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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to the applicant argument
Response to the applicant argument on 35 USC 103 rejection
As to claim 1, applicant’s representative argues that Ko fails to teach newly amended claim limitation of “prevent transmission of a 0th diffraction order of the scattered radiation towards the sensor”.
For the argued newly amended limitation, the examiner is depending on Mathijssen et al. (US 20160274472) not Ko.
Therefore, the arguments are moot.
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 of this title, 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Mathijssen et al. (US 20160274472 hereinafter Mathi) and in view of Ko et al. (US 20160300767 A1 hereinafter Ko).
As to claim 1, Mathi teaches a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium ([0044]) and comprising a set of instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to execute processes ([0044] and [0158-0159]) of:
causing an optical system to illuminate, using a radiation beam from a radiation source (11 in Fig. 1, [0064]), at least one structure on a substrate (W), the at least one structure comprising first repetitive features (Fig. 8(a) and (b)) at a first pitch in a first layer (L2) and second repetitive features at a second pitch in a second layer (L1), the first repetitive features at least partially overlapping with the second repetitive features ( Fig. 8(b))
causing the optical system to receive radiation scattered by the at least one structure (Fig. 3(b)-3(d)) transmit a portion of the received scattered radiation to a sensor (23), and prevent transmission of radiation of a 0th diffraction order of the scattered radiation towards the sensor ([0059] by aperture 21) the sensor configured to be arranged in an image plane of the optical system or in a plane conjugate with the image plane for detecting the received scattered radiation and configured to detect a characteristic of radiation impinging on the sensor (Fig. 3(a)); and
determining a characteristic of interest of the at least one structure on the substrate based on the radiation transmitted to the sensor (Fig. 6)
wherein the characteristic of interest is determined from the radiation transmitted to the sensor (Fig. 13)
However, Mathi does not explicitly disclose the first pitch being different from the second pitch the radiation transmitted to the sensor comprising interference between radiation scattered by the first repetitive features at the first pitch and radiation scattered by the second repetitive features at the second pitch as a result of the first pitch being different from the second pitch.
Ko teaches the first pitch on the first layer being different from the second pitch on the second layer (abstract) and the radiation transmitted to the sensor comprising interference between radiation scattered by the first repetitive features at the first pitch and radiation scattered by the second repetitive features at the second pitch as a result of the first pitch being different from the second pitch ([0071]) in the same art of endeavor of overlay error detecting device for semiconducting manufacturing (title).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use the program product of Mathi to measure a structure with different pitches and the interference being a result of the first pitch being different from the second pitch for the benefit including accommodating product efficiency by using existing apparatus and method for versatile object and improving accuracy of the overlay measurement.
As to claim 3, Mathi when modified by Ko teaches the computer program product of claim 1.
Mathi further teaches the process of controlling the optical system to prevent transmission of radiation of the 0th diffraction order of the scattered radiation towards the sensor ([0059]) comprises controlling a position of an optical element (13 or 21) that is configured to prevent the transmission of the radiation of the 0th diffraction order of the scattered radiation towards the sensor ([0058 and 0059]).
As to claim 4, Mathi when modified by Ko teaches the computer program product of claim 3.
Mathi further teaches the processor causes the optical element to move from a first position to a second position by means of a translation or a rotation of the optical element ([0061]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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
Regarding claim 5, none of the prior art alone or in combination disclose or teach of the optical system is controlled so that only radiation of the 0th diffraction order of the scattered radiation is reflected towards a second sensor along with other limitations in the claim (especially, while first sensor prevent transmission of radiation of the 0th diffraction order toward the first sensor).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNGHEE Y GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3211. The examiner can normally be reached on T-R, 8:00 am-4:00 pm and F 8 :00 to 2:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached on (571) 272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4211.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNGHEE Y GRAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2886
Prosecution Insights