/or TM polarized (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer provides TE and/or TM polarized light) illumination light beam and the second collimated TE and/or TM polarized (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer provides a second TE and/or TM collimated polarized light) illumination light beam are incident on the area of the sample surface (Madsen et al, Page 321, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: Experimental setup has multiple simultaneous illumination angles.; Page 320, Col. 1, last paragraph to Col. 2, 1st paragraph: “For the 700 nm hexagonal grating, a total of 14 points were simultaneously illuminated, as shown in Fig. 5(b).”).
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al appears to be silent to the first collimated illumination light beam and the second collimated illumination light beam are incident on the sample surface one after another.
Meng, related to determining three-dimensional structure of an object, does teach that the first collimated illumination light beam and the second collimated illumination light beam are incident on the sample surface one after another (Meng, [0051]: “In one approach, multiple plenoptic images are captured sequentially in time. Each plenoptic image may correspond to different illumination conditions, for example collimated sources incident from different angles.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Madsen et al combined with Boher et al so that the first collimated illumination light beam and the second collimated illumination light beam are incident on the sample surface one after another, as disclosed by Meng. The advantage of the above-mentioned process is that different illumination conditions can be imaged and more images yield more data points which can solve reconstruction problems ([0051] from Meng).
Regarding Claim 12, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according to claim 5.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al further teaches the first collimated (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a shows a collimated incident beam) TE and/or TM polarized (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer provides TE and/or TM polarized light) illumination light beam comprises a first spectral power distribution (Madsen et al, each beam would necessarily have a spectral power distribution) and the second collimated TE and/or TM polarized (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer provides collimated TE and/or TM polarized light) illumination light beam (Madsen et al, Page 321, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph: Experimental setup has multiple simultaneous illumination angles.; Page 320, Col. 1, last paragraph to Col. 2, 1st paragraph: “For the 700 nm hexagonal grating, a total of 14 points were simultaneously illuminated, as shown in Fig. 5(b).”) comprises a second power distribution (Madsen et al, each beam would necessarily have a spectral power distribution) different from the first spectral power distribution (Madsen et al, shown in Fig. 2a where the collimated red beam, green beam, and blue beam represent different spectral power distributions by being different colors.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al (“Alignment-free characterization of 2D gratings”, 2016, Applied Optics, Vol. 55, No. 2) in view of Boher et al (“Polarimetric multispectral bidirectional reflectance distribution function measurements using a Fourier transform instrument”, 2017, IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2017) and further in view of Brueck (US 2021/0239612 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according to claim 5.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al further teaches controlling polarization of the TE and/or TM polarized illumination light such that the first collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam has a first polarization (Boher et al, Fig. 1 where polarizer after illumination Fourier plane and before the beam splitter controls the polarization of the collimated incident light.)
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al appears to be silent to the second collimated illumination light beam has a second polarization that is different from the first polarization.
Brueck, related to a device and method for measuring structures on a sample, does teach that the second collimated illumination light beam has a second polarization that is different from the first polarization ([0033]: “There are several parameters of the measurement that can be varied to provide information on the sample. These include: 1) the polarization of the incident light.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Madsen et al combined with Boher et al so that the second collimated illumination light beam has a second polarization that is different from the first polarization, as disclosed by Brueck. The advantage of measuring an object with incident light beams that has different polarizations from each other is that it allows for different information to be provided about the sample ([0033] from Brueck). Therefore, incorporating the use of different polarizations into a measurement system allows for optimization for different samples ([0033] from Brueck).
Claims 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al (“Alignment-free characterization of 2D gratings”, 2016, Applied Optics, Vol. 55, No. 2) in view of Boher et al (“Polarimetric multispectral bidirectional reflectance distribution function measurements using a Fourier transform instrument”, 2017, IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2017) and further in view of Kurokawa (US 5,923,020).
Regarding Claim 9, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according to claim 8.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al further teaches that the TE and/or TM polarized illumination light (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer after illumination Fourier plane) is focused at the first point in said focal plane (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Where red light beam is focused on the full Fourier plane/back focal plane of the Fourier optics) and then at the second point in the focal plane (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: Where green light beam is focused on the full Fourier plane/back focal plane of the Fourier optics), wherein focusing the TE and/or TM polarized illumination light at the first point and then at the second point comprises an illumination light source relative to said lens system (Madsen et al, Shown in Fig. 2a).
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al appears to be silent to focusing the illumination at the first point and then at the second point comprises moving an illumination light source relative to the lens system.
Kurosawa, related to a lighting apparatus for observing surface patterns on substrates, does teach focusing the illumination light at the first point and then at the second point comprises moving an illumination light source relative to said lens system (Col. 6, ll. 17-29: Light-emitting portion 13 is on a moving stage 23 which can be moved by a light-emission drive. The light-emitting portion is moved relative to the lens system (convex lens 11) shown in Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Madsen et al combined with Boher et al to incorporate focusing the illumination at the first point and then at the second point comprises moving an illumination light source relative to the lens system, as disclosed by Kurosawa. The advantage of the above-mentioned configuration is that the light source can be moved freely in the vicinity of the focal point of a lens which provides adjustability of the light source relative to the focal point of a lens (Col. 6, ll. 17-29 from Kurosawa).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al (“Alignment-free characterization of 2D gratings”, 2016, Applied Optics, Vol. 55, No. 2) in view of Boher et al (“Polarimetric multispectral bidirectional reflectance distribution function measurements using a Fourier transform instrument”, 2017, IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2017) and Kurokawa (US 5,923,020), and further in view of Brasen (EP 1617373 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al and Kurokawa teaches the method according to claim 8.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al and Kurokawa further teaches the step of focusing the TE and/or TM polarized (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer after illumination Fourier plane) illumination light (Kurosawa, Figs. 1 and 3: light-emitting portion 13) at the first point and at the second point (Kurosawa, Shown in Figs. 1 and 3 where the light-emitting portion can be moved to be focused at the first point and second point in the focal plane.).
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al and Kurokawa appears to be silent to controlling a spatial light modulator to allow a first spatial portion of TE and/or TM polarized illumination light incident on the spatial light modulator to pass through and travel to the sample surface, and
controlling the spatial light modulator to allow a second spatial portion of the TE and/or TM polarized illumination light incident on the spatial light modulator to pass through and travel to the sample surface.
Brasen, related to optical surface inspection, does teach controlling a spatial light modulator (Fig. 4: spatial light modulator 408) to allow a first spatial portion of the TE and/or TM polarized (Shown in Fig. 5 where SLM 408 is configurable and the indicated modular segments can change its polarization state [0076]) illumination light incident on the spatial light modulator to pass through and travel to the sample surface (Shown in Fig. 4: sample surface 400), and
controlling the spatial light modulator to allow a second spatial portion of the TE and/or TM polarized illumination light incident on the spatial light modulator to pass through and travel to the sample surface (Shown in Fig. 4 and 5 where segments shown in Fig. 5 are each a spatial portion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Madsen et al combined with Boher et al and Kurokawa to incorporate controlling a spatial light modulator to allow a first spatial portion of TE and/or TM polarized illumination light incident on the spatial light modulator to pass through and travel to the sample surface, and
controlling the spatial light modulator to allow a second spatial portion of the TE and/or TM polarized illumination light incident on the spatial light modulator to pass through and travel to the sample surface, as disclosed by Brasen. Use of a spatial light modulator where the modulator segments can change its polarization state has the advantage of providing transmission or blocking of selected light beams which allows for selective imaging of certain areas of a surface ([0069] and [0076] from Brasen).
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al (“Alignment-free characterization of 2D gratings”, 2016, Applied Optics, Vol. 55, No. 2) in view of Boher et al (“Polarimetric multispectral bidirectional reflectance distribution function measurements using a Fourier transform instrument”, 2017, IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2017) and further in view of Kim (US 2014/0002829 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according to claim 13.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al further teaches TE and/or TM polarized illumination light (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer after illumination Fourier plane and before beam splitter provides TE and/or TM polarized light. Different polarizers can be added inside the illumination path near the beam splitter to fix the polarization state of the illumination where two examples are 0˚ and 90˚ polarizations (which provide TE or TM polarized light) (Page 20, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph).)
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al appears to be silent to storing one or more sets of reference images, each set comprising a first reference image associated with a first orientation and/or first polarization and/or first spectral power distribution of the illumination light and a second reference image associated with a second orientation and/or second polarization and/or second spectral power distribution of the illumination light, and each set of reference images being associated with a respective reference sample surface comprising one or more structures having known dimensions, wherein
determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface comprises comparing the first image with the first reference image in each of the one or more sets of the reference images and comparing the second image with the second reference image in each of the one or more sets of the reference images.
Kim, related to an optical measurement apparatus for measuring critical dimension of patterns, does teach storing one or more sets of reference images ([0148]: A plurality of 2D reference images may be stored in a storage unit 180), each set comprising a first reference image associated with a first orientation (Abstract: Pattern of the measurement target is detected by comparing a plurality of 2D reference images and the 2D scan image.) and/or first polarization and/or first spectral power distribution of the illumination light and a second reference image ([0145]: A plurality of 2D reference images may be generated using computer simulations which can be separated into sets comprising a first reference image and a second reference image.) associated with a second orientation (Abstract: Pattern of the measurement target is detected by comparing a plurality of 2D reference images and the 2D scan image.) and or/ second polarization and/or second spectral power distribution of the illumination light, and each set of reference images being associated with a respective reference sample surface comprising one or more structures having known dimensions ([0145-0147]: “The plurality of 2D reference images having various critical dimensions, that is, various widths, height, and inclinations may be generated.), wherein
determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface comprises comparing the first image with the first reference image in each of the one or more sets of the reference images and comparing the second image with the second reference image in each of the one or more sets of the reference images ([0161]): A 2D scan image and a plurality of 2D reference images are compared to determined critical dimensions of the pattern formed on a semiconductor substrate.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Madsen et al combined with Boher et al to incorporate storing one or more sets of reference images, each set comprising a first reference image associated with a first orientation and/or first polarization and/or first spectral power distribution of the illumination light and a second reference image associated with a second orientation and/or second polarization and/or second spectral power distribution of the illumination light, and each set of reference images being associated with a respective reference sample surface comprising one or more structures having known dimensions, wherein
determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface comprises comparing the first image with the first reference image in each of the one or more sets of the reference images and comparing the second image with the second reference image in each of the one or more sets of the reference images, as disclosed by Kim. Determining dimensions of a structure on a sample surface by comparing captured images with reference images is known in the field of endeavor. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to combine prior art elements according to known methods (image analysis using a reference image to be compared with a captured image) to yield predictable results (the reference image being used as a baseline to be compared to captured images) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 17, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al and Kim teaches the method according to claim 14.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al and Kim further teaches determining a first region in the captured image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a first intensity in the focal plane or the further focal plane of the reflected or transmitted illumination light associated with a first diffraction order (Madsen et al, page 318, Col. 1, 1st paragraph to Col. 2, 4th paragraph: Positions of diffraction spots for 2D gratings are calculated for a screen in the back focal plane (AKA Full Fourier plane in Fig. 2a) where the diffraction spots would necessarily be associated with a first diffraction order and the CCD from Fig. 2a would necessarily capture an image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a first intensity in the BFP/Full Fourier plane.).
and determining the first intensity associated with the first diffraction order based on the plurality of pixels in the first region (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: CCD measures intensity of diffraction spots associated with a first diffraction order),
and determining a second region in the first captured image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a second intensity in the focal plane or the further focal plane of the reflected or transmitted illumination light associated with a further diffraction order (Madsen et al, page 318, Col. 1, 1st paragraph to Col. 2, 4th paragraph: Positions of diffraction spots for 2D gratings are calculated for a screen in the back focal plane (AKA Full Fourier plane in Fig. 2a) where the diffraction spots would necessarily be associated with diffraction orders and the CCD from Fig. 2a would necessarily capture an image comprising a plurality of pixels representing intensities in the BFP/Full Fourier plane.),
and determining the second intensity associated with the further diffraction order based on the plurality of pixels in the second region (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: CCD measures intensity of diffraction spots associated with a first diffraction order.),
and determining a first region in the second captured image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a third intensity in the focal plane or the further focal plane of second reflected or transmitted illumination light associated with the first diffraction order (Madsen et al, page 318, Col. 1, 1st paragraph to Col. 2, 4th paragraph: Positions of diffraction spots for 2D gratings are calculated for a screen in the back focal plane (AKA Full Fourier plane in Fig. 2a) where the diffraction spots imaged would necessarily be associated with diffraction orders and the CCD from Fig. 2a would necessarily capture an image comprising a plurality of pixels representing intensities in the BFP/Full Fourier plane.) , and
determining a second region in the second captured image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a fourth intensity in the focal plane or the further focal plane of the second reflected or transmitted illumination light associated with the further diffraction order (Madsen et al, page 318, Col. 1, 1st paragraph to Col. 2, 4th paragraph: Positions of diffraction spots for 2D gratings are calculated for a screen in the back focal plane (AKA Full Fourier plane in Fig. 2a) where the diffraction spots imaged would necessarily be associated with diffraction orders and the CCD from Fig. 2a would necessarily capture an image comprising a plurality of pixels representing intensities in the BFP/Full Fourier plane.), and
determining said third radiant power based on the plurality of pixels of the first region in the second captured image (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: CCD measures intensity of diffraction spots associated with diffraction orders.), and
determining the fourth radiant power based on the second plurality of pixels in the second region of the second captured image (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: CCD measures intensity of diffraction spots associated with a first diffraction order.), and wherein
the first reference image (Kim, [0145]: Plurality of 2D reference images) indicates a first reference intensity (Kim, [0034]: “In example embodiments, the 2D scan image and the plurality of 2D reference images may include pixels having values corresponding to luminous intensity…”.) for the first diffraction order (Madsen et al, Diffraction spots imaged by CCD in Fig. 2a) and a second reference intensity (Kim, [0034]: “In example embodiments, the 2D scan image and the plurality of 2D reference images may include pixels having values corresponding to luminous intensity…”.) for the further diffraction order (Madsen et al, Diffraction spots imaged by CCD in Fig. 2a), and wherein
the second reference image (Kim, [0145]: Plurality of 2D reference images) indicates a third reference intensity (Kim, [0034]: “In example embodiments, the 2D scan image and the plurality of 2D reference images may include pixels having values corresponding to luminous intensity…”.) for the first diffraction order (Madsen et al, Diffraction spots imaged by CCD in Fig. 2a) and a fourth reference intensity (Kim, [0034]: “In example embodiments, the 2D scan image and the plurality of 2D reference images may include pixels having values corresponding to luminous intensity…”.) for said further diffraction order (Madsen et al, Diffraction spots imaged by CCD in Fig. 2a), wherein
determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface comprises comparing the first intensity with the first reference intensity and the second intensity with the second reference intensity and the third intensity with the third reference intensity and the fourth intensity with the fourth reference intensity (Madsen et al, Page 319, Col. 1, 1st paragraph: Average pitch of diffraction grating is calculated.).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al (“Alignment-free characterization of 2D gratings”, 2016, Applied Optics, Vol. 55, No. 2) in view of Boher et al (“Polarimetric multispectral bidirectional reflectance distribution function measurements using a Fourier transform instrument”, 2017, IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2017) and further in view of Kumar et al (“Coherent Fourier Scatterometry (Tool for improved sensitivity in semiconductor metrology”), 2012, SPIE, Vol. 8324. This reference was disclosed in the IDS dated 10/20/22).
Regarding Claim 18, Madsen et al modified by Boher et al teaches the method according claim 1.
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al further teaches the collimated TE and/or TM polarized illumination light beam (Boher et al, Fig. 1: polarizer after illumination Fourier plane and before beam splitter provides TE and/or TM polarized light. Different polarizers can be added inside the illumination path near the beam splitter to fix the polarization state of the illumination where two examples are 0˚ and 90˚ polarizations (which provide TE or TM polarized light) (Page 20, Col. 1, 2nd paragraph).) is incident over the sample surface (Madsen et al, Fig. 2a: sample surface).
Madsen et al modified by Boher et al appears to be silent to scanning a light beam over a sample surface.
Kumar et al, related to semiconductor metrology, does teach scanning (Abstract) a polarized light beam over a sample surface (Shown in Fig. 3(a) where there is a polarizer to polarize light from He-Ne laser S1 onto the sample surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Madsen et al combined with Boher et al to incorporate scanning a polarized light beam over a sample surface, as disclosed by Kumar et al. The advantage of scanning a polarized light beam over a sample surface is that optical measurements can be done where measurements are taken over the entire sample (Page 6, 1st paragraph from Kumar et al).
References Considered but not Cited
Gellineau (US 20180350699 A1), related to measurements of semiconductor structures, teaches that a beam incident onto a specimen can be collimated or focused ([0062]).
Boher et al (“Multispectral BRDF measurements on anisotropic samples: application to metallic surfaces and OLED displays”, 2016, Society for Imaging Science and Technology), related to Fourier optics with collimated light.
Boher et al (“Light scattered measurements using Fourier optics: A new tool for surface characterization”, 2004, SPIE, Vol. 5457), related to Fourier optics with collimated light.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights