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 .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 07/05/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2- Examiner has considered Applicants’ proposed amendments and acknowledges they overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection of the pending claims as set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 2/17/2016. The above rejections are therefore withdrawn.
3- Moreover, Applicant’s amendments and their corresponding arguments, with respect to the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over Grimbergen and the prior art used in the previous office action, in view of Hart (US PGPUB 20100022893).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4- 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
5- Claims 1, 7-9, 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimbergen et al. (US Patent No. 6390019) in view of Hart (USPGPUB 20100022893).
As to claims 1, 9, Grimbergen teaches a method of manufacturing a device (Abstract, Figs. 1-8), comprising: forming a first layer on a first substrate; (claim 9) wherein the first layer includes a photoresist layer (Col/ll. 16/9-20 for ex; any of the stack of polysilicon layer, silicon dioxide layer and patterned resist layer are formed on top of substrate 30); the first layer transmitting first light having a first wavelength and blocking second light having a second wavelength that is different from the first wavelength (Col/ll. 12/11-13/12 for ex; when using the polychromatic source as an illumination source, the first layer necessarily allows some wavelength to transmit through its thickness and absorbs or reflects some other wavelengths of the illumination light); irradiating the first layer with the first light; sensing first reflected light reflected from a bottom surface of the first layer; irradiating the first layer with the second light; sensing second reflected light reflected from an upper surface of the first layer; obtaining first data of the bottom surface of the first layer from the first reflected light; obtaining second data of the upper surface of the first layer from the second reflected light (Col/ll. 12/11-13/12 for ex); obtaining skew data identifying a thickness of the first layer using the first data and the second data (Col/ll. 12/11-30; 13/13-26; 14/45-15/29 for ex); and forming one or more semiconductor devices with a second substrate including forming at least one layer on the second substrate using process conditions determined from the skew data (Col/ll. 14/9-29, 45-61; 15/8-29; 20/40-21/26 for ex.)
Grimbergen does not teach expressly the first data identifying a first height of the bottom surface of the first layer from the first reflected light; the second data identifying a second height of the upper surface of the first layer from the second reflected light.
However, and in a similar field of endeavor, Hart teaches a method and apparatus (Abstract, Figs. 1-15), wherein an illumination light with two wavelengths is used to measure the locations of two surfaces of a target substrate and calculate the thickness thereof (¶96, 149 for ex.). One PHOSITA would find it obvious to use the Grimbergen’s system and method of multi wavelengths illumination according to Hart’s suggestions, as a confirmation measuring method to approve and/or calibrate the measurements (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the method of Grimbergen in view of Hart’s suggestions so that the first data identifying a first height of the bottom surface of the first layer from the first reflected light; the second data identifying a second height of the upper surface of the first layer from the second reflected light, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the thickness data calculated.
As to claim 19, Grimbergen teaches a method for measuring a thickness (Abstract, Figs. 1-8) comprising: forming a pattern structure on a sample substrate, the pattern structure having varying heights of an upper surface depending on horizontal positions thereof (Col/ll. 16/9-13’ etched pattern necessarily presents varying heights across a horizontal direction); forming a reflective layer conformally on an upper surface of the pattern structure, wherein the reflective layer does not transmit first light having a first wavelength; forming a photoresist layer on the reflective layer to be in contact with the reflective layer, the photoresist layer configured to transmit the first light and block a second light having a second wavelength different from the first wavelength; irradiating the photoresist layer with the first light; obtaining first data representing a position of a first height of a bottom surface of the photoresist layer from first reflected light, wherein the first reflected light is produced by the first light reflected from an upper surface of the reflective layer; irradiating the photoresist layer with the second light; obtaining second data representing a second height position of an upper surface of the photoresist layer from second reflected light, wherein the second reflected light is produced by the second light reflected from an upper surface of the photoresist layer; and obtaining skew data representing a thickness of the photoresist layer using the first data and the second data (see rejection of claims 1, 9, with the pattern layer, the reflective layer and the photoresist layer as any of the layers of the stack of polysilicon layer, silicon dioxide layer and patterned resist layer formed on top of substrate 30).
Grimbergen does not teach expressly wherein forming the reflective layer is conformally on an upper surface of the pattern structure; forming the photoresist layer on the reflective layer, the photoresist layer contacting the reflective layer.
However, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the reflective layer on top of the etched pattern structure for tracking the etching process, and the photoresist layer on top of the reflective layer for protection purposes (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the method of Grimbergen in view of its different embodiments, so that forming the reflective layer is conformally on an upper surface of the pattern structure; forming the photoresist layer on the reflective layer, the photoresist layer contacting the reflective layer, with the advantage of effectively forming a lithographically etched semiconductor device.
Grimbergen still is silent to wherein the first data identifying a first height of the bottom surface of the first layer from the first reflected light; the second data identifying a second height of the upper surface of the first layer from the second reflected light.
However, and in a similar field of endeavor, Hart teaches a method and apparatus (Abstract, Figs. 1-15), wherein an illumination light with two wavelengths is used to measure the locations of two surfaces of a target substrate and calculate the thickness thereof (¶96, 149 for ex.). One PHOSITA would find it obvious to use the Grimbergen’s system and method of multi wavelengths illumination according to Hart’s suggestions, as a confirmation measuring method to approve and/or calibrate the measurements (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the method of Grimbergen in view of Hart’s suggestions so that the first data identifying a first height of the bottom surface of the first layer from the first reflected light; the second data identifying a second height of the upper surface of the first layer from the second reflected light, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the thickness data calculated.
Moreover, Grimbergen suggests:
(claim 7) wherein the first layer is irradiated by each of the first light and the second light in a scanning manner so as to irradiate an entire upper surface of the first layer (Col/ll. 10/48-59, 12/51-60).
(claim 8) wherein the first wavelength is in a range of 450nm to 1050 nm, and the second wavelength is in a range of 100 nm to 400nm (Col/ll. 12/16-20; the light source has a range of 200-600 nm which overlaps with the claimed ranges and obviates them since In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
6- Claims 5-6, 10-12, 15-18, 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimbergen and Hart in view of Matsumoto (US PGPUB 2008/0165368)
As to claims 12, 5-6, 10-11, 15-18, Grimbergen teaches a method for measuring a thickness (Abstract, Figs. 1-8) comprising: forming a pattern structure on a sample substrate; forming a reflective layer, wherein the reflective layer does not transmit first light having a first wavelength; forming a photoresist layer on the reflective layer, the photoresist layer in contact with the reflective layer, configured to transmit the first light, and block a second light having a second wavelength different from the first wavelength; irradiating the photoresist layer with the first light that passes into the photoresist layer; sensing first reflected light reflected from an upper surface of the reflective layer; irradiating the photoresist layer with the second light onto the photoresist layer; sensing second reflected light reflected from an upper surface of the photoresist layer; obtaining first data from the first reflected light representing a first height of a bottom surface of the photoresist layer for each horizontal position of a plurality of horizontal positions; obtaining second data from the second reflected light representing a second height of the upper surface of the photoresist layer for each horizontal position of the plurality of horizontal positions from the second reflected light; and, obtaining skew data representing identifying a thickness of the photoresist layer for each horizontal position of the plurality of horizontal positions using the first height and the second height (see rejection of claims 1/9, with the pattern layer, the reflective layer and the photoresist layer as any of the layers of the stack of polysilicon layer, silicon dioxide layer and patterned resist layer formed on top of substrate 30); (claim 15) wherein the photo resist layer is irradiated by each of the first and second lights in a scanning manner so as to irradiate an entire upper surface of the photoresist layer (Col/ll. 10/48-59, 12/51-60); (claim 16) wherein a first wavelength of the first light is in a range of 450 nm to 1050 nm, and a second wavelength of the second light is in a range of 100 nm to 400 nm (Col/ll. 12/16-20; the light source has a range of 200-600 nm which overlaps with the claimed ranges and obviates them since In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); (claim 17) wherein a height of an upper surface of the pattern structure varies depending on horizontal positions thereof (Col/ll. 16/9-13; etched pattern necessarily presents varying heights across a horizontal direction); (claim 18) wherein the reflective layer includes polysilicon or a metal (Col/ll. 16/9-20 for ex; any of the stack of polysilicon layer, silicon dioxide layer and patterned resist layer are formed on top of substrate 30).
Grimbergen does not teach expressly forming the reflective layer conformally on the upper surface of the pattern structure; forming the photoresist layer on the reflective layer, the photoresist layer contacting the reflective layer; obtaining the first data representing the first positional coordinate in a vertical direction of a bottom surface of the photoresist layer is for each horizontal position of a plurality of horizontal positions from the first reflected light; obtaining the second data representing the second positional coordinate in the vertical direction of the upper surface of the photoresist layer is for each of the horizontal positions from the second reflected light; (claim 5) wherein the first data is a map representing a positional coordinate in the vertical direction of the bottom surface of the first layer at each horizontal position of a plurality of horizontal positions, and the second data is a map representing a positional coordinate in the vertical direction of the upper surface of the first layer at each of the horizontal positions; (claim 6) wherein the skew data is a map representing the thickness of the first layer at each of the horizontal positions; (claim 10) wherein [[a]] a pattern structure is disposed on the first substrate below the first layer, a reflective layer covers an upper surface of the pattern structure, and the first layer contacts an upper surface of the reflective layer; (claim 11) wherein the reflective layer includes a material in which the first light is reflected from the upper surface of the reflective layer and is not transmitted into the reflective layer; (claim 17) the reflective layer is formed to have a uniform thickness on the upper surface of the pattern structure.
However, one PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the reflective layer, with a uniform surface, on top of the etched pattern structure for tracking the etching process using specular optical reflection, and the photoresist layer on top of the reflective layer for protection purposes (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D); with the materials and illumination wavelengths chosen to allow the appropriate reflections and transmissions, according to Fresnel’s laws.
Moreover, Matsumoto teaches, in a similar field of endeavor, a position scanning and detection and exposure apparatus (Abstract; ¶ 11-13, Figs. 1-19) with the scanner of the reflections from substrate 9 with a patterned layer (¶ 6, 51, 54 for ex.), and a photoresist layer on top thereof (¶ 54) acquires the reflected signals for multiple horizontal positions, maps, as shown in Fig. 2, for a full surface characterization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the method of Grimbergen in view of its different embodiments, and of Matsumoto’s suggestions so that forming the reflective layer conformally on the upper surface of the pattern structure; forming the photoresist layer on the reflective layer, the photoresist layer contacting the reflective layer; obtaining the first data representing the first positional coordinate in a vertical direction of a bottom surface of the photoresist layer is for each horizontal position of a plurality of horizontal positions from the first reflected light; obtaining the second data representing the second positional coordinate in the vertical direction of the upper surface of the photoresist layer is for each of the horizontal positions from the second reflected light; wherein the first data is a map representing a positional coordinate in the vertical direction of the bottom surface of the first layer at each horizontal position of a plurality of horizontal positions, and the second data is a map representing a positional coordinate in the vertical direction of the upper surface of the first layer at each of the horizontal positions; wherein the skew data is a map representing the thickness of the first layer at each of the horizontal positions; wherein [[a]] a pattern structure is disposed on the first substrate below the first layer, a reflective layer covers an upper surface of the pattern structure, and the first layer contacts an upper surface of the reflective layer; wherein the reflective layer includes a material in which the first light is reflected from the upper surface of the reflective layer and is not transmitted into the reflective layer; the reflective layer is formed to have a uniform thickness on the upper surface of the pattern structure, with the advantage of effectively and thoroughly characterizing the pattern layer of the semiconductor device.
The combination of Grimbergen and Matsumoto is still silent to wherein the first data identifying a first height of the bottom surface of the first layer from the first reflected light; the second data identifying a second height of the upper surface of the first layer from the second reflected light.
However, and in a similar field of endeavor, Hart teaches a method and apparatus (Abstract, Figs. 1-15), wherein an illumination light with two wavelengths is used to measure the locations of two surfaces of a target substrate and calculate the thickness thereof (¶96, 149 for ex.). One PHOSITA would find it obvious to use the Grimbergen’s system and method of multi wavelengths illumination according to Hart’s suggestions, as a confirmation measuring method to approve and/or calibrate the measurements (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the method of Grimbergen in view of Hart’s suggestions so that the first data identifying a first height of the bottom surface of the first layer from the first reflected light; the second data identifying a second height of the upper surface of the first layer from the second reflected light, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the thickness data calculated.
As to claim 20, the combination of Grimbergen and Hart teaches method of claim 19.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein the skew data is a map identifying the thickness of the photoresist layer at each horizontal position of a plurality of horizontal positions.
However, Matsumoto teaches, in a similar field of endeavor, a position scanning and detection and exposure apparatus (Abstract; ¶ 11-13, Figs. 1-19) with the scanner of the reflections from substrate 9 with a patterned layer (¶ 6, 51, 54 for ex.), and a photoresist layer on top thereof (¶ 54) acquires the reflected signals for multiple horizontal positions, maps, as shown in Fig. 2, for a full surface characterization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the method of Grimbergen and Hart in view of its different embodiments, and of Matsumoto’s suggestions so that the skew data is a map identifying the thickness of the photoresist layer at each horizontal position of a plurality of horizontal positions, with the advantage of effectively and thoroughly characterizing the pattern layer of the semiconductor device.
7- Claims 2-4 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimbergen and Hart in view of Yla et al. (US PGPUB 20240219899)
As to claims 2-4, the combination of Grimbergen and Hart teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not teach expressly wherein obtaining the first data comprises: obtaining first preliminary data that is raw data corresponding to the first height of the bottom surface of the first layer from the first reflected light; and, removing noise data from the first preliminary data to obtain the first data; (claim 3) wherein obtaining the first data from the first preliminary data uses a Zernike polynomial fitting model; (claim 4) wherein obtaining the second data comprises: obtaining second preliminary data corresponding to the second height of the upper surface of the first layer from the second reflected light; and removing noise data from the second preliminary data to obtain the second data.
However, and in a similar field of endeavor, Yla teaches apparatus and method for monitoring and controlling semiconductor manufacturing processes (Abstract, Figs. 1-4) wherein wafer measurement data calculated using Zernike polynomials are used for calibration purposes, adjusting and correcting errors, in manufacturing processes (Abstract, ¶ 7-17, 60-66, 71-77, 80 for ex.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the method of Grimbergen and Hart in view of its different embodiments, and of Yla’s suggestions so that obtaining the first data comprises: obtaining first preliminary data that is raw data corresponding to the first height of the bottom surface of the first layer from the first reflected light; and, removing noise data from the first preliminary data to obtain the first data; wherein obtaining the first data from the first preliminary data uses a Zernike polynomial fitting model; wherein obtaining the second data comprises: obtaining second preliminary data corresponding to the second height of the upper surface of the first layer from the second reflected light; and removing noise data from the second preliminary data to obtain the second data, with the advantage, taught by Yla, of effectively monitoring, calibrating and adjusting the semiconductor manufacturing process (¶ 80).
8- Claims 13-14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimbergen, Hart and Matsumoto in view of Yla
As to claims 13-14, the combination of Grimbergen, Hart and Matsumoto teaches the method of claim 12.
The combination does not teach expressly (claim 13) wherein obtaining the first data comprises: obtaining raw data representing the first height of the bottom surface of the photoresist layer from the first reflected light; and removing noise data from the raw data to obtain the first data; (claim 14) wherein obtaining the second data comprises: obtaining raw data representing the second height of the upper surface of the photoresist layer from the second reflected light; and removing noise data from the raw data to obtain the second data.
However, and in a similar field of endeavor, Yla teaches apparatus and method for monitoring and controlling semiconductor manufacturing processes (Abstract, Figs. 1-4) wherein wafer measurement data calculated using Zernike polynomials are used for calibration purposes, adjusting and correcting errors, in manufacturing processes (Abstract, ¶ 7-17, 60-66, 71-77, 80 for ex.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the method of Grimbergen, Hart and Matsumoto, according to Yla’s suggestions so that wherein obtaining the first data comprises: obtaining raw data representing the first height of the bottom surface of the photoresist layer from the first reflected light; and removing noise data from the raw data to obtain the first data; (claim 14) wherein obtaining the second data comprises: obtaining raw data representing the second height of the upper surface of the photoresist layer from the second reflected light; and removing noise data from the raw data to obtain the second data, with the advantage, taught by Yla, of effectively monitoring, calibrating and adjusting the semiconductor manufacturing process (¶ 80).
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).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights