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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 05/25/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 02/26/24 & 04/25/25 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a light source unit in claim 1 (100 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0037]: e.g., the light source unit 100 may be formed as a halogen lamp, a xenon lamp, a supercontinuum laser, a light emitting diode, a laser inducted lamp, etc.,).
a lens unit in claim 1 (200 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0043]: e.g., the lens unit 200 may have an objective lens 210 that concentrates the illumination at a measurement position of any one point in the overlay measurement target T and a lens focus actuator 220).
a detection unit in claim 1 (300 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0051]: e.g., The detection unit 300 may include an optical detector which may measure the beam reflected on the overlay measurement target T, and the optical detector may include, for example, a charge-coupled device (CCD) converting light into a charge to extract the image).
a control unit in claims 1-7 (400 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0053]: e.g., the control unit 400 may control directing of the illumination irradiated by the light source unit 100, and control the lens unit 200 to concentrate the illumination at the overlay measurement target T and collect the reflected beam, and control the detection unit 300 to acquire the focus image measured through the reflected beam collected by the lens unit 200).
a storage unit in claim 4 (440 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0061]: e.g., the storage unit 440 may store the first sample image and the second sample image of the overlay measurement target T acquired by the detection unit 300).
a normalization processing unit in claim 4 (450 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0064]: e.g., The normalization processing unit 450 may normalize the sample images by calculating a mean and a standard deviation so as to calculate noise by comparing respective sample images).
an image comparison unit in claim 4 (460 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0070]: e.g., the image comparison unit 460 is a program which comparers sample images measured at the same measurement position).
a correction image calculation unit in claim 4 (470 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0072]: e.g., the correction image calculation unit 470 is a program that calculates the noise by comparing the same images).
a stage operation unit in claim 6 (430 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0118]: e.g., the stage operation unit 430 moves by finding the first measurement position and the second measurement position after the stage 500 rotates at 180 degrees).
a scale processing unit in claim 7 (480 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0087]: e.g., the scale processing unit 480 may correct pixel scales of the correction image and the measurement image to be the same so that the correction image may be applied to the measurement image).
an image correction unit in claim 7 (490 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0089]: e.g., The image correction unit 490 may correct the measurement image by combining or deleting the correction scale image in units of pixels in the measurement image).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al (US Patent No. 11,781,996 hereinafter “Kang”) in view of Ghinovker (US Patent No. 8,741,668).
Regarding claim 1; Kang discloses an overlay measurement apparatus (100 @ figure 1) comprising:
a light source unit (110 @ figure 1) configured to direct an illumination to an overlay measurement target (OM1, OM2) formed in a wafer (140 @ figure 1 and col.9 lines 20-24: e.g., the overlay measuring device 100 in one embodiment measures an error between a first overlay mark OM1 and a second overlay mark OM2 respectively formed in different layers that are formed at a wafer 140);
a lens unit (125, 120 @ figure 1) having an objective lens (120 @ figure 1) condensing the illumination on a measurement position of any one point in the overlay measurement target and a lens focus actuator (125 @ figure 1) controlling a distance between the objective lens and the overlay measurement target (col.6 lines 16-22: e.g., the lens focus actuator 125 adjusts a distance between the objective lens 120 and a wafer 40 such that a focus surface may be placed at the first overlay mark OM1 or the second overlay mark OM2);
a detection unit (131, 133 @ figure 1) acquiring a focus image at the measurement position through a beam reflected on the measurement position (col.6 lines 35-59: e.g., The auto focus sensor obtains a signal based on the position of a focus by using a reflected light reflected from the measurement area of a wafer, and to adjust the position of the focus, the actuator adjusting a distance between the measure area of the wafer and the objective lens is adjusted);
a stage (190 @ figure 1) on which the wafer (140 @ figure 1) is seated; and
a control unit (processor 170 @ figure 1) controlling the lens unit (125, 120 @ figure 1) to acquire the overlay measurement target (140 @ figure 1), processing a first sample image (col.5 lines 31-32: e.g., The second detector 133 obtains the image of the first overlay mark OM1) detected by the detection unit (31, 33 @ figure 1) for the overlay measurement target and a second sample image (col.5 lines 35-36: e.g., The first detector 131 may obtain the image of the second overlay mark OM2) detected by the detection unit (31, 33 @ figure 1), and
the control unit (processor 170 @ figure 1) for calculating a difference between the processed images to produce a correction image for correcting an image for measuring overlay (col.7 lines 35-46: e.g., the processor 170 may perform/execute an algorithm for correcting a difference between the first wafer and the second wafer, based on the above-described information).
Kang discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a second sample image rotated at 180 degrees based on the first sample image for the overlay measurement target. However, Ghinovker teaches that it is known in the art to provide a second sample image (104 @ figure 1A) rotated at 180 degrees based on the first sample image (102 @ figure 1A) for the overlay measurement target (col.3 line 64 to col.4 line 13: e.g., both the first structure 102 and the second structure 104 are designed such that each is invariant to a 180-degree rotation about a common center of symmetry 110. For example, as shown in FIG. 1A, upon rotating the first structure about the common center of symmetry 110 by 180 degrees the top view image of the first structure 102 remains substantially similar to the top view image of the first structure 102 prior to rotation. Similarly, upon rotating the second structure 104 about the common center of symmetry 110 by 180 degrees the top view image of the second structure 104 remains substantially similar to the top view image of the second structure 104 prior to rotation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine an overlay measurement apparatus of Kang with a second sample image rotated at 180 degrees based on the first sample image for the overlay measurement target as taught by Ghinovker for the purpose of multidirectional thin overlay mark allowing for more efficient use of semiconductor layer surface area.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Ghinovker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pandey et al (US 2019/0384184 hereinafter “Pandey”).
Regarding claim 2; Kang in view of Ghinovker combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the control unit acquires first image information including pixel information for the first sample image, and acquires a first normalization image by normalizing respective pixels for the first sample image for each pixel, and acquires second image information including pixel information for the second sample image, and acquires a second normalization image by normalizing respective pixels for the second sample image for each pixel. However, Pandey teaches that it is known in the art to provide the control unit (364 @ figure 6) acquires first image information (paragraph [0048]: e.g., the detection optical sensor is in the first acquisition phase for acquiring the first image) including pixel information for the first sample image (paragraph [0126]: e.g., FIG. 5a represents the configuration capturing the first measurement image), and acquires a first normalization image (figures 6-7 and paragraph [0143]: e.g., The first and second measurement images are then normalised 710. As mentioned above, the processing unit, COMP IM, 136 may be configured to process the first and second measurement images captured by the detection optical sensor 304 based on first and second reference images captured by the reference optical sensor 350. The processing unit, COMP IM, 136 may comprise a normalisation unit configured to normalise the first and second images accordingly is considered to be “first normalise image and second normalise image”) by normalizing respective pixels for the first sample image for each pixel (paragraph [0127]: e.g., a random variation in the number of collected photons in each pixel of an image since this scales linearly with acquisition time), and acquires second image information (paragraph [0048]: e.g., the detection optical sensor is in the second acquisition phase for acquiring the second image) including pixel information for the second sample image (paragraph [0126]: e.g., FIG. 5b represents the configuration capturing the second measurement image), and acquires a second normalization image (figures 6-7 and paragraph [0143]: e.g., The processing unit, COMP IM, 136 may comprise a normalisation unit configured to normalise the first and second images accordingly is considered to be “first normalise image and second normalise image” ) by normalizing respective pixels for the second sample image for each pixel (paragraph [0127]: e.g., a random variation in the number of collected photons in each pixel of an image since this scales linearly with acquisition time). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine an overlay measurement apparatus of Kang with limitation above as taught by Pandey for the purpose of using computational algorithms to improve images recorded by the simplified optical system of the scatterometer and/or the metrology tool.
Regarding claim 3; Kang in view of Ghinovker combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the control unit calculates a pixel-specific difference between the first normalization image acquired by processing the first sample image and the second normalization image acquired by processing the second sample image to produce the correction image. However, Pandey teaches that it is known in the art to provide the control unit (364 @ figure 6) calculates a pixel-specific (paragraph [0127]: e.g., a random variation in the number of collected photons in each pixel of an image since this scales linearly with acquisition time. In the end this results in a random error in the measured intensity difference between the −1st and +1st orders which results in noise in measurement of the parameter of the structure 206, such as overlay… paragraph [0141]: e.g., The selection may be of the full frame or a specific set of pixels. This region is called ROI. The mean reference values are calculated as the mean of the pixel values of the selected pixels and is referred as Iμref+1 and Iμref−1. The normalized intensities used for the overlay calculations are calculated as I.+1_norm = I+1/Iμ_ref_+1 and I−1_norm = I−1/Iμ_ref_−1. Where the / sign refers to a division of the all the pixel values of the +1 and −1 order image with the mean reference value) difference between the first normalization image acquired by processing the first sample image and the second normalization image acquired by processing the second sample image (figures 6-7 and paragraph [0143]: e.g., The first and second measurement images are then normalised 710. As mentioned above, the processing unit, COMP IM, 136 may be configured to process the first and second measurement images captured by the detection optical sensor 304 based on first and second reference images captured by the reference optical sensor 350. The processing unit, COMP IM, 136 may comprise a normalisation unit configured to normalise the first and second images accordingly “first normalise image and second normalise image”) to produce the correction image (paragraph [0129]: e.g., The reference image may be used to normalise the first and second measurement images and thereby mitigate or remove errors “correction image” associated with acquisition time jitter and/or intensity of radiation source). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine an overlay measurement apparatus of Kang with limitation above as taught by Pandey for the purpose of using computational algorithms to improve images recorded by the simplified optical system of the scatterometer and/or the metrology tool.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Ghinovker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Manassen et al (US 2022/0317577 hereinafter “Manassen”).
Regarding claim 6; Kang in view of Ghinovker combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the control unit includes a stage operation unit controlling the stage to be rotated, and rotates the stage at 180 degrees to detect the second sample image. However, Manassen teaches that it is known in the art to provide the control unit (24 @ figure 1) includes a stage operation unit (26 @ figure 1) controlling the stage to be rotated, and rotates the stage at 180 degrees to detect the second sample image (figures 1 and 7 and paragraph [0093]: e.g., CoS is measured with respect to focus in two orientations of wafer 12, wherein for the second orientation the wafer is rotated by 180° around the Z-axis. Denoting CoS with respect to focus as CoS.sub.0(Z) for the first orientation (arbitrarily set as 0° orientation), and as CoS.sub.180(Z) for the second orientation, a tool-induced shift (TIS) of CoS, CoS_TIS, is computed by controller 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine an overlay measurement apparatus of Kang with limitation above as taught by Manassen for the purpose of improving the quality of the overlay measurements in the during apparatus and methods for semiconductor circuit metrology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 7 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.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious an overlay measurement apparatus comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the control unit includes a storage unit storing the first sample image and the second sample image of the overlay measurement target, a normalization processing unit normalizing respective pixels forming the first sample image for each pixel to acquire the first normalization image, and normalizing respective pixels forming the second sample image for each pixel to acquire the second normalization image, an image comparison unit rotating any one of the first normalization image or the second normalization image at 180 degrees, and comparing the first normalization image and the second normalization image, and a correction image calculation unit calculating a difference of the respective pixels forming the first normalization image and the second normalization image, and calculating the difference as the correction image in set forth of claim 4.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious an overlay measurement apparatus comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the control unit controls a 1-1st to 1-nth sample images to be detected at first to nth measurement positions, respectively among the overlay measurement targets formed at the plurality of measurement positions, and normalizes respective pixels for the 1-1st to 1-nth sample images for each pixel to acquire 1-1st to 1-nth normalization images, controls a 2-1st to 2-nth sample images to be detected at the first to nth measurement positions, respectively, and normalizes respective pixels for the 2-1st to 2- nth sample images for each pixel to acquire 2-1st to 2-nth normalization images, and calculates differences of respective pixels corresponding to each other in respective pixels forming the 1-nth normalization image and respective pixels forming the 2-nth normalization image, and calculates a mean for n differences and stores the calculated mean as the correction image in set forth of claim 5.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious an overlay measurement apparatus comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the control unit includes a scale processing unit acquiring a correction scale image by correcting a scale of the correction image so as to be the same as the scale of the measurement image detected by the detection unit in order to measure alignment of a first overlay key and a second overlay key formed in the wafer, and an image correction unit correcting the measurement image by combining or deleting the correction scale image in units of pixels in the measurement image in set forth of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Park et al (US 2022/0326008) discloses an overlay measurement device measures an error between a first overlay mark and a second overlay mark respectively formed on different layers formed on a wafer.
2) Gready et al (US 2019/0026885) discloses the controller may direct the detector to generate reference images of an overlay target on the sample at multiple object planes including at least a first reference image at a first sample layer and a second reference image at a second sample layer. The controller may further determine a reference overlay between the first layer and the second layer at the overlay target based on the first reference image and the second reference image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
March 7, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877