CTNF 18/561,892 CTNF 97510 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of informalities indicated in an attached, marked-up copy of the specification showing tracking of changes. 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Appropriate correction is required. Drawings 06-22-06 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference numeral 10 is missing in Figure 4 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 06-27 AIA In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application. Claim Objections Claims 1 are objected to because of informalities indicated in an attached, marked-up copy of the claims showing tracking of changes. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim recites "A computer program comprising computer readable instruction operable by a processor to perform the method of claim 16." Because a broad definition of a "computer readable instruction" could technically be interpreted by examiners to cover unpatentable propagating signals, claim language must explicitly use the word "non- transitory". Doing so ensures the claim covers a physical, eligible manufactured product. For examination purposes, said claim will be read as “A computer program comprising non-transitory computer readable instruction s operable by a processor to perform the method of claim 16.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA 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”) using illumination (Figure 7: element 732 is an illumination system; [0099]) from a metrology tool (Figure 7: element 700 is an apparatus; [0103]) , comprising: making a first measurement ([0150] “measuring targets on a substrate and/or processing measurements”) in a first orientation (Figure 7; [0103] “a desired combination of grazing incidence angle α and azimuthal angle φ” is interpreted as a first orientation ) ; rotating ([0103] “actuators may be provided for rotation”) the target (Figure 7: T is a target; [0100]) with respect to a direction orthogonal to the substrate plane (Figure 7; [0101] “direction N normal to the substrate”) with a non-orthogonal angle (Figure 7; [0101] “a non-zero azimuthal angle of incidence φ is allowed”; [0103] “In implementing the apparatus 700, different arrangements of positioning system can be used to achieve the non-zero azimuthal angle”) ; and making a second measurement ([0150] “measuring targets on a substrate and/or processing measurements”) in a second orientation (Figure 7; [0103] “a desired combination of grazing incidence angle α and azimuthal angle φ” is interpreted as a second orientation ) . Regarding Claim 17 , Quintanilha discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the making the first and second measurements ([0150] “measuring targets on a substrate and/or processing measurements”) comprises measuring the target (Figure 7: T is a target; [0100]) that 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 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 the method of claim 16 (see claim 16 rejection) . Regarding Claim 29 , Quintanilha discloses a metrology device comprising a processor and associated 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 the method of claim 16 (see claim 16 rejection) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 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 making the periodicities in two directions larger than or comparable to 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 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, for making the periodicities in two directions larger than or comparable to 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 . 07-21-aia AIA 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 . 07-21-aia AIA 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 at least one pair of measurements, the initial outlier removal step comprising: pairing at least portions of data comprised in the at least one pair of 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 at least one pair of 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 at least one pair of 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 at least one pair of measurements, the initial outlier removal step comprising: pairing at least portions of data comprised in the at least one pair of 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 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 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. 13-03-01 AIA 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 that each measurement is performed using an illumination beam, the first measurement results in a first measurement signal and the second measurement results in a second measurement signal; and wherein the first orientation and 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 . 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-2013/0215404-A1 discloses an inspection apparatus comprising a spectroscopic scatterometer having illumination optics for directing broadband radiation with an angle of incidence at a spot on a target structure, the target structure in use comprising a periodic grating, zero order detection optics for receiving radiation reflected from the target and for forming and detecting a spectrum of the reflected radiation, and higher order detection optics for receiving radiation diffracted at one or more higher orders by the periodic grating in the target structure, and for forming and detecting a spectrum of the received diffracted radiation . Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/561,892 Page 2 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/561,892 Page 3 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/561,892 Page 4 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/561,892 Page 5 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/561,892 Page 6 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/561,892 Page 7 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/561,892 Page 8 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/561,892 Page 9 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/561,892 Page 10 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/561,892 Page 11 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/561,892 Page 12 Art Unit: 2877
Prosecution Insights