DETAILED ACTION
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 filed on 12/29/25 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. The amendment necessitates the new ground(s) of rejection presented due to the added language in the independent claim(s).
Status of the Application
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-10 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-10 is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
PNG
media_image1.png
120
1248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
PNG
media_image2.png
89
869
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-10 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a p-type layer has a threshold of 20% of a maximum brightness and an n-type layer has a threshold of 30% of the maximum brightness”. However, it is unclear what the maximum brightness is relative to. For instance, this brightness level could be constructively defined such that the thresholds utilized for a particular p or n type material is 20 or 30% of that number. It is also noted that claims are sufficiently broad to read on analysis of any p or n type material utilizing that 20 or 30% threshold.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-10, are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
PNG
media_image3.png
158
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kawada et al. (US 20170138725 A1) [hereinafter Kawada] in view of Tanaka et al. (US 20050116182 A1) [hereinafter Tanaka].
Regarding claim 1, Kawada teaches a processing system comprising a computer system, wherein
the computer system calculates a distance (e.g. fig 5: Δx, Δxb and Δxs) and a brightness value (see e.g. [0071]) related to a layer (top surface later, e.g. fig. 5, [0057]) between a plurality of structures (see e.g. fig 5) from a signal profile, which is generated in accordance with one direction on a two- dimensional plane related to the layer (see in x direction, [0071]) and which is obtained by irradiating the layer with an electron beam (e.g. [0050-51]), and determines or outputs a state of the layer based on the distance and the brightness value (e.g. determines information regarding the distance between workings start point and measurement target pattern, see [0072]),
specifies a plurality of first positions (e.g. positions on the edge of the measurement box, see Kawada, fig 5: 412) related to regions of the plurality of structures based on the signal profile (see e.g. fig 4),
specifies a second position (e.g. center of gravity, [0069]) related to the layer based on the plurality of first positions (see fig 4),
specifies a plurality of third positions (e.g. in tilt boundary for either sub-target, 415, [0070]; alternately in centers of gravity for sub-target 2, 502) related to the layer based on a
calculates a distance related to the layer based on the plurality of third positions (see e.g. [0072]),
Kawada may fail to explicitly disclose if the third positions are related to the layer based on a predetermined threshold value.
However, Kawada teaches using luminance change in the waveform profile to determine boundary positions (see, [0070]), and it was well known in the art to identify intensity level shifts in a waveform via either absolute thresholding or gradient identification (with a gradient threshold)—in either case, some form of thresholding would be required to use the well known identification system.
Kawada may fail to explicitly disclose wherein the processing system stores a plurality of the threshold values and selects the threshold value according to a type of the layer.
However, the selection of different threshold values based on materials and structures was well known in the art. For example, Tanaka teaches a system to select level thresholding values based on actual measured values (see Tanaka, fig. 14b), which will naturally vary according to a type of the layer. Further, it was well known in the art to store and provide output values in lookup tables as a routine skill in the art, rather than performing the same calculation repeatedly. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Tanaka in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to look for ways to ensure thresholding is accurately performed over a wider range of signal profiles, in the manner taught by Tanaka.
The combined teaching of Kawada and Tanaka may fail to explicitly disclose wherein a p-type layer has a threshold of 20% of a maximum brightness and an n-type layer has a threshold of 30% of the maximum brightness.
However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the calculation/selection of a threshold level that happens to be 20% of a maximum brightness of a given sample, during normal edge detection analysis of a different layer structures and geometries partially formed of some kind of p-type layer, would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art. Likewise, calculation/selection of a 30% threshold during edge detection for some sample comprising an n-type layer, during a subsequent experiment, would have been obvious as a routine skill in the art. It has held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is also noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647, and MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, Kawada may fail to explicitly disclose the structure is an inner spacer. However, in a different embodiment, Kawada teaches that the patten being imaged may be a hole, groove, or three-dimensional structure (see Kawada, [0012], claim 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to apply the system of Kawada to surfaces using three-dimensional structured (which are inner spacers in the inner part of the surface, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims), as a routine skill in the art to apply the known effective system to a wide range of samples and structures.
Regarding claim 4, the combined teaching of Kawada and Tanaka teaches in a case where the brightness value between the plurality of first positions is equal to or greater than the threshold value (whether or not the brightness value is greater, lower, or equal), the computer system calculates the distance based on the plurality of first positions instead of the plurality of third positions (redefining the distance here as the distance between measurement boxes, e.g. fig 5: 412, 415, which is required to be calculated vis a vis determination of exact locations, see e.g. fig 4, [0073], which is mathematically equivalent to determining the distance between the boxes).
Regarding claim 5, Kawada teaches the second position (see e.g. Kawada, fig 5: 413) is a center position between two first positions (see fig 5). Kawada may fail to explicitly disclose the computer system specifies the plurality of third positions by searching from the center position toward both sides of the signal profile. However, Kawada teaches automatically searching for boundaries without explicitly specifying a reference window (see [0070]) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to search in both directions from the center of gravity region, as a routine skill in the art to ensure the edge is found.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of Kawada and Tanaka teaches the processing system determines or outputs the state of the layer based on an area having a predetermined brightness range in the layer (required for intended operation of identifying boundary, see Kawada, [0070]; alternately see Tanaka, fig 14b).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of Kawada and Tanaka teaches the computer system calculates the distance related to the layer based on a position at which a signal has a minimum value in the signal profile (required for intended operation of identifying boundary, defining lower side of boundary as the minimum, see Kawada, [0070]; alternately see Tanaka, fig 14b).
Regarding claim 10, Kawada teaches a charged particle beam apparatus comprising the processing system according to claim 1 (see Kawada, figs 1-2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kawada and Tanaka, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 20100136717 A1) [hereinafter Shin].
Regarding claim 6, the combined teaching of Kawada and Tanaka may fail to explicitly disclose the layer is an epitaxial growth layer, and the state of the layer includes a degree of growth of the layer or the presence or absence of a defect. However, the use of epitaxially grown materials was well known in the art. For example Shin teaches a known effective defect detection system that is effective at identifying defects where step height changes are present (see e.g. Shin, [0059]) wherein the layer is an epitaxial growth layer (see e.g. [0011,59]), and the state of the layer includes a degree of growth of the layer or the presence or absence of a defect (see [0059]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to combine the teachings of Shin in the system of the prior art because a skilled artisan would have been motivated to enable the additional ability to identify defects the system between or after milling steps, including defects in semiconductor structures having step height changes, in the manner taught by Shin.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272 – 2689. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30 am – 6:00 pm M-F.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached on (571) 272 – 2328. 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.
/JAMES CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2881