DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-20 and 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mathijssen (US20150261097A1) does not teach the limitations of claim 1, specifically that Mathijssen does not teach “wherein the at least part of the light redirected from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion”. Applicant argues Mathijssen does not teach this limitation because Mathijssen discloses that "the segmented mirror [acts] as a reflection surface for a zero order signal of the diffracted radiation." (emphasis added) in [0085]. Hence, the diffracted radiation from the wafer W is directly incident on the segmented mirror alleged to correspond the claimed first portion. (see remarks page 8).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that Mathijssen does not teach this limitation. Claim 1 recites “wherein the at least part of the light redirected from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion”. The claim does not require that all the light redirected from the substrate is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion. While the zero order diffractions are incident on the first portion due to symmetry, higher order diffractions are transmitted by the second portion ([0085] the zero order signals can be removed from the information-carrying beam 426, where beam 426 is the portion transmitted by the second portion). Since the beam 426 is transmitted, it is clear it is not incident on the first portion which blocks the zero order diffractions, otherwise it would not be transmitted. Thus, the light transmitted towards to detector arrangement by the beamsplitter 454 by the second portion (area that is not mirrors) cannot also be incident on the first portion (mirrors). Further, claim 11 recites that “the second portion corresponds to a region of the optical element that receives first order diffractions of the light from the substrate” which further explains that “at least part of the light redirected from the substrate” does not require zero order diffractions redirected from the substrate. As such, the rejections of claims 1-20 and 22 have been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by US20150261097A1 by Mathijssen (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Mathijssen teaches an optical tool comprising (at least Fig. 10):
an objective lens (lens 424) configured to direct light from an illumination source (radiation source 420) to a substrate or a desired location in the optical tool (spot 406 on alignment mark 202 on the wafer W; [0083]); and
an optical element (beam splitter 454; [0084]) comprising:
a first portion configured to reflect the light received from the illumination source towards the substrate or desired location (discrete mirror segments 470, 472; [0084]); and
a second portion configured to transmit at least part of the light redirected from the substrate or the desired location (partially transparent surface of beamsplitter 454 that transmits light towards detection arrangements; Fig 10 shows transmitted beam 426; [0085]; [0086]), the first portion having higher coefficient of reflectivity than the second portion, and the second portion having a higher coefficient of transmissivity than the first portion ([0084]-[0086] mirrors have higher coefficient of reflectivity and partially transparent surface has higher coefficient of transmissivity),
wherein the light received to the optical element from the illumination source is incident on the first portion without being directly incident on the second portion ([0084] discrete mirror segments may be formed on its internal interface, in a pattern corresponding to the desired illumination profile 448; thus if the pattern of the first portion matches the pattern of illumination, then the light will only be incident on the first portion; compare to Applicant's Fig. 10 source illumination pattern SO matches pattern of first portion) and
wherein the at least part of the light redirected from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion ([0085] the zero order signals can be removed from the information-carrying beam 426, where beam 426 is the portion transmitted by the second portion; the light incident on the first portion is not transmitted and portion of light incident on the second portion is transmitted and thus not directly incident on both the first and second portions, see response to arguments above for further explanation).
Regarding claim 2, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the optical element is positioned at a distance within a specified range from an entrance pupil or a conjugate pupil of the objective lens (Fig. 10), wherein the specified range is between the entrance pupil and a conjugate plane, and the distance is measured between a point on the first portion, and the entrance pupil or the conjugate pupil ([0083] An input beam 422 is delivered via beam splitter 454 to an objective lens 424 having a pupil plane P.; only light reflected by the first portion reaches the lens; range is further shown in Fig. 10, compare to applicant’s figure 8).
Regarding claim 4, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first portion has the coefficient of reflectivity between 51% to 100% ([0084] mirrors has a coefficient of reflectivity greater the 51%).
Regarding claim 6, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first portion comprises one or more mirrors positioned to receive the light from the illumination source and reflect the light to the substrate or the desired location ([0084] discrete mirror segments).
Regarding claim 7, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second portion has the coefficient of transmissivity between 51% to 100% ([0086] partially transparent surface has a coefficient of transmissivity greater than 51%).
Regarding claim 9, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first portion corresponds to a region of the optical element that receives the light from the illumination source and further directs the light toward the substrate to be measured ([0084]-[0085]; Fig. 10; discrete mirror segments reflect light to wafer W).
Regarding claim 10, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second portion corresponds to a region of the optical element that receives the light redirected from the substrate or the desired location ([0086] partially transparent surface receives diffracted radiation from wafer; see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 11, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 10, and further teaches wherein the second portion corresponds to a region of the optical element that receives first order diffractions of the light from the substrate causing the first order diffractions to pass through the optical element ([0085] the zero order signals can be removed from the information-carrying beam 426; [0086] both zero order or high order signals can be passed though the transmissive part of the beam splitter or the second portion; thus at least first order signals are transmitted).
Regarding claim 13, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches comprising sensor configured to receive the light transmitted through the second portion of the optical element (detector 630; [0083]).
Regarding claim 14, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 13, and further teaches comprising a processor ([0060] processing unit PU; [0104]) configured to determine a physical characteristic ([0083] spatial resolution detector) of a patterned substrate ([0083] alignment mark 202 on the wafer W; thus a patterned substrate) based on a diffraction pattern detected by the sensor ([0083] spatial resolution detector 630 is an arrangement similar to the known alignment sensor of FIG. 3; [0060]).
Regarding claim 15, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 14, and further teaches wherein the physical characteristic is a critical dimension of a pattern on the patterned substrate, or overlay between patterns on a first layer and a second layer of the patterned substrate ([0059]-[0060] alignment sensor used in Fig. 10 measures critical dimension of mark on substrate).
Regarding claim 16, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the optical element is located within a specified distance from an entrance pupil or a conjugate pupil of the objective lens near the substrate (([0083] An input beam 422 is delivered via beam splitter 454 to an objective lens 424 having a pupil plane P; Fig. 10 shows distance).
Regarding claim 17, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the optical element is a beam splitter ([0084] beam splitter 454).
Regarding claim 18, Mathijssen teaches a system for measuring overlay (at least Fig. 10), the system comprising:
an optical element (beam splitter 454; [0084]) comprising a first portion configured to reflect radiation received to the optical element from an illumination source towards a patterned substrate (discrete mirror segments 470, 472; wafer with alignment mark is a patterned substrate [0084]), and a second portion configured to transmit at least a part of the radiation redirected from the patterned substrate (partially transparent surface of beamsplitter 454 that transmits light towards detection arrangements; Fig 10 shows transmitted beam 426; [0085]; [0086]), the first portion having a higher coefficient of reflectivity than the second portion and the second portion having a higher coefficient of transmissivity than the first portion ([0084]-[0086] mirrors have higher coefficient of reflectivity and partially transparent surface has higher coefficient of transmissivity), wherein the radiation received to the optical element from the illumination source is incident on the first portion without being directly incident on the second portion ([0084] discrete mirror segments may be formed on its internal interface, in a pattern corresponding to the desired illumination profile 448; thus if the pattern of the first portion matches the pattern of illumination, then the light will only be incident on the first portion; compare to Applicant's Fig. 10 source illumination pattern SO matches pattern of first portion) and wherein the at least part of the light redirected from the substrate or the desired location is incident on the second portion without being directly incident on the first portion ([0085] the zero order signals can be removed from the information-carrying beam 426, where beam 426 is the portion transmitted by the second portion; the light incident on the first portion is not transmitted and portion of light incident on the second portion is transmitted and thus not directly incident on both the first and second portions, see response to arguments above for further explanation).;
a sensor configured to receive a diffraction pattern of the radiation caused by the radiation being incident of the patterned substrate (detector 630 is an arrangement similar to the known alignment sensor of FIG. 3; [0083]; [0060]); and
a processor configured to receive a signal relating to the diffraction pattern from the sensor ([0060] processing unit PU; [0104]), and determine overlay associated with the patterned substrate by analyzing the signal ([0083] alignment sensor; [0005] alignment sensors are used to determine overlay error).
Regarding claim 19, Mathijssen teaches the system of claim 18, and further teaches wherein the optical element is positioned at a distance within a specified range from an entrance pupil or a conjugate pupil of an objective lens, wherein the specified range is between the entrance pupil and a conjugate plane, and the distance is measured between a point on the first portion, and the entrance pupil or the conjugate pupil ([0083] An input beam 422 is delivered via beam splitter 454 to an objective lens 424 having a pupil plane P.; only light reflected by the first portion reaches the lens; range is further shown in Fig. 10; compare to applicant’s figure 8).
Regarding claim 20, Mathijssen teaches the system of claim 18, and further teaches wherein the second portion corresponds to a region of the optical element that receives the diffraction pattern from the patterned substrate and the diffraction pattern comprises first order diffractions comprising information related to the overlay ([0085] the zero order signals can be removed from the information-carrying beam 426; [0086] both zero order or high order signals can be passed though the transmissive part of the beam splitter or second portion; thus at least first order signals are transmitted; these signals are used the alignment sensor therefore they contain information related to the overlay).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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.
Claims 3, 8, 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathijssen.
Regarding claim 3, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the specified range is a range at which the optical element captures a diffraction pattern caused by the light directed from the first portion onto the substrate ([0083] reflection surface for a zero order signal of the diffracted radiation) and diffracted from the substrate ([0085] zero order signal is reflected by the target).
Further, even if Mathijssen does not explicitly teach the range is selected such that light is diffracted without causing vignetting, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a range such that there is no vignetting in order to avoid measurement error.
Regarding claim 8, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second portion comprises a transparent material ([0086] partially transparent surface), and although Mathijssen does not explicitly teach a transparent glass material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a glass material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One would use glass as it is a cost, effective transparent material.
Regarding claim 12, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and although Mathijssen does not explicitly teach wherein the first portion comprises a first quadrant region and a third quadrant region of the optical element; and the second portion comprises a second quadrant region and a fourth quadrant region of the optical element, Mathijssen teaches the regions of the first portion need to have 180 degree symmetry in order to reflect the zero order signal of the diffracted radiation ([0085]). Further, Mathijssen teaches that the first portion is configured to match the illumination pattern ([0084])
Further, Mathijssen does address this limitation in a separate embodiment.
Mathijssen teaches a segmented illumination pattern (Fig. 7) where two diametrically opposite quadrants, labeled a and b, are bright in this aperture pattern (transparent), while the other two quadrants are dark (opaque).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a quadrant illumination pattern for scatterometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify to implement the quadrant illumination pattern and corresponding discrete mirror in the embodiment of Fig. 10 such that he first portion comprises a first quadrant region and a third quadrant region of the optical element; and the second portion comprises a second quadrant region and a fourth quadrant region of the optical element as suggested the second embodiment as it maintains 180 degree symmetry and reduces measurement error as this segmented illumination pattern can be exploited to obtain clear first order signals from an alignment mark ([0078]).
Regarding claim 22, Mathijssen teaches the system of claim 19, and further teaches wherein the specified range is a range at which the optical element captures a diffraction pattern caused by the light directed from the first portion onto the substrate ([0083] reflection surface for a zero order signal of the diffracted radiation) and diffracted from the substrate [0085] zero order signal is reflected by the target).
Further, even if Mathijssen does not explicitly teach the range is selected such that light is diffracted without causing vignetting, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a range such that there is no vignetting in order to avoid measurement error.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathijssen in view of US20190107727A1 by Gorelik (previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Mathijssen teaches the optical tool of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first portion comprises mirrors formed on a substrate where the light from the illumination source is incident on the optical element ([0084] discrete mirror segments may be formed on its internal interface in a pattern corresponding to the desired illumination profile).
Mathijssen does not explicitly wherein the first portion comprises a reflective coating formed on a glass substrate.
However, Gorelik does address this limitation. Gorelik and Mathijssen are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of optical metrology.
Gorelik teaches wherein the first portion comprises a reflective coating ([0041] reflective structures 124 may be formed from one or more films of metals, or deposition of a metal, a photoresist, a photomask, or the like) formed on a glass substrate ([0030] substrate 102 may be glass) where the light from the illumination source is incident on the optical element (Fig. 2).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a mirror comprises a reflective coating formed substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Mathijssen to include wherein the first portion comprises a reflective coating formed on a glass substrate as suggested by Gorelik in order to create cost-effective mirror segments.
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).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Tarifur 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights