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
The amendment filed 06/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
The amendments to claims 1-19 are sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) made in the previous Office action. The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claim 19 under 35 USC 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter, the applicant has asserted the claim has been amended to change one of the instances of “metrology unit” to “metrology tool”. However, the two conflicting instances of “metrology unit” remain and the claim has not been amended to clarify. Therefore, the rejection of claim 19 under 35 USC 112(b) is upheld.
Upon further consideration, the rejection of claim 19 regarding the limitations “metrology unit” and “spectrum processing unit” under 35 USC 112(b) for failing to disclose the corresponding structure performing the claimed function has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
For the reasons given in the Office action mailed 03/19/2026, the following limitations remain interpreted under 35 USC 112(f):
metrology unit and spectrum processing unit in claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a metrology unit" in lines 2 and 9. It is unclear whether the metrology unit in line 9 is the same unit in line 2, or a secondary unit, or something else. For purposes of examination below, the examiner is interpreting “a metrology unit” in line 2 to be intended to be “a metrology tool” instead. Paragraphs [0033] and [0044] of the specification disclose the metrology unit to be computer software, whereas the metrology unit of line 2 is claimed to be measuring light, which a computer would not be capable of directly doing. Support for this interpretation can be found in paragraphs [0047], [0048], [0056], [0058], [0059], [0060], [0062], and [0063], where it is disclosed that a metrology tool measures the light reflected and produces corresponding wavelength-domain measurement data.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barak (WO2020021411A1) in view of Chalmers (WO2006078471A2), Dzuira (US10325004B1) and Fabrikant (US7099005B1).
Regarding claim 1, Barak teaches a method for semiconductor device metrology (page 1, paragraph 2), the method comprising:
measuring light reflected by a patterned structure of a semiconductor device (page 1, paragraph 2) producing corresponding wavelength-domain measurement data that includes both spectral amplitude and spectral phase of the reflected light (page 1, paragraph 2);
creating a time-domain representation of the wavelength-domain measurement data using both the spectral amplitude and the spectral phase of the wavelength-domain measurement data (page 1, paragraph 2 discloses creating a time-domain representation of wavelength-domain data; page 2, paragraph 2 discloses the wavelength-domain data includes the spectral amplitude and spectral phase);
selecting one or more relevant values of the time-domain representation and at least one irrelevant portion of the time-domain representation of the time-domain representation (page 2, paragraph 3 explicitly discloses selecting a relevant portion ('earlier-in-time portion') of the time-domain representation and an irrelevant portion ('later-in-time' portion)); wherein the one or more relevant values occur during one or more relevant time periods (page 1, paragraph 2 discloses the relevant data occurs during an "earlier-in-time" portion); and
determining at least one parameter of the 3D patterned structure based on the one or more relevant areas and the corresponding relevant reference values (paragraph 3 discloses determining a parameter (structural anomaly) by comparing the time-domain data from the reflected light to reference time-domain data), wherein the determining is based on a difference between the at least two relevant reference value that correspond to the same relevant value.
Barak fails to teach the relevant values are peaks, wherein the one or more relevant peaks are associated with corresponding relevant reference peaks that are associated with different versions of a reference 3D patterned structure, wherein the reference 3D patterned structure comprises multiple layers, wherein the different versions of the reference 3D pattern structure have a number of layers that differ from each other by at least one of thickness or shape, wherein the number of layers is at least one and less than a half of the multiple layers, wherein at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to a same relevant peak of the one or more relevant peaks differ from each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor metrology, Chalmers teaches a method where a parameter of a semiconductor is determined based on the peaks of measurement data (page 44, lines 3-15).
Chalmers discloses the peak-finding method is well-known, and an example of the method is Gaussian fitting (page 38, lines 15-20). Gaussian fitting is a basic and fundamental fitting method. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably apply the Gaussian fitting method of finding peaks to the measured data taught in Barak and achieve predictable results of determining a peak in the data. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method taught in Barak with the method of using peaks of the data taught in Chalmers as this is a fundamental method that is well-known with predictable results of finding peaks.
Barak as modified by Chalmers fails to teach the one or more relevant peaks are associated with corresponding relevant reference peaks that are associated with different versions of a reference 3D patterned structure, wherein the reference 3D patterned structure comprises multiple layers, wherein the different versions of the reference 3D pattern structure have a number of layers that differ from each other by at least one of thickness or shape, wherein the number of layers is at least one and less than a half of the multiple layers, wherein at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to a same relevant peak of the one or more relevant peaks differ from each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical metrology of semiconductors, Dziura teaches a method of measuring a first structure with multiple layers (500, Fig. 5), then measuring a second structure (1000, Fig. 10) where the second structure has had a new layer deposited with a different shape (column 11, line 40 describes the new structure as an over-etch trapezoid), while the other layers remain unchanged (column 11, lines 35-43).
Three-dimensional patterned structures consisting of layers are common on semiconductor devices (Dzuira: column 1, lines 21-39), therefore using reference structures with layers improves accuracy of the metrology device. Dzuira discloses that by including a second reference model that is different from the first (column 11, lines 15-19), reference measurements are optimized and there is less need for trial and error when determining critical parameters of certain layers such as thickness (column 11, lines 58-64). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the metrology device of Barak as modified by Chalmers with the different versions of structures taught in Dzuira in order to ensure the reference structures are realistic and cut down on the need for trial and error when determining parameters of the structure.
Barak as modified by Chalmers and Dzuira fails to teach the one or more relevant peaks are associated with corresponding relevant reference peaks that are associated with different versions of a reference 3D patterned structure, wherein at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to a same relevant peak of the one or more relevant peaks differ from each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor metrology, Fabrikant teaches a method where the relevant points (measured data) are associated with reference peaks of different versions of a reference pattern (column 7, lines 20-24 and blocks 102, 106 and 108, Fig. 2 disclose the comparison between measured value to a reference value; column 7, lines 16-18 disclose the reference values are taken over multiple wavelengths which would results in different versions of the structure). Further, Fabrikant teaches the versions are more similar than they are alike (column 9, lines 21) and the measured values may correspond to more than one reference value (column 8, lines 2-4).
Fabrikant discloses an advantage of the reference value comparison method is that it is a standard method (column 1, lines 55-65) and therefore saves time and effort when measuring a structure (column 9, lines 21-22; column 9, lines 35-43) Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method taught in Barak as modified by Chalmers with the relevant and reference value comparison method taught in Fabrikant as a way to save time and effort.
Regarding claim 2, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant teaches the method as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches determining one or more time- domain representation parameters based on the one or more relevant peaks (Barak: page 8, paragraph 2 discloses using the relevant portions of the data to determine a time-domain representation model, which would include parameters; Chalmers: page 44, lines 3-15 a method where a parameter of a semiconductor is determined based on the peaks of measurement data).
As discussed above, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method taught in Barak as modified by Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant with the method of using peaks of the data taught (Gaussian fitting) in Chalmers as finding peaks of measurement data to calculate relevant parameters is a fundamental method.
Regarding claim 3, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant teaches the method as explained above in claim 2, and further teaches the determining of the at least one parameter of the 3D patterned structure is based on the one or more time-domain representation parameters (Barak: page 3, paragraph 4 discloses determining a parameter of the patterned structure from the time-domain representation parameters).
Regarding claim 4, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant teaches the method as explained above in claim 2, and further teaches the at least one parameter of the 3D patterned structure are a function of the one or more time-domain representation parameters (Barak: page 8, paragraph 2 discloses using a model fitting (function) to find a parameter of the patterned structure from the time-domain representation data.).
Regarding claim 5, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant teaches the method as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the different versions of the reference 3D patterned structure differ from each other by at least one a location of a layer (Fabrikant: column 7, lines 16-18) and a width of the layer (Fabrikant: step height and critical dimension - column 1, lines 66-67).
It is typical for metrology structure patterns to have different shaped/sized layers (Fabrikant: column 1, lines 50-61). Therefore, different versions of the reference structure would be needed to correspond to each layer. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Barak as modified by Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant with the different reference layers taught in Fabrikant in order to account for the different shapes and sizes of pattern layers.
Regarding claim 6, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant teaches the method as explained above in claim 1, and further the 3D patterned structure is ideally identical to one of the different versions of the reference 3D patterned structure (Fabrikant: column 9, lines 56-65 discloses using the same bottom and top structure shape as the reference structure in order to use the same reference values).
Fabrikant discloses that using identical structures saves time and effort by not recalculating the reference values for each structure (column 9, lines 59-75). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Barak as modified by Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant with the actual structure essentially identical to the reference structure method taught in Fabrikant as it saves time and effort.
Regarding claim 7, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant teaches the method as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches one or more differences between the at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to the same relevant peak (Fabrikant: column 8, lines 2-4) are indicative of one or more parameters of the 3D patterned structure (Barak: page 2, paragraph 8 discloses identifying at least two points and using them to find the height of two targets).
Chalmers discloses that multiple reference values give multiple options for the best fit (column 8, line 1), thus ensuring the best model is found. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Barak as modified by Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant with the multiple reference values for one relevant value taught in Fabrikant in order to ensure the best model is found.
Regarding claim 9, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant teaches the method as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the determining of the at least one parameter of the 3D patterned structure is executed without applying a machine learning process (Barak: page 3, paragraph 4 discloses determining a parameter of the structure using a "predetermined" model, and does not disclose this model is a machine learning model.).
Regarding claim 10, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant teaches the method as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the determining of the at least one parameter of the 3D patterned structure comprises selecting a best matching reference 3D patterned structure of the different versions of the reference 3D patterned structure (Fabrikant: column 6, lines 40-42).
Fabrikant discloses selecting a best match is necessary in order to create an educated guess rather than a random one, optimizing the estimation process (column 7, lines 24-26). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Barak as modified by Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant with the best match method taught in Fabrikant in order to optimize the estimation process of the parameter.
Regarding claim 11, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant teaches the method as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches he creating of the time-domain representation comprises applying a wavelength domain to time domain conversion (Barak: step 316, Fig. 3B; page 10, paragraph 3), wherein the wavelength domain to time domain conversion is set based on penetration depths of different wavelength components of the light (Barak: page 2, paragraph 5 discloses the model of the data a wavelength domain to time domain conversion is applied (time-filtered wavelength domain measurement data) may only model an upper layer).
Regarding claim 18, Barak teaches non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions (page 4, paragraph 5) for:
measuring light reflected by a patterned structure of a semiconductor device (page 1, paragraph 2) producing corresponding wavelength-domain measurement data that includes both spectral amplitude and spectral phase of the reflected light (page 1, paragraph 2);
creating a time-domain representation of the wavelength-domain measurement data using both the spectral amplitude and the spectral phase of the wavelength-domain measurement data (page 1, paragraph 2 discloses creating a time-domain representation of wavelength-domain data; page 2, paragraph 2 discloses the wavelength-domain data includes the spectral amplitude and spectral phase);
selecting one or more relevant values of the time-domain representation and at least one irrelevant portion of the time-domain representation of the time-domain representation (page 2, paragraph 3 explicitly discloses selecting a relevant portion ('earlier-in-time portion') of the time-domain representation and an irrelevant portion ('later-in-time' portion). This inherently includes selecting a relevant portion and an irrelevant portion.); wherein the one or more relevant values occur during one or more relevant time periods (page 1, paragraph 2 discloses the relevant data occurs during an "earlier-in-time" portion), wherein the 3D patterned structure comprises a plurality of optical interfaces having varied orientations (each face of the 3D structure would constitute an optical interface oriented in a different direction);
determining at least one parameter of the 3D patterned structure based on the one or more relevant areas and the corresponding relevant reference values (paragraph 3 discloses determining a parameter (structural anomaly) by comparing the time-domain data from the reflected light to reference time-domain data), wherein the determining is based on a difference between the at least two relevant reference value that correspond to the same relevant value.
Barak fails to teach the relevant values are peaks, wherein the one or more relevant peaks are associated with corresponding relevant reference peaks that are associated with different versions of a reference 3D patterned structure, wherein the reference 3D patterned structure comprises multiple layers, wherein the different versions of the reference 3D pattern structure have a number of layers that differ from each other by at least one of thickness or shape, wherein the number of layers is at least one and less than a half of the multiple layers, wherein at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to a same relevant peak of the one or more relevant peaks differ from each other (page 2, paragraph 8 discloses identifying at least two points and using them to find the height of two targets).
However, Chalmers teaches a method where a parameter of a semiconductor is determined based on the peaks of measurement data (page 44, lines 3-15).
Chalmers discloses the peak-finding method is well-known, and an example of the method is Gaussian fitting (page 38, lines 15-20). Gaussian fitting is a basic and fundamental fitting method. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably apply the Gaussian fitting method of finding peaks to the measured data taught in Barak and achieve predictable results of determining a peak in the data. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method taught in Barak with the method of using peaks of the data taught in Chalmers as this is a fundamental method that is well-known with predictable results of finding peaks.
Barak as modified by Chalmers fails to teach the one or more relevant peaks are associated with corresponding relevant reference peaks that are associated with different versions of a reference 3D patterned structure, wherein the reference 3D patterned structure comprises multiple layers, wherein the different versions of the reference 3D pattern structure have a number of layers that differ from each other by at least one of thickness or shape, wherein the number of layers is at least one and less than a half of the multiple layers, wherein at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to a same relevant peak of the one or more relevant peaks differ from each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical metrology of semiconductors, Dziura teaches a method of measuring a first structure with multiple layers (500, Fig. 5), then measuring a second structure (1000, Fig. 10) where the second structure has had a new layer deposited with a different shape (column 11, line 40 describes the new structure as an over-etch trapezoid), while the other layers remain unchanged (column 11, lines 35-43).
Three-dimensional patterned structures consisting of layers are common on semiconductor devices (Dzuira: column 1, lines 21-39), therefore using reference structures with layers improves accuracy of the metrology device. Dzuira discloses that by including a second reference model that is different from the first (column 11, lines 15-19), reference measurements are optimized and there is less need for trial and error when determining critical parameters of certain layers such as thickness (column 11, lines 58-64). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the metrology device of Barak as modified by Chalmers in order to ensure the reference structures are realistic and cut down on the need for trial and error when determining parameters of the structure.
Barak as modified by Chalmers and Dzuira fails to teach the one or more relevant peaks are associated with corresponding relevant reference peaks that are associated with different versions of a reference 3D patterned structure, wherein at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to a same relevant peak of the one or more relevant peaks differ from each other, wherein at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to a same relevant peak of the one or more relevant peaks differ from each other.
However, Fabrikant teaches a method where the relevant points (measured data) are associated with reference peaks of different versions of a reference pattern (column 7, lines 20-24 and blocks 102, 106 and 108, Fig. 2 disclose the comparison between measured value to a reference value; column 7, lines 16-18 disclose the reference values are taken over multiple wavelengths which would results in different versions of the structure). Further, Fabrikant teaches the versions are more similar than they are alike (column 9, lines 21) and the measured values may correspond to more than one reference value (column 8, lines 2-4).
Fabrikant discloses an advantage of the reference value comparison method is that it is a standard method (column 1, lines 55-65) and therefore saves time and effort when measuring a structure (column 9, lines 21-22; column 9, lines 35-43) Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method taught in Barak as modified by Chalmers and Dzuira with the relevant and reference value comparison method taught in Fabrikant as a way to save time and effort.
Regarding claim 19, Barak teaches a system for metrology (page 3, last paragraph), the system comprises:
a metrology unit (the examiner is interpreting this to be a metrology tool – see explanation above regarding the 112(b) rejection of claim 19; page 6, lase paragraph through page 7, first paragraph disclose a metrology tool) that is configured to measure light reflected by a patterned structure of a semiconductor device and to produce corresponding wavelength-domain measurement data that include both spectral amplitude and spectral phase of the reflected light (page 2, paragraph 2 discloses producing wavelength-domain measurement data include the spectral amplitude and spectral phase; page 3, last paragraph discloses the structure to perform this data production; page 7, first paragraph discloses this measurement is done by a metrology tool);
a spectrum processing unit (page 3, last paragraph discloses a spectrum processing unit) configured to create a time-domain representation of the wavelength-domain measurement data using both the spectral amplitude and the spectral phase of the wavelength-domain measurement data (last paragraph, page 3) and a metrology unit (page 3, last paragraph discloses a metrology unit) that is configured to:
select one or more relevant peaks of the time-domain representation and at least one irrelevant portion of the time-domain representation wherein the one or more relevant peaks occur during one or more relevant time periods (page 1, paragraph 2 discloses the relevant data occurs during an "earlier-in-time" portion; page 3, last paragraph discloses this distinction is performed by a spectrum processing unit); and
determine at least one parameter of the 3D patterned structure based on the one or more relevant peaks and the corresponding relevant reference peaks (paragraph 3 discloses determining a parameter (structural anomaly) by comparing the time-domain data from the reflected light to reference time-domain data), wherein the determining is based on a difference between the at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to the same relevant peak (page 2, paragraph 8 discloses identifying at least two points and using them to find the height of two targets).
Barak fails to teach wherein the one or more relevant peaks are associated with corresponding relevant reference peaks that are associated with different versions of a reference 3D patterned structure, wherein the reference 3D patterned structure comprises multiple layers, wherein the different versions of the reference 3D pattern structure have a number of layers that differ from each other by at least one of thickness or shape, wherein the number of layers is at least one and less than a half of the multiple layers, wherein at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to a same relevant peak of the one or more relevant peaks differ from each other.
However, Chalmers teaches a method where a parameter of a semiconductor is determined based on the peaks of measurement data (page 44, lines 3-15).
Chalmers discloses the peak-finding method is well-known, and an example of the method is Gaussian fitting (page 38, lines 15-20). Gaussian fitting is a basic and fundamental fitting method. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to reasonably apply the Gaussian fitting method of finding peaks to the measured data taught in Barak and achieve predictable results of determining a peak in the data. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method taught in Barak with the method of using peaks of the data taught in Chalmers as this is a fundamental method that is well-known with predictable results of finding peaks.
Barak as modified by Chalmers fails to teach the one or more relevant peaks are associated with corresponding relevant reference peaks that are associated with different versions of a reference 3D patterned structure, wherein the reference 3D patterned structure comprises multiple layers, wherein the different versions of the reference 3D pattern structure have a number of layers that differ from each other by at least one of thickness or shape, wherein the number of layers is at least one and less than a half of the multiple layers, wherein at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to a same relevant peak of the one or more relevant peaks differ from each other, wherein at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to a same relevant peak of the one or more relevant peaks differ from each other.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical metrology of semiconductors, Dziura teaches a method of measuring a first structure with multiple layers (500, Fig. 5), then measuring a second structure (1000, Fig. 10) where the second structure has had a new layer deposited with a different shape (column 11, line 40 describes the new structure as an over-etch trapezoid), while the other layers remain unchanged (column 11, lines 35-43).
Three-dimensional patterned structures consisting of layers are common on semiconductor devices (Dzuira: column 1, lines 21-39), therefore using reference structures with layers improves accuracy of the metrology device. Dzuira discloses that by including a second reference model that is different from the first (column 11, lines 15-19), reference measurements are optimized and there is less need for trial and error when determining critical parameters of certain layers such as thickness (column 11, lines 58-64). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the metrology device of Barak as modified by Chalmers in order to ensure the reference structures are realistic and cut down on the need for trial and error when determining parameters of the structure.
Barak as modified by Chalmers and Dzuira fails to teach the one or more relevant peaks are associated with corresponding relevant reference peaks that are associated with different versions of a reference 3D patterned structure, wherein at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to a same relevant peak of the one or more relevant peaks differ from each other, wherein at least two relevant reference peaks that correspond to a same relevant peak of the one or more relevant peaks differ from each other.
However, Fabrikant teaches a method where the relevant points (measured data) are associated with reference peaks of different versions of a reference pattern (column 7, lines 20-24 and blocks 102, 106 and 108, Fig. 2 disclose the comparison between measured value to a reference value; column 7, lines 16-18 disclose the reference values are taken over multiple wavelengths which would results in different versions of the structure). Further, Fabrikant teaches the versions are more similar than they are alike (column 9, lines 21) and the measured values may correspond to more than one reference value (column 8, lines 2-4).
Fabrikant discloses an advantage of the reference value comparison method is that it is a standard method (column 1, lines 55-65) and therefore saves time and effort when measuring a structure (column 9, lines 21-22; column 9, lines 35-43) Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method taught in Barak as modified by Chalmers with the relevant and reference value comparison method taught in Fabrikant as a way to save time and effort.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barak (WO2020021411A1) in view of Chalmers (WO2006078471A2), Dzuira (US10325004B1) and Fabrikant (US7099005B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (KR20070104067A).
Regarding claim 8, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant teaches the method as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the determining of the at least one parameter of the 3D patterned structure comprising applying a machine learning process.
However, in the same field of semiconductor metrology, Li teaches a method where a machine learning system is used to determine parameters of a structure on a semiconductor (paragraph [0012]).
Li discloses the machine learning application is used as quality assurance. Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Barak as modified by Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant with the machine learning process taught in Li for quality assurance.
Claim 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barak (WO2020021411A1) in view of Chalmers (WO2006078471A2), Dzuira (US10325004B1) and Fabrikant (US7099005B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kane (US6369891B1).
Regarding claim 12, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant teaches the method as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach generating a time-domain representation signature based on one or more parameters related to the one or more relevant peaks.
However, in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor metrology, Kane teaches a time domain representation signature (frequency signature) based on the relevant points (waveform signal; column 1, lines 48-49).
Kane discloses an advantage to the signature method is to determine accuracy of the metrology device (column 1, lines 49-52). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Barak as modified by Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant with the signature method taught in Kane in order to determine the accuracy of the metrology device used.
Regarding claim 13, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira Fabrikant and Kane teaches the method as explained above in claim 12, and further teaches the determining of the at least one parameter of the 3D patterned structure is based on the time-domain representation signature (Kane: column 5, lines 20-21 disclose the frequency signature is indicative of a pattern on the object being measured, for example the line width of the pattern as disclosed in column 5, lines 30-33).
Kane discloses an advantage of the parameter determination based on the time-domain signature is ensuring accuracy (column 5, lines 36-40). Thus, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Barak as modified by Chalmers, Dzuira, Fabrikant and Kane with the parameter determination method disclosed by Kane as it provides a way to ensure the determination is accurate.
Regarding claim 14, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira, Fabrikant and Kane teaches the method as explained above in claim 12, and further teaches obtaining reference signatures (Kane: frequency signature template - column 1, lines 37-44) of the different versions of the reference 3D patterned structure (Fabrikant: column 7, lines 16-18).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effect filing date to combine the method taught in Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira, Fabrikant and Kane with the use of multiple different version of the reference structure taught in Fabrikant as a way to create a complete library of reference structures for comparison (Fabrikant: column 7, 16-18), ensuring there was a reference for all measured data.
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method taught in Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira, Fabrikant and Kane with the reference signature method taught in Kane because reference signatures allow a simple way to ensure accuracy when determining structure parameters (Kane: column 5, lines 36-40).
Regarding claim 15, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira, Fabrikant and Kane teaches the method as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches determining of the at least one parameter of the 3D patterned structure is based on the time-domain representation signature and on the reference signatures of the different versions of the reference 3D patterned structure (Kane: column 5, lines 33-36).
The comparison of signatures taught in Kane enables an easy and simple way of ensuring accuracy of the parameter determination (column 5, lines 36-40). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method taught in Barak as modified by Chalmers, Dzuira, Fabrikant and Kane with the comparison of signatures taught in Kane as an easy and simple way of ensuring accuracy of the parameter determination.
Regarding claim 16, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira and Fabrikant teaches the method as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches determining of the at least one parameter of the 3D patterned structure comprises searching for a best matching reference signatures (Kane – frequency signature template – column 1, lines 37-44) out of the reference signatures of the different versions of the reference 3D patterned structure (Fabrikant: column 7, lines 22-23 discloses determining a parameter by finding a parameter by determining the best match to a reference value of different version of a structure).
As discussed above, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method taught in Barak as modified by Chalmers, Fabrikant, Dzuira and Kane with the best matching method taught in Fabrikant as estimating a best match of enables an optimized estimation process for finding a parameter.
As discussed above, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method taught in Barak as modified by Chalmers and Fabrikant with the reference signature taught in Kane reference signatures provides a way to ensure the determination is accurate.
Regarding claim 17, Barak in view of Chalmers, Dzuira, Fabrikant and Kane teaches the method as explained above in claim 12, and further teaches the one or more parameters are determined to distinguish between different versions of the reference 3D patterned structure (Fabrikant: column 7, lines 16-18 disclose the reference values are taken over different wavelengths of light. Different wavelengths of light would result in different versions of the same reference structure. Column 7, lines 18-21 disclose parameters such as critical dimension and height are measured for each version.).
Fabrikant discloses this method is used to find a best match for the values or a starting point for a nonlinear regression (column 7, lines 24-29), both common techniques in the field of modeling and fitting. It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device taught in Barak as modified by Chalmers, Dzuira, Fabrikant and Kane as it allows a best match to be found.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 11:00-8:00 ET.
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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights