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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 16- 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 16 is directed to a method and therefore falls within a statutory category of invention. Claim 16 recites, inter alia: “determining a target-invariant correction parameter from the first measurement data and second measurement data” and “determining the target-dependent correction parameter form the target-invariant correction parameter”. These steps involve analyzing measurement data and determining correction parameters based on relationship data sets. Such steps constitute mathematical concepts and/or mental processes, which are abstract ideas (see MPEP section 2106.04(a)(2). The determining steps amount to evaluating data and calculating correction parameters, which can be performed mentally or by mathematical manipulation of information. Therefore, claim 16 recites a judicial exception.
As to claims 17-30, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same reasons as claim 16 because the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and/or field-of-use limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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:
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 16-21 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smildet et al (US 2012/0123581 A1) in view of Wong (U.S.Pat. 6,809,420 B1).
With respect to claims 16, 19-21 and 28-30, Smildet discloses a method of determining a target-dependent correction parameter for a measurement of a target (W), the measurement being subject to a target-dependent sensor error contribution that has a dependence on the target and/or a stack on that target is comprised and comprising: obtaining first measurement data relating to a measurement of a fiducial target (such as: fiducial/overlay/grating-type targets), the first measurement data comprising at least a first set of intensity parameter values (scatterometry image) and a corresponding second set of intensity parameter values (see paragraphs [87-88] and figures 6, 7) Smildet teaches measuring a target and obtaining scatterometry image/intensity information under a first illumination/imaging mode and also under different illumination conditions/multiple datasets); obtaining second measurement data relating to a measurement of the fiducial target, the second measurement data having a third set of intensity parameter values (see figure 6 and paragraph [89]); determining a correction parameter from the first measurement data and second measurement data (see paragraphs [89-92]) and determining the target-dependent correction from the target-invariant correction parameter (see paragraphs 93-96 and figures 6-7; Smildet discloses determining correction information (e.g., via asymmetry/difference signals) based on multiple measurement).
As to claims 17-18, Smildet discloses pupil-resolved intensity detection (see figures 3-5 pupil images and figure 14 pupil intensity plots).
Thus, Smildet discloses substantially all limitations of the instant claims. While Smildet determines correction parameters based on multiple scatterometry measurements, it does not explicitly decompose such correction into target-invariant and target-dependent components. This feature is well known per se. Wong discloses decomposing measurement error into a tool-induced (invariant) component that is substantially invariant across targets/wafers and a wafer/target-induced component that depends on target/wafer/stack and using reference/fiducial measurements to determine a correction (see abstract; see figures 9-11 show WIS distribution across site/tools and demonstrates decomposition of measurement error into components). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the decomposition/calibration methodology of Wong into the multi-measurement scatterometry framework of Smildet to improve measurement accuracy by separating tool/systematic contributions from target/stack dependent contributions (i.e.,. to isolate a target-invariant correction component and then use it to derive a target-dependent correction), which is a well-known calibration objective in optical metrology.
Prior Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Quintanillha et al (U.S.Pat. 9,915,879); Bijinen et al (U.S.Pat. 11,079,684) and Brill (U.S.Pat. 9,904,993) disclose method for optimizing optical parameters and have been cited for technical background.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
2/11/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882