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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7, 13-17 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006215020 to Yamaguchi in view of US 20080197280 to Tanaka further in view US 20170052455 to Tseng.
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses a method, comprising:
determining, by a processor, a measurement of edge detection noise (paragraph 11-12, 16; standard deviation (noise) of detected edge points from actual edge as edge detection noise);
receiving a measurement of a biased parameter including measurement noise (paragraph 12, 14-15, 67, 106, 122; line-edge roughness is measured that includes noise resulting in biased line-edge roughness parameter)
based on the measurement of edge detection noise determining a contribution of edge detection noise to the biased parameter (paragraph 11-12, 62, 122; based on distribution of edge points from actual position (measurement of edge detection noise), the contribution to noise is determined for the line-edge roughness parameter that is biased);
determining an unbiased parameter by subtracting the contribution of noise from the biased parameter including the measurement noise (paragraph 11-14, 67; quantified noise (contribution) is subtracted from the measured line-edge roughness parameter that is biased to determine real line edge roughness value (unbiased)); and
controlling, using the unbiased parameter (paragraph 11-14, 67, 63, 81, 146; the real line edge roughness value (unbiased) is used to control whether the manufactured wafer (semiconductor device) passes or fails).
However Yamaguchi does not disclose
based on a plurality of measurement points, determining a contribution of edge detection noise to the biased parameter.
Tanaka discloses based on a plurality of measurement points, determining a contribution of edge detection noise to the biased parameter (paragraph 68, 80, 83, 113; measurement of LER parameter include deviation/noise resulting in bias parameters; as number of pixels (number of measurement points) used for averaging increases for LWR parameter measurement, the contribution of edge detection variation (noise) to measurement is inversely related to square root of number of pixels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Yamaguchi as taught by Tanaka to provide contribution of noise based on number of points measured.
The motivation to combine the references is to reduce the noise contribution by using more number of measurement points in the SEM image for the averaging (paragraph 83).
Yamaguchi discloses controlling, using the unbiased parameter. However Yamaguchi does not disclose controlling, using the parameter, one or more operating parameters associated with a lithography tool to manufacture a semiconductor device.
Tseng discloses controlling, using the parameter, one or more operating parameters associated with a lithography tool to manufacture a semiconductor device (paragraph 99, 121; parameters of the lithographic apparatus such as parameter of illumination (operating parameter) are adjusted (controlled) to account for LWR (parameter); lithographic apparatus used to manufacture IC (semiconductor device)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Yamaguchi as taught by Tseng to control lithographic parameters.
The motivation to combine the references is to make adjustment to lithographic parameters to correct for variation in the LWR (parameter) bias amount (paragraph 97-99).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi discloses the method of claim 1, wherein ones of the plurality of measurement points comprise a line or ones of the plurality of measurement points comprise a space (paragraph 3, 57, 63, 74; measurement points for line edge roughness along line).
Regarding claim 13, Yamaguchi discloses an apparatus (paragraph 111; information processor 2006 (apparatus)), comprising:
a memory device storing instructions (paragraph 111; information processor 2006 includes memory to store software); and
a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device, wherein the processing device executes the instructions to (paragraph 111; calculation device (processor) coupled to the memory executes the software):
determine a measurement of edge detection noise (paragraph 11-12, 16; standard deviation (noise) of detected edge points from actual edge as edge detection noise);
based on the measurement of edge detection noise, determine the contribution of edge detection noise to a biased parameter (paragraph 11-12, 62, 122; based on distribution of edge points from actual position (measurement of edge detection noise), the contribution to noise is determined for the line-edge roughness parameter that is biased);
receive a measurement of a biased parameter including measurement noise (paragraph 11-14, 46, 67; measured line-edge roughness parameter is biased because of high frequency part (noise));
determine an unbiased parameter by subtracting the contribution of noise from the biased parameter including the measurement noise (paragraph 11-14, 67; quantified noise (contribution) is subtracted from the measured line-edge roughness parameter that is biased to determine real line edge roughness value (unbiased)); and
control, using the unbiased parameter (paragraph 11-14, 67, 63, 81, 146; the real line edge roughness value (unbiased) is used to control whether the manufactured wafer (semiconductor device) passes or fails).
However Yamaguchi does not disclose based on plurality of measurement points, determine the contribution of edge detection noise to a biased parameter.
Tanaka discloses based on plurality of measurement points, determine the contribution of edge detection noise to a biased parameter (paragraph 68, 80, 83, 113; measurement of LER parameter include deviation/noise resulting in bias parameters; as number of pixels (number of measurement points) used for averaging increases for LWR parameter measurement, the contribution of edge detection variation (noise) to measurement is inversely related to square root of number of pixels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Yamaguchi as taught by Tanaka to provide contribution of noise based on number of points measured.
The motivation to combine the references is to reduce the noise contribution by using more number of measurement points in the SEM image for the averaging (paragraph 83).
Yamaguchi discloses control, using the unbiased parameter. However Yamaguchi does not disclose control, using the parameter, one or more operating parameters associated with a lithography tool to manufacture a semiconductor device.
Tseng discloses control, using the parameter, one or more operating parameters associated with a lithography tool to manufacture a semiconductor device (paragraph 99, 121; parameters of the lithographic apparatus such as parameter of illumination (operating parameter) to account for LWR (parameter); lithographic apparatus used to manufacture IC (semiconductor device)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Yamaguchi as taught by Tseng to control lithographic parameters.
The motivation to combine the references is to make adjustment to lithographic parameters to correct for variation in the LWR (parameter) bias amount (paragraph 97-99).
Regarding claim 17, Yamaguchi discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein ones of the plurality of measurement points comprise a line or ones of the plurality of measurement points comprise a space (paragraph 3, 57, 63, 74; measurement points for line edge roughness along line).
Claim(s) 2, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006215020 to Yamaguchi in view of US 20080197280 to Tanaka further in view US 20170052455 to Tseng further in view of JP 2013134879 to Kadowaki.
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein ones of the plurality of measurement points represent rows of pixels in a selected portion of a scanning electron microscope image.
Kadowaki discloses wherein ones of the plurality of measurement points represent rows of pixels in a selected portion of a scanning electron microscope image (paragraph 14; SEM image; paragraph 23; averaging of pixels along measurement points in the y-axis represents different rows of pixels in NxM pixels (selected portion)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Yamaguchi as taught by Kadowaki to provide using rows of pixels for measurement in the SEM image.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide adjustment of noise filtering strength resulting in high S/N ratio of the signals and improved defect detections in the SEM image (paragraph 23-26).
Regarding claim 14, Kadowaki discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the ones of the plurality of measurement points represent the rows of pixels in used portion of a scanning electron microscope image (paragraph 14; SEM image; paragraph 23; averaging of pixels along measurement points in the y-axis represents different rows of pixels in NxM pixels used for averaging (used portion)).
Claim(s) 3, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006215020 to Yamaguchi in view of US 20080197280 to Tanaka further in view US 20170052455 to Tseng further in view of US 20180045560 to Chanda.
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi disclose the method of claim 1, wherein determining the measurement of edge detection noise (paragraph 11-12, 16; standard deviation (noise) of detected edge points from actual edge as edge detection noise). However Yamaguchi does not disclose the measurement further comprises determining a measurement of noise floor of a power spectral density dataset.
Chanda discloses the measurement further comprises determining a measurement of noise floor of a power spectral density dataset (paragraph 25, 39; measured “noise power spectral density” associated with noise floor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Yamaguchi as taught by Chanda to provide noise floor measurement.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide reduction in power spectrum density noise resulting higher detection limit (paragraph 30, 39).
Regarding claim 15, Yamaguchi discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein determining the measurement of edge detection noise (paragraph 11-12, 16; standard deviation (noise) of detected edge points from actual edge as edge detection noise) and Chanda discloses wherein the measurement further comprises determining a measurement of noise floor of a power spectral density dataset (paragraph 25, 39; measured “noise power spectral density” associated with noise floor).
Claim(s) 4, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006215020 to Yamaguchi in view of US 20080197280 to Tanaka further in view US 20170052455 to Tseng further in view of US 20190371568 to Fukuda.
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein: the biased parameter comprises a biased local critical dimension uniformity (LCDU), a biased local pattern placement error (LPPE), or a biased local edge placement error (LEPE), and the unbiased parameter comprises an unbiased LCDU, an unbiased LPPE, or an unbiased LEPE.
Fukuda discloses wherein: the biased parameter comprises a biased local critical dimension uniformity (LCDU), a biased local pattern placement error (LPPE), or a biased local edge placement error (LEPE), and the unbiased parameter comprises an unbiased LCDU, an unbiased LPPE, or an unbiased LEPE (paragraph 32-33, 76, 84; biased LCDU include measurement reproducibility error in terms of variance; the unbiased LCDU based on expression 13 subtracts σ2 CDsem0 to obtain unbiased LCDU)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Yamaguchi as taught by Fukuda to provide unbiased parameter determination.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide accurate measurement of the parameter by subtraction of noise that causes bias resulting in true shape of the pattern (paragraph 86, 93).
Regarding claim 16, see rejection of claim 4.
Claim(s) 7, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006215020 to Yamaguchi in view of US 20080197280 to Tanaka further in view US 20170052455 to Tseng further in view of US 20150357154 to Yokosuka.
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi discloses determining the measurement of edge detection noise (paragraph 11-12, 16; standard deviation (noise) of detected edge points from actual edge as edge detection noise). Yamaguchi does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein ones of the plurality of measurement points represent a hole or pillar comprising a shape having a length similar to its width, and measurement further comprises detecting feature edges as a function of a polar angle.
Yokosuka discloses wherein ones of the plurality of measurement points represent a hole or pillar comprising a shape having a length similar to its width (paragraph 34-35, 51-53, 67; Fig. 11(a) shows pillar shapes for measurement points for edges; Fig. 11 (a) shows pillar shape having length in Z (~100nm) similar to length in X direction (~100nm) ), and measurement further comprises detecting feature edges as a function of a polar angle (paragraph 51-53; based on azimuth angle (polar angle) of either 0-180 or 180-360 degrees, the left and right edge features are discriminated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Yamaguchi as taught by Yokosua to provide edge feature detection during measurement.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide accurate measurement of line patterns that are small in width whose edges are hard to separate (paragraph 2, 8-11).
Regarding claim 19, Yamaguchi discloses the apparatus of claim 13, determining the measurement of edge detection noise (paragraph 11-12, 16; standard deviation (noise) of detected edge points from actual edge as edge detection noise). Further Yokosuka discloses wherein ones of the plurality of measurement points represent a hole or pillar comprising a shape having a length similar to its width (paragraph 34-35, 51-53, 67; Fig. 11(a) shows pillar shapes for measurement points for edges; Fig. 11 (a) shows pillar shape having length in Z (~100nm) similar to length in X direction (~100nm)), and the measurement further comprises detecting feature edges as a function of a polar angle (paragraph 51-53; based on azimuth angle (polar angle) of either 0-180 or 180-360 degrees, the left and right edge features are discriminated).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006215020 to Yamaguchi in view of US 20080197280 to Tanaka further in view US 20170052455 to Tseng further in view of US 20190113338 to Mack.
!!! EFFECTIVE FILING DATE FOR THIS CLAIM IS 12/20/2022 SINCE THE CIP APPLICATION 17583982 DOES NOT HAVE SUPPORT FOR THIS LIMITATION !!!
Regarding claim 20, Yamaguchi does not disclose the apparatus of claim 13, wherein determining the unbiased parameter for a first feature having a first property comprises:
determining a measurement of noise floor.
Mack discloses wherein determining the unbiased parameter (paragraph 149; in block 2916 unbiased PSD (parameter) is measured by subtraction of noise) for a first feature having a first property comprises (paragraph 69; lines (features) that are long (property)):
determining a measurement of noise floor (paragraph 114, 149; noise floor is measured to determine unbiased PSD).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the system of Yamaguchi as taught by Mack to determine unbiased parameter based on noise floor.
The motivation to combine the references is to provide removal of noise in the detection of edges without performing filtering of the image by measuring noise floor and subtracting it from the biased measurement of parameter (paragraph 114, 128-129).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENIYAM MENBERU whose telephone number is (571) 272-7465. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10:00am-6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached on (571) 270-3438. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the customer service office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600. The group receptionist number for TC 2600 is (571) 272-2600.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see <http://pair-direct.uspto.gov/>. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Patent Examiner
Beniyam Menberu
/BENIYAM MENBERU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
01/29/2026