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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, see Page 10, Section II. Objections to the Disclosure, filed 08/24/2026, with respect to specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to specification in Office Action of 06/16/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see Page 10, Section II, filed 08/24/2026, with respect to Figure 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to of 06/16/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see Page 11, Section IV. Objections to the Claims, filed 08/24/2026, with respect to claims 16-18, 20-21 and 24-28 have been fully considered and are acknowledged. Therefore, the objection to said claims in Office Action of 06/16/2026 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of objection is made below in view of claims 16-18, 24 and 28-29.
Applicant’s amendments, see Page 11, Section V. Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, filed 08/24/2026, with respect to claim 28 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of said claim in Office Action of 06/16/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, see Pages 11-14, Section VI. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102, filed 08/24/2026, with respect to claims 16-17 and 28-29 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of said claims in Office Action of 06/16/2026 is maintained.
Applicant’s amendments, see Pages 14-15, Section VII. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, filed 08/24/2026, with respect to claims 18-20 and 27 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of said claims in Office Action of 06/16/2026 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1: Applicant submits that claim 16 requires (1) a first measurement at a first orientation, followed by (2) rotating the target between the first orientation and a second orientation about a direction orthogonal to the substrate plane by a non-orthogonal angle, followed by (3) a second measurement at the second orientation that differs from the first orientation. Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has not shown that Quintanilha discloses each and every element of claim 16 as arranged therein.
Response to Argument 1: Examiner respectfully submits that Quintanilha anticipates each and every element of amended claim 16. Quintanilha discloses (1) a first measurement at a first orientation (Figure 7; [0139] “By rotating the target through 180°, signals SF(+1) and SF(−1) can be obtained”, wherein signal “SF(+1)” is interpreted as a first measurement before rotation), followed by (2) rotating the target (Figure 7; [103] “rotation Rz corresponds directly to a desired azimuthal angle φ”) between the first orientation and a second orientation ([0139] “The structure may be measured in one orientation only, or it may be measured in orientations rotated (Rz) by 180°”, wherein an orientation before rotation is interpreted as a first orientation and an orientation after rotation is interpreted as a second orientation) about a direction orthogonal to the substrate plane (Figure 7; [0101] “direction N normal to the substrate”) by a non-orthogonal angle ([0139] “rotated (Rz) by 180°”), followed by (3) a second measurement at the second orientation (Figure 7; [0139] “By rotating the target through 180°, signals SF(+1) and SF(−1) can be obtained”, wherein signal “SF(-1)” is interpreted as a second measurement after rotation) that differs from the first orientation (after rotation through 180°, the final orientation will be different from the initial orientation).
Argument 2: Applicant submits that the same disclosure of “a desired combination of grazing incidence angle α and azimuthal angle φ” cannot properly serve as both the claimed first orientation and the claimed second orientation. The Office has mapped the same passage to two distinct claim limitations, but a single static configuration does not disclose two different orientations separated by a rotating step. Where Quintanilha describes capturing multiple spectra, it does so “while setting the grazing angle of incidence α to various different values” — that is, by varying the polar angle of incidence, not by rotating the target about the substrate normal. Quintanilha, paragraph 0083. Accordingly, the Office has not shown that Quintanilha discloses the claimed sequence of making a measurement, rotating the target by a non-orthogonal angle about a direction orthogonal to the substrate plane, and making a further measurement.
Response to Argument 2: Examiner respectfully submits that Quintanilha discloses the claimed sequence of making a measurement (Figure 7; [0139] “By rotating the target through 180°, signals SF(+1) and SF(−1) can be obtained”, wherein signal “SF(+1)” is interpreted as a first measurement), rotating the target (Figure 7; [103] “rotation Rz corresponds directly to a desired azimuthal angle φ”) by a non-orthogonal angle ([0139] “rotated (Rz) by 180°”) about a direction orthogonal to the substrate plane (Figure 7; [0101] “direction N normal to the substrate”), and making a further measurement (Figure 7; [0139] “By rotating the target through 180°, signals SF(+1) and SF(−1) can be obtained”, wherein signal “SF(-1)” is interpreted as a second measurement).
Argument 3: Applicant submits that the mere capability of an actuator to rotate a substrate does not constitute a disclosure of the claimed method steps. Under MPEP § 2131, every element must be found in the reference, and the elements must be arranged as required by the claim. Quintanilha does not disclose the steps of making a first measurement, rotating the target between the first orientation and the second orientation by a non-orthogonal angle about the substrate normal, and making a second measurement. Accordingly, Applicant submits that Quintanilha does not anticipate claim 16.
Response to Argument 3: Examiner respectfully submits that Quintanilha does disclose the steps of making a first measurement (Figure 7; [0139] “By rotating the target through 180°, signals SF(+1) and SF(−1) can be obtained”, wherein signal “SF(+1)” is interpreted as a first measurement), rotating the target (Figure 7; [103] “rotation Rz corresponds directly to a desired azimuthal angle φ”) between the first orientation and the second orientation ([0139] “The structure may be measured in one orientation only, or it may be measured in orientations rotated (Rz) by 180°”, wherein an orientation before rotation is interpreted as a first orientation and an orientation after rotation is interpreted as a second orientation) by a non-orthogonal angle ([0139] “rotated (Rz) by 180°”) about the substrate normal (Figure 7; [0101] “direction N normal to the substrate”), and making a second measurement (Figure 7; [0139] “By rotating the target through 180°, signals SF(+1) and SF(−1) can be obtained”, wherein signal “SF(-1)” is interpreted as a second measurement).
Claim Objections
Claims 16-18, 24 and 28-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 16, lines 4-5 will be read as “rotating the target between the first orientation and a second orientation [[with respect to a direction orthogonal to the substrate plane with a non-orthogonal angle; and”
In Claim 17, the only sentence therein will be read as “The method of claim 16, wherein the target is a two-dimensional target with periodicities in two orthogonal directions [[on the substrate plane.”
In Claim 18, the only sentence therein will be read as “The method of claim 17, wherein the periodicities in two directions [[are larger than or about half of the illumination wavelength.”
In Claim 24, lines 2-3 will be read as “determining the second orientation based on a trial-and-error optimization of the second spectrum.”
In Claim 28, lines 4-5 will be read as “rotating the target between the first orientation and a second orientation [[with respect to a direction orthogonal to the substrate plane with a non-orthogonal angle; and”
In Claim 29, lines 4-5 will be read as “rotating the target between the first orientation and a second orientation [[with respect to a direction orthogonal to the substrate plane with a non-orthogonal angle; and”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quintanilha et al. (US 2017/0184981 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 16, Quintanilha discloses a method to measure a target (Figure 7: T is a target; [0100]) on a substrate plane (Figure 7: W is a substrate; [0118] “metrology target T is provided on substrate W”) with an illumination (Figure 7: element 732 is an illumination system; [0099]) of a metrology tool (Figure 7: element 700 is an apparatus; [0103]), comprising:
making a first measurement in a first orientation (Figure 7; [0139] “By rotating the target through 180°, signals SF(+1) and SF(−1) can be obtained”, wherein signal “SF(+1)” is interpreted as a first measurement before rotation; [0150] “measuring targets on a substrate and/or processing measurements”);
rotating (Figure 7; [103] “rotation Rz corresponds directly to a desired azimuthal angle φ”; [0103] “actuators may be provided for rotation”) the target (Figure 7: T is a target; [0100]) between the first orientation and a second orientation ([0139] “The structure may be measured in one orientation only, or it may be measured in orientations rotated (Rz) by 180°”, wherein an orientation before rotation is interpreted as a first orientation and an orientation after rotation is interpreted as a second orientation) with respect to a direction orthogonal to the substrate plane (Figure 7; [0101] “direction N normal to the substrate”) with a non-orthogonal angle ([0139] “rotated (Rz) by 180°”); and
making a second measurement in the second orientation (Figure 7; [0139] “By rotating the target through 180°, signals SF(+1) and SF(−1) can be obtained”, wherein signal “SF(-1)” is interpreted as a second measurement after rotation; [0150] “measuring targets on a substrate and/or processing measurements”).
Regarding Claim 17, Quintanilha discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the target (Figure 7: T is a target; [0100]) is a two-dimensional target ([0118] “The target may be a 2-D grating”) with periodicities in two orthogonal directions ([0118] “a 2-D grating, which is printed such that after development, the grating is formed of solid resist pillars or vias in the resist”, wherein “a 2-D grating” is produced by orthogonally overlaying two one-dimensional (1-D) structures, as known in the art) on the substrate plane (Figure 7: W is a substrate; [0118] “metrology target T is provided on substrate W”).
Regarding independent Claim 28, Quintanilha discloses a computer program comprising non-transitory computer readable instructions operable by a processor ([0150] “an embodiment may include a computer program containing one or more sequences of machine-readable instructions describing a methods of, measuring targets on a substrate and/or processing measurements”) to perform operations comprising:
making a first measurement in a first orientation (Figure 7; [0139] “By rotating the target through 180°, signals SF(+1) and SF(−1) can be obtained”, wherein signal “SF(+1)” is interpreted as a first measurement before rotation; [0150] “measuring targets on a substrate and/or processing measurements”);
rotating (Figure 7; [103] “rotation Rz corresponds directly to a desired azimuthal angle φ”; [0103] “actuators may be provided for rotation”) the target (Figure 7: T is a target; [0100]) between the first orientation and a second orientation ([0139] “The structure may be measured in one orientation only, or it may be measured in orientations rotated (Rz) by 180°”, wherein an orientation before rotation is interpreted as a first orientation and an orientation after rotation is interpreted as a second orientation) with respect to a direction orthogonal to the substrate plane (Figure 7; [0101] “direction N normal to the substrate”) with a non-orthogonal angle ([0139] “rotated (Rz) by 180°”); and
making a second measurement in the second orientation (Figure 7; [0139] “By rotating the target through 180°, signals SF(+1) and SF(−1) can be obtained”, wherein signal “SF(-1)” is interpreted as a second measurement after rotation; [0150] “measuring targets on a substrate and/or processing measurements”).
Regarding independent Claim 29, Quintanilha discloses a metrology device comprising a processor and an associated non-transitory storage medium ([0150] “There may also be provided a data storage medium (e.g., semiconductor memory, magnetic or optical disk) having such a computer program stored therein”) to perform operations comprising:
making a first measurement in a first orientation (Figure 7; [0139] “By rotating the target through 180°, signals SF(+1) and SF(−1) can be obtained”, wherein signal “SF(+1)” is interpreted as a first measurement before rotation; [0150] “measuring targets on a substrate and/or processing measurements”);
rotating (Figure 7; [103] “rotation Rz corresponds directly to a desired azimuthal angle φ”; [0103] “actuators may be provided for rotation”) the target (Figure 7: T is a target; [0100]) between the first orientation and a second orientation ([0139] “The structure may be measured in one orientation only, or it may be measured in orientations rotated (Rz) by 180°”, wherein an orientation before rotation is interpreted as a first orientation and an orientation after rotation is interpreted as a second orientation) with respect to a direction orthogonal to the substrate plane (Figure 7; [0101] “direction N normal to the substrate”) with a non-orthogonal angle ([0139] “rotated (Rz) by 180°”); and
making a second measurement in the second orientation (Figure 7; [0139] “By rotating the target through 180°, signals SF(+1) and SF(−1) can be obtained”, wherein signal “SF(-1)” is interpreted as a second measurement after rotation; [0150] “measuring targets on a substrate and/or processing measurements”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintanilha et al. (US 2017/0184981 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Quintanilha discloses the method of claim 17, but does not specifically teach that the periodicities in two directions are larger than or about half of the illumination wavelength.
However, Quintanilha teaches periodicities in two directions ([0118] “The target may be a 2-D grating, which is printed such that after development, the grating is formed of solid resist pillars or vias in the resist”) and the illumination wavelength ([0015] “a first illumination system for irradiating the structure with first radiation, the first radiation comprising one or more wavelengths in the range 1 nm to 100 nm”; [0017] “a second illumination system for irradiating the structure with second radiation, the second radiation comprising one or more wavelengths in the range 1 nm to 100 nm or in the range 100 nm to 1000 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Quintanilha, such that the periodicities in two directions are larger than or about half of the illumination wavelength, because in overlay metrology, periodic target structures must have a pitch (periodicity) greater than or comparable to λ/2 (where λ is the illumination wavelength) to ensure they diffract light effectively.
Regarding Claim 19, Quintanilha discloses the method of claim 16, but does not specifically teach that the illumination comprises illuminating the substrate with an oblique incidence.
However, Quintanilha, in a different embodiment – see Figure 8 – teaches that the illumination comprises illuminating the substrate (Figure 8; [0109] “a broadband (white light) radiation projector 802 which projects radiation onto a substrate W”) with an oblique incidence ([0109] “Such a scatterometer may be configured as a normal-incidence scatterometer or an oblique-incidence scatterometer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Quintanilha with the embodiment of Figure 8, wherein the illumination comprises illuminating the substrate with an oblique incidence, because using an oblique incidence angle (often spanning 30° to 90°) offers advantages such as enhanced sensitivity and suppression of specular reflection.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintanilha et al. (US 2017/0184981 A1) in view of Den Boef et al. (US 2008/0239318 A1)].
Regarding Claim 20, Quintanilha discloses the method of claim 16, but does not specifically teach:
combining the first measurement and the second measurement to correct an asymmetry introduced by the metrology tool.
However, Den Boef, in the same field of scatterometry, teaches combining ([0007] “subtracting the intensity at the respective pre-determined position of the first map of intensities from the intensity at the respective pre-determined position of the second map of intensities”) the first measurement ([0007] “first measurement … of the intensity of radiation of an illumination beam at a plurality of pre-determined positions relative to the detector in the cross-section of the illumination beam to produce a first map of intensities”) and the second measurement ([0007] “second measurement … of the intensity of radiation of the illumination beam at the plurality of pre-determined positions relative to the detector and rotating the thereby produced map of intensities by 180° to produce a second map of intensities”) to correct an asymmetry introduced by the metrology tool ([0007] “producing an illumination asymmetry correction value”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Quintanilha with the teachings of Den Boef, for combining the first measurement and the second measurement to correct an asymmetry introduced by the metrology tool, to prevent distorting the optical signatures used to measure the alignment between semiconductor layers.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintanilha et al. (US 2017/0184981 A1) in view of Kandel et al. (US 2013/0035888 A1).
Regarding Claim 27, Quintanilha discloses the method of claim 16, but does not specifically teach:
performing an initial outlier removal step on the measurements, the initial outlier removal step comprising:
pairing at least portions of data comprised in the measurements based on pattern similarity and/or target orientation to obtain at least one acquisition pair; and
performing an outlier removal operation on the at least one acquisition pair.
However, Kandel, in the same field of overlay metrology, teaches performing an initial outlier removal step (Figure 9; [0037] “FIG. 9 illustrates a flow diagram of a method for metrology target outlier removal”) on the measurements (Figure 8B; [0102] “three outlying quality metric values … (as demarked with circles)”), the initial outlier removal step comprising:
pairing at least portions of data comprised in the measurements based on pattern similarity (Figure 5; [0102] “system 500 may be programmed to automatically identify outlier quality metric values based on: i) the magnitude of the quality metrics of the sampled targets exceeding a selected level”) and/or target orientation to obtain at least one acquisition pair (Figure 8B; [0102] “three outlying quality metric values are identified (as demarked with circles). Theses [sic] outlier quality metric values correspond with metrology targets of the plurality of sampled metrology targets having a high degree of asymmetric (as compared to the non-outlier targets), and, therefore, a high degree of overlay inaccuracy”); and
performing an outlier removal operation on the at least one acquisition pair (Figure 9; [0103] “In a second step 904, a corrected set of metrology targets may be generated by excluding the outlier targets identified in step 902”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Quintanilha with the teachings of Kandel, for performing an initial outlier removal step on the measurements, the initial outlier removal step comprising: pairing at least portions of data comprised in the measurements based on pattern similarity and/or target orientation to obtain at least one acquisition pair; and performing an outlier removal operation on the at least one acquisition pair, because “The present invention is further directed to utilizing the quality metric to improve process control via outlier target removal, and metrology recipe improvement or optimization.” (Kandel, para 56)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-26 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 21, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the first orientation and the second orientation are such that a second spectrum of the second measurement signal comprises peaks at spectral locations in a reciprocal space that are interleaved with peaks of a first spectrum of the first measurement signal in the reciprocal space.
Claims 22-26 are dependent thereupon, and also included in the allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-2020/0110342-A1 discloses a method of measuring overlay using a plurality of asymmetry measurements from locations (LOI) on a pair of sub-targets (1032, 1034) formed on a substrate (W). For each sub-target, the plurality of asymmetry measurements are fitted to at least one expected relationship (1502, 1504) between asymmetry and overlay, based on a known bias variation designed into the sub-targets. Continuous bias variation in one example is provided by varying the pitch of top and bottom gratings (P1/P2). Bias variations between the sub-targets of the pair are equal and opposite (P2/P1). Overlay (OV) is calculated based on a relative shift (xs) between the fitted relationships for the two sub-targets. The step of fitting asymmetry measurements to at least one expected relationship includes wholly or partially discounting measurements (1506, 1508, 1510) that deviate from the expected relationship and/or fall outside a particular segment of the fitted relationship.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akbar H Rizvi whose telephone number is (571) 272-5085. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:30 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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (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 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.
/AKBAR H. RIZVI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights