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 § 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.
Claim 1-9, 12-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sender (US 20160322195 A1) in view of Ando (US 20190355547 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sender teaches a charged particle beam apparatus (system 10, fig. 1) for directing a charged particle beam to preselected locations of a sample surface (wafer 38; regions of interest 130, fig. 2), the charged particle beam having a field of view (132, fig. 2) of the sample surface, comprising:
A charged-particle-optical arrangement (lenses 14, 18) configured to direct a charged particle beam along a beam path towards the sample surface and to detect charged particles generated in the sample in response to the charged particle beam (by detector 31);
A stage (36) configured to support and move the sample relative to the beam path; and
A controller (processor 32) configured to control the charged particle beam apparatus so that the charged particle beam scans over a preselected location (region of interest) of the sample simultaneously with the stage moving the sample relative to the charged particle arrangement along a route (stage moved during scanning of region of interest, [0052]).
Wherein:
During scanning over the preselected location, a position of the charged particle beam inside the field of view changes to counteract the movement of the stage ([0064]).
Sender does not teach that the charged particle optical arrangement is configured to dynamically correct aberrations in the charged particle beam while scanning the charged particle beam over the preselected locations of the sample, wherein the dynamic correction of the aberrations is varied as a function of the changing position of the charged particle beam within the field of view.
Ando teaches an electron beam inspection system which is configured to dynamically correct aberrations in the beam (dynamic correction of image field aberration, [0046]) wherein the correction is varied as a function of the changing position of the charged particle beam (each shot is dynamically corrected because the distortion changes depending on the deflection position, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to add the aberration corrector of Ando to the system of Sender, in order to ensure proper focusing and positioning of the beam on the substrate and improve the imaging, e.g. in order to determine the presence of defects (Ando, [0075]) in the semiconductor wafer of Sender.
Regarding claim 2, Sender teaches that the charged-particle-optical arrangement comprises a deflector arrangement (scanning deflector 813) configured to scan the charged particle beam over the preselected location of the sample.
Regarding claim 3, Sender teaches that the charged particle optical arrangement comprises a lens arrangement (objective lens 18) configured to control a focus of the charged particle beam.
Regarding claim 4, Ando teaches a lens arrangement (aberration corrector 221) that is controllable to dynamically compensate the aberrations in the charged particle beam, the aberrations comprising off-axis aberrations (field curvature, [0046]).
Regarding claim 5, Ando teaches a charged-particle optical component (220) controllable to dynamically compensate the aberrations in the charged particle beam, the aberrations comprising astigmatic aberrations generated while scanning the charged particle beam over the preselected location of the sample (dynamic astigmatism correction, [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Sender teaches that the charged particle optical arrangement is configured to generate a signal on detection of a charged particle (by imaging detector 31), the signal being used to generate an image.
Regarding claim 7, Sender teaches that the stage is configured to move continuously ([0052]).
Regarding claim 8, Sender teaches that the stage is configured to move continuously for multiple straight sections of the route (scan pattern, fig. 2, [0047]).
Regarding claim 9, Sender teaches that the controller is configured to control the charged particle beam apparatus so that the charged particle beam is incident on any location of the sample (i.e. the beam is incident on the sample at regions of interest 130).
Regarding claim 12, Sender teaches that the scan is over the preselected location of the sample covering part of the area of the field of view (region of interest 130 cover part of FOV, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Sender teaches that the field of view comprises multiple preselected locations (multiple regions of interest in FOV, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Sender teaches that the controller is configured to control the stage to move the sample in a meandering path (fig. 2) relative to the charged particle optical arrangement along a meandering route.
Regarding claim 15, Sender teaches directing a plurality of charged particle beams towards the sample ([0018]).
Sender does not teach that the beams are independently controllable to simultaneously scan over different locations of the sample.
Ando teaches directing a plurality of charged particle beams (Abstract) towards the sample, wherein the charged particle beams are independently controllable (by aberration corrector 221) to simultaneously scan over different locations of the sample ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to have the multiple beams of Sender be independently controllable for scanning over different locations of the sample as taught by Ando, in order to scan a wafer with faster throughput due to the presence of multiple beams.
Regarding claim 17, Sender teaches a method of directing a charged particle beam (42) to preselected locations of a sample surface (wafer 38; regions of interest 130, fig. 2), comprising:
Directing a charged particle beam along a beam path towards a preselected location of a sample, the charged particle beam having a field of view (132, fig. 2) of the sample;
Moving the sample relative to the beam path (scanning with stage 36, [0052]); and
Detecting charged particles emitted from the sample in response to the charged particle beam (with imaging detector 31);
Directing the charged particle beam comprises scanning the charged particle beam over a preselected location (region of interest) of the sample simultaneously with the sample being moved relative to the beam path along a route (stage moved during scanning of region of interest, [0052]); and
During scanning over the preselected location, a position of the charged particle beam inside the field of view changes to counteract the motion of the stage ([0064]).
Sender does not teach dynamically correcting aberrations in the charged particle beam while scanning the charged particle beam over the preselected locations of the sample, wherein the dynamic correction of the aberrations is varied as a function of the changing position of the charged particle beam within the field of view.
Ando teaches an electron beam inspection system which is configured to dynamically correct aberrations in the beam (dynamic correction of image field aberration, [0046]) wherein the correction is varied as a function of the changing position of the charged particle beam (each shot is dynamically corrected because the distortion changes depending on the deflection position, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to add the aberration corrector of Ando to the system of Sender, in order to ensure proper focusing and positioning of the beam on the substrate and accurately determine the presence of defects (Ando, [0075]).
Regarding claim 18, Ando teaches controlling a charged particle optical component (221) to dynamically compensate for astigmatic aberrations generated while scanning over the preselected locations of the sample.
Regarding claim 19, Sender teaches a charged particle beam apparatus (system 10, fig. 1) for directing a charged particle beam to preselected locations of a sample surface (wafer 38; regions of interest 130, fig. 2), comprising:
A charged-particle-optical arrangement (lenses 14, 18) configured to direct a charged particle beam along a beam path towards the sample surface and to detect charged particles generated in the sample in response to the charged particle beam (by detector 31);
A stage (36) configured to support and move the sample relative to the beam path; and
A controller (processor 32) configured to control the charged particle beam apparatus so that the charged particle beam scans over a preselected location (region of interest) of the sample simultaneously with the stage moving the sample relative to the charged particle arrangement along a route (stage moved during scanning of region of interest, [0052]).
Wherein:
During scanning over the preselected location, a position of the charged particle beam inside the field of view changes to counteract the movement of the stage ([0064]).
Sender does not teach that the charged particle optical arrangement is configured to dynamically correct aberrations in the charged particle beam while scanning the charged particle beam over the preselected locations of the sample, wherein the dynamic correction of the aberrations is varied as a function of the changing position of the charged particle beam within the field of view.
Ando teaches an electron beam inspection system which is configured to dynamically correct aberrations in the beam (dynamic correction of image field aberration, [0046]) wherein the correction is varied as a function of the changing position of the charged particle beam (each shot is dynamically corrected because the distortion changes depending on the deflection position, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to add the aberration corrector of Ando to the system of Sender, in order to ensure proper focusing and positioning of the beam on the substrate and accurately determine the presence of defects (Ando, [0075]).
Regarding claim 20, Ando teaches that the arrangement is configured to correct dynamically aberrations in the charged particle beam to counteract stage movement the beam substantially moves through a field of view (correcting focus position, [0046]).
Claims 10, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sender in view of Ando and in further view of Wu (US 9,281,164 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Sender and Ando teach all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Sender teaches that the controller is configured to control the charged particle beam apparatus so that the charged particle beam is incident on any location of the sample so as to generate images (imaging detector 31) of preselected locations of the sample (regions of interest 130).
Sender and Ando do not teach that the process verifies flagged locations as defects.
Wu teaches a charged particle beam system configured to control the charged particle beam apparatus so that the charged particle beam is incident on any location of the sample so as to generate images of preselected locations of the sample in order to verify flagged locations as defects (imaging hot spots 504; defect review, col. 5 lines 16-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Sender to verify the regions of interest as defects as taught by Wu, in order to perform defect review of a semiconductor wafer which is a common use of an SEM known in the art with no unexpected result.
Regarding claim 16, Sender and Ando do not teach that the preselected locations are determined by defect prediction.
Wu teaches scanning a sample over preselected locations that are determined by defect prediction (hot spot areas are those predicted to have a high likelihood of defects, col. 1 lines 11-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Sender to select the regions of interest using defect prediction as taught by Wu, in order to perform efficient defect review of a semiconductor wafer based on preexisting data.
Regarding claim 21, Sender and Ando do not teach that the controller is configured to accept a data file or data signal including the preselected data of the sample and control the stage and charged-particle-optical arrangement based on the data in the data file or data signal.
Wu teaches that the controller is configured to accept a data file or data signal including the preselected data of the sample (obtaining design data including hot spot locations, col. 1 line 16-18) and control the stage and the charged-particle-optical arrangement based on the data in the data file or data signal (i.e. scan the hot spots).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sender to accept a data file including the preselected data of the sample as taught by Wu, in order to scan over preselected locations (regions of interest) based on a previous scan or design data as taught by Wu for purposes of defect detection or hot spot inspection.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sender in view of Ando and in further view of Fang (US 20200027693 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sender and Ando teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Sender and Ando do not teach that the area of the sample covered by the charged particle beam is different for different preselected locations.
Fang teaches a charged particle inspection system which can adjust the area covered by a charged particle beam based on the location (adjusting field of view, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Sender and Ando to allow modification of the field of view as taught by Fang, in order to optimize the imaging for locating defects and increase throughput as described by Fang ([0058]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10 July 2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the combination of Wu and Ando previously used to reject claim 1, it is true that Wu teaches a different scanning paradigm than Ando. However Ando is relied upon only for the teaching that dynamic correction of aberration in a charged particle beam based on the beam deflection is known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add the system of Ando to Wu (or Sender as in the above rejection) for the known purpose of correction of aberration based on a beam deflection, which is applicable to the systems of Wu and Sender (which both have a deflected beam that is focused by an objective lens and are therefore implicitly subject to deflection-based aberration in a similar manner to the system of Ando). This would allow a more effective study of the hot spots of Wu, or the regions of interest of Sender, which would balance the disadvantage of increasing the complexity of the system.
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 DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights