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 11/05/2025 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claim 22 has been cancelled therefore, the previous 35 USC § 101 rejection is moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-15, filed 11/05/2025, with respect to claims 1, has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Stiepan US 2018/0217509 A1. Stiepan, related to characterizing structures on a sample surface, does teach focusing illumination light on a focal plane of a lens system so that the lens system forms a collimated illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface and that is reflected from or transmitted through the sample surface ([0044]: Collimated beam is impinged on water 150 which is shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kumar et al to incorporate focusing illumination light on a focal plane of a lens system so that the lens system forms a collimated illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface and that is reflected from or transmitted through the sample surface, as disclosed by Stiepan. The advantage of using a collimated light beam is that a plurality of regions can be measured simultaneously ([0044] from Stiepan). Furthermore, in Applicant’s arguments dated 04/19/2025 on pages 14-15, the Applicant recites that Stiepan’s invention is a conventional imaging system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have known that using a collimating light beam to be incident onto a sample surface to be obvious because it is known in the field of endeavor.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4 of claim 20 recites “…reflected or transmitted illumination light,, the distribution in…” where there are two commas and one comma should be deleted.
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…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10, 13-14, and 17 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.
Line 2 of claim 10 recites the limitation "the first said illumination light" in “…focusing the first said illumination light at the first point…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claims 1, 5, or 8 recites “a first illumination light.” Claim 9 does recite “a first said illumination light”, therefore, it would appear that claim 10 should be dependent on claim 9.
Lines 4 and 10 of claim 13 recites the limitation “the first collimated illumination light beam” and “the second collimated illumination light beam” in “…light from the first collimated illumination light beam…” and “…light from the second collimated illumination light beam…”, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 1 does not recite “a first collimated illumination light beam” or “a second collimated illumination light beam.” It is unclear which claim that claim 13 should be dependent on when claim 5 recites “a first said collimated illumination light beam” and “a second said collimated illumination light beam”, and claims 6-8 and 11-12 recites “the first collimated illumination light beam” and “the second collimated illumination light beam.” With so many claims reciting “first collimated illumination light” and “second collimated illumination light”, the examiner cannot reasonably ascertain what claim 13 should be dependent on.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 13.
Lines 2-4 of Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first orientation and/or first polarization and/or first spectral power distribution" in “…a first reference image associated with the first orientation and/or first polarization and/or first spectral power distribution of the illumination light beam…”. Lines 4-6 of claim 14 also recites the limitation “…the second orientation and/or second polarization and/or second spectral power distribution of the illumination light beam…” in “…a second reference image associated with the second orientation and/or second polarization and/or second spectral power distribution of the illumination light beam…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Neither claims 1 or 13 recites a first and second orientation, a first and second polarization, or a first and second spectral power distribution. Claim 8 does recite “a first orientation and a second orientation.” Claim 11 does recite “a first polarization and a second polarization.” Claim 12 does recite “a first spectral power distribution and a second spectral power distribution.” However, claim 13 is not dependent on any of claims 8, 11, or 12, therefore, the examiner cannot reasonably ascertain or interpret what claim 14 should be dependent on.
Claims 17 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 14.
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, 15-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 10/20/2022) in view of Stiepan (US 20180217509 A1, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 10/20/2022).
Regarding Claim 1, Kumar et al teaches a method for determining one or more dimensions of one or more structures on a sample surface (Abstract: Coherent Fourier Scatterometry has a higher sensitivity for measuring grating shape parameters compared to incoherent optical scatterometry), the method comprising
focusing illumination light on a focal plane of a lens system (Fig. 3.3(a): microscope objective MO would have a focal plane) so that the lens system forms a focused illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface (Fig. 3.3(a): grating surface) and that is reflected (Shown in Fig. 3.3(a) where reflected light is detected at a CCD) from or transmitted through the sample surface, and
using the lens system (Fig. 3.3(a): microscope objective MO) to collect illumination light reflected from the sample surface (Fig. 3.3(a): grating surface), or using a further lens system to collect illumination light transmitted through the sample surface;
capturing an image of said the focal plane of said lens system (Page 6, paragraph 1: “The diffracted field in the back focal plane (BFP) of the MO is then imaged into the CCD camera through the telescopic lens system formed by Lens L4 and L 5 image.”; Image of grating shown in Fig. 3.3(b)) to provide a captured image, said captured image representing a distribution in the focal plane of radiant power of the reflected illumination light (Page 5, paragraph 4-5: “Here the other diffracted orders enters the lens pupil and there is interference between the diffracted orders in the far field. Due to this interference phenomenon, we observe in some conditions, more than fourfold increase in sensitivity with CFS (coherent Fourier scatterometry). The sensitivity or CG in CFS also depends on the number of scanning positions and on the relative position of the illumination spot and the grating. For only one single scanning position we observe that there is a peak in the CG (coherent gain) for pitch (Λ) of 1.4 μm. This is possibly attributed to distribution of orders in the far field map at this value of pitch.”); 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 radiant power of the transmitted illumination light, and the distribution in the focal plane or the distribution in the further focal plane comprising a plurality of diffraction orders (Page 5, paragraph 4-5: Multiple diffraction orders are observed at the lens pupil.);
and based on the captured image, determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface (Abstract: Coherent Fourier Scatterometry has a higher sensitivity for measuring grating shape parameters compared to incoherent optical scatterometry).
Kumar et al does not teach focusing illumination light on a focal plane of a lens system so that the lens system forms a collimated illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface and that is reflected from or transmitted through the sample surface.
Stiepan, related to characterizing structures on a sample surface, does teach focusing illumination light on a focal plane of a lens system so that the lens system forms a collimated illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface and that is reflected from or transmitted through the sample surface ([0044]: Collimated beam is impinged on water 150 which is shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kumar et al to incorporate focusing illumination light on a focal plane of a lens system so that the lens system forms a collimated illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface and that is reflected from or transmitted through the sample surface, as disclosed by Stiepan. The advantage of using a collimated light beam is that a plurality of regions can be measured simultaneously ([0044] from Stiepan). Furthermore, in Applicant’s arguments dated 04/19/2025 on pages 14-15, the Applicant recites that Stiepan’s invention is a conventional imaging system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have known that using a collimating light beam to be incident onto a sample surface to be obvious because known in the field of endeavor.
Regarding Claim 15, Kumar et al modified by Stiepan teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan further teaches determining a region in the captured image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a radiant power in the focal plane or the further focal plane of the reflected or transmitted illumination light associated with a diffraction order (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: The diffracted field in the back focal plane (BFP) of the microscope objective (MO) is imaged onto a CCD camera where the images would have pixels. The intensity data (AKA radiant power) from the images would represent intensity of the reflected illumination light associated with the different diffraction orders.), and
determining the radiant power associated with the diffraction order based on the plurality of pixels in the region (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: Diffracted field (which would have different diffraction orders) is in the BFP of the MO is imaged into the CCD camera.), and
determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface based on the determined radiant power associated with the diffraction order (Kumar et al, Abstract: “Incoherent Optical Scatterometry (IOS) is a well-established metrology technique in the semiconductor industry to retrieve periodic grating structures with high accuracy from the signature of the diffracted optical far field.”).
Regarding Claim 16, Kumar et al modified by Stiepan teaches the method according to claim 15.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan further teaches determining a first region in the captured image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a first radiant power in the focal plane or the further focal plane of the reflected or transmitted illumination light associated with a first diffraction order (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: A diffracted field imaged by the CCD camera would have a first region in the captured image comprising a plurality of pixels which represents a first radiant power in the focal plane (BFP) of the reflected light associated with a first diffraction order.),
and determining the first radiant power associated with the first diffraction order based on the plurality of pixels in the first region (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: Diffracted far field data has intensity data (AKA radiant power).),
and determining a second region in the captured image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a second radiant power in the focal plane or the further focal plane of the reflected or transmitted illumination light associated with a further diffraction order (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: A diffracted field imaged by the CCD camera would have a second region in the captured image comprising a plurality of pixels which represents a second radiant power in the focal plane (BFP) of the reflected light associated with further diffraction orders.),
and determining the second radiant power associated with the further diffraction order based on the plurality of pixels in the second region (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: Diffracted far field data has intensity data (AKA radiant power).), and
determining the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface based on the determined first radiant power associated with the first diffraction order and the determined second radiant power associated with the further diffraction order (Kumar et al, Abstract: “Incoherent Optical Scatterometry (IOS) is a well-established metrology technique in the semiconductor industry to retrieve periodic grating structures with high accuracy from the signature of the diffracted optical far field.” The diffracted optical far field data taken would have information of the first diffraction order and further diffraction orders.).
Regarding Claim 18, Kumar et al modified by Stiepan teaches the method according claim 1.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan further teaches scanning (Kumar et al, Page 6: Scanning method is used so that the focused illumination spot overs the entire grating to be measured.) the collimated illumination light over the sample surface (Stiepan, [0044]: A collimated beam path is incident onto the sample surface, as shown in Fig. 1.)
Regarding Claim 19, Kumar et al teaches a system for determining one or more dimensions of one or more structures on a sample surface (Abstract: Coherent Fourier Scatterometry has a higher sensitivity for measuring grating shape parameters compared to incoherent optical scatterometry), the system comprising
a lens system (Fig. 3.3(a): L1-L6), and
a light focusing system (Fig. 3.3(a): microscope objective MO) that is configured to focus illumination light on a focal plane of the lens system (Fig. 3.3(a): microscope objective MO would have a focal plane) so that the lens system forms a focused illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface (Fig. 3.3(a): grating surface), wherein
the lens system is configured to collect illumination light reflected from the sample surface (Shown in Fig. 3.3(a)) or wherein the system comprises a further lens system that is configured to collect illumination light transmitted through the sample surface, and
an imaging system (Fig. 3.3(a): there would be a CCD at the CCD plane) that is configured to capture an image of the focal plane (Page 6, paragraph 1: “The diffracted field in the back focal plane (BFP) of the MO is then imaged into the CCD camera through the telescopic lens system formed by Lens L4 and L 5 image.”; Image of grating shown in Fig. 3.3(b)) or of a further focal plane of the further lens system, said image representing a distribution in said focal plane or the further focal plane of radiant power of the 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 (Page 5, paragraph 4-5: “Here the other diffracted orders enters the lens pupil and there is interference between the diffracted orders in the far field. Due to this interference phenomenon, we observe in some conditions, more than fourfold increase in sensitivity with CFS (coherent Fourier scatterometry). The sensitivity or CG in CFS also depends on the number of scanning positions and on the relative position of the illumination spot and the grating. For only one single scanning position we observe that there is a peak in the CG (coherent gain) for pitch (Λ) of 1.4 μm. This is possibly attributed to distribution of orders in the far field map at this value of pitch.”); and
a data processing system that is configured to, based on the captured image, determine the one or more dimensions of the one or more structures on the sample surface (Abstract: There would necessarily be some sort of data processing system to be able to measure the grating shape parameters.).
Kumar et al does not teach focusing illumination light on a focal plane of a lens system so that the lens system forms a collimated illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface.
Stiepan, related to characterizing structures on a sample surface, does teach focusing illumination light on a focal plane of a lens system so that the lens system forms a collimated illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface and that is reflected from or transmitted through the sample surface ([0044]: Collimated beam is impinged on water 150 which is shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kumar et al to incorporate focusing illumination light on a focal plane of a lens system so that the lens system forms a collimated illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface and that is reflected from or transmitted through the sample surface, as disclosed by Stiepan. The advantage of using a collimated light beam is that a plurality of regions can be measured simultaneously ([0044] from Stiepan). Furthermore, in Applicant’s arguments dated 04/19/2025 on pages 14-15, the Applicant recites that Stiepan’s invention is a conventional imaging system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have known that using a collimating light beam to be incident onto a sample surface to be obvious because it is known in the field of endeavor.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 10/20/2022) in view of Stiepan (US 20180217509 A1, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 10/20/2022) and further in view of Seitz (US 2015/0198798 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kumar et al modified by Stiepan teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan further teaches a collimated illumination light beam (Stiepan, [0044]: Collimated beam path shown in Fig. 1.).
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan appears to be silent to a cross section of the collimated 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 Kumar et al combined with Stiepan 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 mask inspection device) (MPEP 2143 (I)(A)).
Claims 3 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 10/20/2022) in view of Stiepan (US 20180217509 A1, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 10/20/2022) and further in view of Bovero (US 2017/0276614 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Kumar et al modified by Stiepan teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan 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 radiant power of light in said focal plane or said further focal plane, the reference distribution of radiant power 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 radiant power of light in said focal plane or said further focal plane, the reference distribution of radiant power 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 Kumar et al combined with Stiepan 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 radiant power of light in said focal plane or said further focal plane, the reference distribution of radiant power 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, Kumar 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 (Abstract: Coherent Fourier Scatterometry has a higher sensitivity for measuring grating shape parameters compared to incoherent optical scatterometry), the method comprising
obtaining an image, the image representing a distribution in a focal plane or a further focal plane of radiant power 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 (Page 6, paragraph 1: “The diffracted field in the back focal plane (BFP) of the MO is then imaged into the CCD camera through the telescopic lens system formed by Lens L4 and L 5 image.” The diffracted field image contains intensity data which represents a distribution in a focal plane of reflected light where the diffraction comprises a plurality of diffraction orders), the image being obtainable by focusing illumination light on said the focal plane of a lens system (Shown in Fig. 3.3(a) where the focal plane is at the microscope objective (MO).);
using said the lens system, collecting illumination light reflected from or, using a further lens system, collecting illumination light transmitted through the sample surface, and capturing the image of the focal plane or the further focal plane (Page 6, last paragraph: Fig. 3.3(a) has an epi-illumination configuration which is reflected light microscopy. An image of the focal plane (MO) is also taken with a CCD camera.).
Kumar et al appears to be silent to the lens system forms a collimated illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface.
Stiepan, related to characterizing structures on a sample surface, does teach a lens system (Fig. 1: lens element 114) forms a collimated illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface ([0044]: Collimated beam is impinged on water 150 which is shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kumar et al to incorporate a lens system that forms a collimated illumination light beam that is incident on the sample surface, as disclosed by Stiepan. The advantage of using a collimated light beam is that a plurality of regions can be measured simultaneously ([0044] from Stiepan). Furthermore, in Applicant’s arguments dated 04/19/2025 on pages 14-15, the Applicant recites that Stiepan’s invention is a conventional imaging system. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have known that using a collimating light beam to be incident onto a sample surface to be obvious because it is known in the field of endeavor.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan 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 radiant power of light in said focal plane or said further focal plane, the reference distribution of radiant power 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 radiant power of light in said focal plane or said further focal plane, the reference distribution of radiant power 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 Kumar et al combined with Stiepan 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 radiant power of light in said focal plane or said further focal plane, the reference distribution of radiant power 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 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 10/20/2022) in view of Stiepan (US 20180217509 A1, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 10/20/2022) and Bovero (US 2017/0276614 A1), and further in view of Cai (US 2005/0190957 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kumar et al modified by Stiepan and Bovero teaches the method according to claim 3.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan 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 collimated illumination light beam incident on the reference sample surface (Stiepan, [0044]: Collimated beam path shown in Fig. 1.) associated with the one or more reference images.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan 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 Kumar et al combined with Stiepan 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 5-7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 10/20/2022) in view of Stiepan (US 20180217509 A1, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 10/20/2022) and further in view of Meng (US 2016/0202048 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kumar et al modified by Stiepan teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan further teaches that the step of focusing illumination light on the focal plane of the lens system (Kumar et al, Fig. 3.3(a): microscope objective MO would have a focal plane) comprises focusing illumination light on the focal plane of the lens system so that the lens system forms a first said collimated illumination light beam that is incident at a first angle on an area of the sample surface (Stiepan, collimated beam path from [0044] and shown in Fig. 1) and that is reflected from (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: Fig. 3.3(a) has an epi-illumination configuration which is reflected light microscopy) or transmitted through the area of the sample surface and focusing illumination light on the focal plane of the lens system so that the lens system forms a second said collimated illumination light beam that is incident at a second angle on the area of the sample surface (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: A scanning method is used to cover the entire grating with the focused spot. Therefore, each scan position would have a second said collimated illumination light beam that is incident at a second angle on the area of the sample surface) and that is reflected from (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: Fig. 3.3(a) has an epi-illumination configuration which is reflected light microscopy) or transmitted through the sample surface.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan appears to be silent to the first angle being different from the second angle.
Meng, related to determining three-dimensional structure of an object, does teach that the first angle is different from the second angle ([0051]: Different illumination conditions, such as collimated sources incident from different angles, can be used.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar et al combined with Stiepan so that the first angle is different from the second angle, as disclosed by Meng with the advantage that different illumination conditions can be captured ([0051] from Meng).
Regarding Claim 6, Kumar et al modified by Stiepan and Meng teaches the method according to claim 5.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan and Meng further teaches that the first collimated illumination light beam and the second collimated illumination light beam are incident on the area of the sample surface simultaneously (Meng, [0051]: “For example, red, green and blue collimated sources at different locations may simultaneously illuminate the object.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Kumar et al modified by Stiepan and Meng teaches the method according to claim 5.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan and Meng further teaches 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.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Kumar et al modified by Stiepan teaches the method according to claim 5.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan further teaches that the first collimated illumination light beam comprises a first spectral power distribution (Stiepan, [0044]: A collimated beam incident onto a sample surface would have a first spectral power distribution.)
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan appears to be silent to the second collimated illumination light beam comprises a second spectral power distribution different from the first spectral power distribution.
Meng, related to determining three-dimensional structure of an object, does teach that the second collimated illumination light beam comprises a second spectral power distribution different from the first spectral power distribution ([0051]: Various collimated light sources are used such as red, green, and blue.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar et al combined with Stiepan so that the second collimated illumination light beam comprises a second spectral power distribution different from the first spectral power distribution, as disclosed by Meng. The above-mentioned method has the advantage of allowing for different illumination conditions to be captured used various wavelengths of light ([0051] from Meng).
Regarding Claim 13, Kumar et al modified by Stiepan teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan 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 (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: “The diffracted field in the back focal plane (BFP) of the MO is then imaged into the CCD camera through the telescopic lens system formed by Lens L4 and L5.”), collecting first reflected (Kumar et al, Page 2: Reflected intensity is measured) or transmitted illumination light that is light from the first collimated illumination light beam (Stiepan, collimated beam path from [0044]) reflected from or transmitted through the sample surface, and
capturing a first said image of the focal plane or of the further focal plane, the first image representing a distribution in the focal plane or further focal plane of radiant power of the first reflected or transmitted illumination light (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: “The diffracted field in the back focal plane (BFP) of the MO is then imaged into the CCD camera…”. A diffracted field image would have intensity data (AKA radiant power).), and
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 radiant power of the second reflected or transmitted illumination light (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: “The diffracted field in the back focal plane (BFP) of the MO is then imaged into the CCD camera…”. A diffracted field image would have intensity data (AKA radiant power) where a second diffracted field image would be a second image of the BFP.), 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 (Kumar et al, Abstract: Incoherent Optical Scatterometry (IOS) is a well-established metrology technique in the semiconductor industry to retrieve periodic grating structures with high accuracy from the signature of the diffracted optical far field.”).
Kumer et al modified by Stiepan appears to be silent to using the lens system or the further lens system, to collect second reflected or transmitted illumination light that is light from the second collimated illumination light beam reflected from or transmitted through the sample surface.
Meng, related to determining three-dimensional structure of an object, does teach using the lens system or the further lens system, to collect second reflected ([0036]: A plenoptic camera is used to capture the angular information of the light reflected from the object surface.) or transmitted illumination light that is light from the second collimated illumination light beam reflected from or transmitted through the sample surface ([0051]: “Each plenoptic image may correspond to different illumination conditions, for example collimated sources incident from different angles.” The collimated light sources incident from different angles would be a first and second collimated illumination light beam. Reflections are shown in Figs. 2.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar et al combined with Stiepan to incorporate using the lens system or the further lens system, to collect second reflected or transmitted illumination light that is light from the second collimated illumination light beam reflected from or transmitted through the sample surface, as disclosed by Meng with the advantage that different illumination conditions of the sample surface can be captured ([0051] from Meng).
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 10/20/2022) in view of Stiepan (US 20180217509 A1, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 10/20/2022) and Meng (US 2016/0202048 A1), and further in view of Kim (US 2014/0002829 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Kumar et al modified by Stiepan teaches the method according to claim 13.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan appears to be silent to storing one or more sets of reference images, each set comprising a first reference image associated with the first orientation and/or first polarization and/or first spectral power distribution of the illumination light beam and a second reference image associated with the second orientation and/or second polarization and/or second spectral power distribution of the illumination light beam, 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 the 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 beam 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 the 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 beam, 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 Kumar et al combined with Stiepan to incorporate storing one or more sets of reference images, each set comprising a first reference image associated with the first orientation and/or first polarization and/or first spectral power distribution of the illumination light beam and a second reference image associated with the second orientation and/or second polarization and/or second spectral power distribution of the illumination light beam, 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, Kumar et al modified by Stiepan and Kim teaches the method according to claim 14.
Kumar et al modified by Stiepan and Kim further teaches determining a first region in the captured image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a first radiant power in the focal plane or the further focal plane of the reflected or transmitted illumination light associated with a first diffraction order (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: A diffracted field imaged by the CCD camera would have a first region in the captured image comprising a plurality of pixels which represents a first radiant power in the focal plane (BFP) of the reflected light associated with a first diffraction order.),
and determining the first radiant power associated with the first diffraction order based on the plurality of pixels in the first region (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: Diffracted far field data has intensity data (AKA radiant power).),
and determining a second region in the captured image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a second radiant power in the focal plane or the further focal plane of the reflected or transmitted illumination light associated with a further diffraction order (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: A diffracted field imaged by the CCD camera would have a second region in the captured image comprising a plurality of pixels which represents a second radiant power in the focal plane (BFP) of the reflected light associated with further diffraction orders.),
and determining the second radiant power associated with the further diffraction order based on the plurality of pixels in the second region (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: Diffracted far field data has intensity data (AKA radiant power).),
and determining a first region in the second captured image comprising a plurality of pixels representing a third radiant power in the focal plane or the further focal plane of second reflected or transmitted illumination light associated with the first diffraction order (Kumar et al, Page 6, last paragraph: A diffracted field imaged by the CCD camera would have a first region in the second captured image comprising a plurality of pixels which represents a third radiant power (intensity data from the diffracted field image) in the focal plane (BFP) of the second reflected light associated with first diffraction.) , and
determining a second region in the