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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 appears to be a duplicate of Claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
1. An inspection system comprising:
a controller including one or more processors configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to:
receive first measurement data of one or more training samples after a first process step with an in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the first process step is prior to fabrication of a plurality of instances of a test feature on the one or more training samples;
receive second measurement data of the plurality of instances of the test feature after a second process step with the in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the second process step is after the fabrication of the plurality of instances of the test feature, wherein the plurality of instances of the test feature provide a distribution of intentional variations of one or more aspects of the test feature;
determine one or more delta metrics associated with the first and second measurement data for the plurality of instances of the test feature;
generate, using the second measurement data and the one or more delta metrics, a measurement model for determining metrology measurements of the test feature based on at least one of the second measurement data or the one or more delta metrics; and
determine values of the metrology measurements for one or more additional instances of the test feature based on at least one of the second measurement data or the one or more delta metrics associated with the one or more additional instances of the test feature generated with the in-line measurement sub-system.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract idea of independent Claims 19 and 20, which are listed below with the claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
19. An inspection method comprising:
generating first measurement data of one or more training samples after a first process step with an in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the first process step is prior to fabrication of a plurality of instances of a test feature on the one or more training samples;
generating second measurement data of the plurality of instances of the test feature after a second process step with the in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the second process step is after the fabrication of the plurality of instances of the test feature, wherein the plurality of instances of the test feature provide a distribution of intentional variations of one or more aspects of the test feature;
determining one or more delta metrics associated with the first and second measurement data for the plurality of instances of the test feature;
generating, using the second measurement data and the one or more delta metrics, a measurement model for determining metrology measurements of the test feature based on at least one of the second measurement data or the one or more delta metrics; and
determining values of the metrology measurements for one or more additional instances of the test feature based on at least one of the second measurement data or the one or more delta metrics associated with the one or more additional instances of the test feature generated with the in-line measurement sub-system.
20. An inspection system comprising:
an in-line measurement sub-system;
a reference measurement sub-system; and
a controller including one or more processors configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to:
receive first measurement data of one or more training samples after a first process step with the in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the first process step is prior to fabrication of a plurality of instances of a test feature on the one or more training samples;
receive second measurement data of the plurality of instances of the test feature after a second process step with the in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the second process step is after the fabrication of the plurality of instances of the test feature, wherein the plurality of instances of the test feature provide a distribution of intentional variations of one or more aspects of the test feature;
determine one or more delta metrics associated with the first and second measurement data for the plurality of instances of the test feature;
receive ground-truth metrology measurements of the plurality of instances of the test feature after the one or more second process steps with the reference measurement sub-system;
generate reference data based on the ground-truth metrology measurements and the one or more delta metrics;
generate, using the second measurement data and the reference data, a measurement model for determining metrology measurements of the plurality of instances of the test feature based on at least the second measurement data; and
determine values of the metrology measurements for one or more additional instances of the test feature based on at least one of the second measurement data or the one or more delta metrics associated with the one or more additional instances of the test feature generated with the in-line measurement sub-system.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, Claim 1 is a system (machine) claim, Claim 19 is a method claim, and Claim 20 is a system (machine) claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
In the instant case, claim 1 is found to recite at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being mathematical concepts, and also a mental process because the steps can be performed by a human using pen and paper. This can be seen in the claim limitations of determining delta metrics, generating a model based on received data, and determining values based on received data.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 19 and 20.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed system recites additional elements including “a controller including one or more processors configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors”, “receive first measurement data of one or more training samples after a first process step with an in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the first process step is prior to fabrication of a plurality of instances of a test feature on the one or more training samples”; and receive second measurement data of the plurality of instances of the test feature after a second process step with the in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the second process step is after the fabrication of the plurality of instances of the test feature, wherein the plurality of instances of the test feature provide a distribution of intentional variations of one or more aspects of the test feature”. However the controller and processors are found to be merely generic computer hardware for implementing the abstract idea, that represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. Further, the receiving steps are merely data gathering, which is recited at a high level of generality, and thus merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies) (see MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity).
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the results of the determining, generating, and determining steps.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely performs insignificant extra-solution activit(ies). Further, the receiving steps, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that Claim 1 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 19 and 20 are also not patent eligible. Claim 19 recites essentially the same data gathering steps (i.e., generating first measurement data and generating second measurement data) as Claim 1. Claim 20 broadly recites an in-line measurement sub-system, a reference measurement sub-system, a controller, and processors; these elements are merely generic hardware for implementing the abstract idea. Claim 20 additionally recites various receiving steps, which are mere data gathering similar to the receiving steps of Claim 1.
With regards to the dependent claims, Claims 2-18 merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For example, the broadly-recited types of measurement systems in Claims 5-10, 13, 15-18, and 22-28 are merely generic hardware for performing the data gathering steps. Therefore, these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for parent claims 1 and 20.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein Koerkamp et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0134283, hereinafter “Klein”) in view of Bomholt et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0356232, hereinafter “Bomholt”).
Regarding Claim 1, Klein teaches an inspection system comprising: a controller including one or more processors configured to execute program instructions (Fig. 3, computer system CL; paragraphs [0024]-[0025]) causing the one or more processors to: receive first measurement data of one or more training samples after a first process step with an in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the first process step is prior to fabrication of a plurality of instances of a feature on the one or more training samples (Fig. 4, block 402, first data, paragraph [0067]); receive second measurement data of the plurality of instances of the feature after a second process step with the in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the second process step is after the fabrication of the plurality of instances of the feature (Fig. 4, block 404, second data, paragraph [0067], etching and polishing fabricate features on the substrate); determine one or more delta metrics associated with the first and second measurement data for the plurality of instances of the feature (Fig. 4, block 406, first class of fingerprint components; paragraph [0068]); generate, using the second measurement data and the one or more delta metrics, a measurement model for determining metrology measurements based on at least one of the second measurement data or the one or more delta metrics (Fig. 4, block 408; paragraphs [0068]-[0069] and [0072]-[0075], Fig. 5, model 510) and; determine values of the metrology measurements for one or more additional instances of the feature based on at least one of the second measurement data or the one or more delta metrics associated with the one or more additional instances of the feature generated with the in-line measurement sub-system (Fig. 4, block 408; paragraphs [0068]-[0069] and [0072]-[0075], Fig. 5, model 510).
Klein does not specifically teach that the feature is a test feature, wherein the plurality of instances of the test feature provide a distribution of intentional variations of one or more aspects of the test feature. However, Bomholt teaches a test feature, wherein the plurality of instances of the test feature provide a distribution of intentional variations of one or more aspects of the test feature in paragraph [0009]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the test feature taught in Bomholt in the system of Klein, in order to provide relevant data for process monitoring and yield analysis (see Bomholt, paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claim 12, Klein in view of Bomholt teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Klein further teaches wherein the measurement model comprises: a machine learning model trained on the second measurement data and the one or more delta metrics (model 510; paragraphs [0068]-[0069] and [0072]-[0075]).
Regarding Claim 15, Klein in view of Bomholt teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Klein further teaches wherein the in-line measurement sub-system comprises: an optical measurement sub-system (paragraph [0046], scatterometer).
Regarding Claim 17, Klein in view of Bomholt teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Klein further teaches wherein the in-line measurement sub-system comprises: an optical measurement sub-system (paragraph [0046], scatterometer).
Regarding Claim 19, Klein teaches an inspection method (Fig. 4) comprising: generating first measurement data of one or more training samples after a first process step with an in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the first process step is prior to fabrication of a plurality of instances of a feature on the one or more training samples (Fig. 4, block 402, first data, paragraph [0067]); generating second measurement data of the plurality of instances of the feature after a second process step with the in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the second process step is after the fabrication of the plurality of instances of the feature (Fig. 4, block 404, second data, paragraph [0067], etching and polishing fabricate features on the substrate); determining one or more delta metrics associated with the first and second measurement data for the plurality of instances of the feature (Fig. 4, block 406, first class of fingerprint components; paragraph [0068]); generating, using the second measurement data and the one or more delta metrics, a measurement model for determining metrology measurements of the feature based on at least one of the second measurement data or the one or more delta metrics (Fig. 4, block 408; paragraphs [0068]-[0069] and [0072]-[0075], Fig. 5, model 510); and determining values of the metrology measurements for one or more additional instances of the feature based on at least one of the second measurement data or the one or more delta metrics associated with the one or more additional instances of the feature generated with the in-line measurement sub-system (Fig. 4, block 408; paragraphs [0068]-[0069] and [0072]-[0075], Fig. 5, model 510).
Klein does not specifically teach that the feature is a test feature, wherein the plurality of instances of the test feature provide a distribution of intentional variations of one or more aspects of the test feature. However, Bomholt teaches a test feature, wherein the plurality of instances of the test feature provide a distribution of intentional variations of one or more aspects of the test feature in paragraph [0009]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the test feature taught in Bomholt in the system of Klein, in order to provide relevant data for process monitoring and yield analysis (see Bomholt, paragraph [0069]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Bomholt, in further view of Kitamura et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0158345, hereinafter “Kitamura”).
Regarding Claim 2, Klein in view of Bomholt teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Klein does not specifically teach wherein the one or more delta metrics are based on at least one of a root mean square error (RMSE), a difference, an absolute difference, a sum, or an absolute sum of the first and second measurement data. However, Klein does teach that the first class of fingerprint components mutually correlate between the first data and the second data (paragraph [0068]). Further, Kitamura teaches wherein the one or more delta metrics are based on at least one of a root mean square error (RMSE), a difference, an absolute difference, a sum, or an absolute sum of the first and second measurement data in paragraphs [0008] and [0090]-[0092] (difference between data from before and after fabrication process; other listed metrics are optional due to “at least one of”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the difference of Kitamura as the correlation of the system of Klein, in order to evaluate the fabrication process (see Kitamura, paragraph [0008]).
Claim(s) 3-9, 20-22, and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Bomholt, in further view of Pandev et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0141193, hereinafter “Pandev”).
Regarding Claim 3, Klein in view of Bomholt teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Klein does not specifically teach wherein the program instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: receive ground-truth metrology measurements of the plurality of instances of the feature after the second process step with a reference measurement sub-system different than the in-line measurement sub-system; and generate reference data based on the ground-truth metrology measurements, wherein generate, using the second measurement data, the measurement model for determining metrology measurements of the plurality of instances of the feature based on at least the second measurement data comprises: generate, using the second measurement data and the reference data, the measurement model for determining metrology measurements of the plurality of instances of the feature based on at least the second measurement data. However, Klein does teach collecting data after a second process step (Fig. 4, block 404), and determining a model based on one or more delta metrics (Fig. 4, blocks 406 and 408). Further, Pandev teaches wherein the program instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: receive ground-truth metrology measurements of the plurality of instances of the feature with a reference measurement sub-system different than the in-line measurement sub-system (Fig. 2, blocks 206 and 208, first and second metrology components that are different from each other); and generate reference data based on the ground-truth metrology measurements and the one or more delta metrics (Fig. 2, block 210 and 212 and paragraph [0054]-[0055], combined and transformed first set of signals and second set of signals used to determine corresponding relationship), wherein generate, using the second measurement data and the one or more delta metrics, the measurement model for determining metrology measurements of the plurality of instances of the feature based on at least the second measurement data comprises: generate, using the second measurement data and the reference data, the measurement model for determining metrology measurements of the plurality of instances of the feature based on at least the second measurement data (Fig. 2, block 214, create trained model). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the multiple metrology tools taught in Pandev in the system of Klein, and apply the model building taught in Pandev to the delta metrics of Klein, in order to overcome the problem of insufficient measurement performance of individual metrology tools (see Pandev, paragraph [0006]).
Klein in view of Pandev does not specifically teach that the feature is a test feature, wherein the plurality of instances of the test feature provide a distribution of intentional variations of one or more aspects of the test feature. However, Bomholt teaches a test feature, wherein the plurality of instances of the test feature provide a distribution of intentional variations of one or more aspects of the test feature in paragraph [0009]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the test feature taught in Bomholt in the system of Klein and Pandev, in order to provide relevant data for process monitoring and yield analysis (see Bomholt, paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claim 4, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 3. Klein does not specifically teach wherein generate the reference data based on the ground-truth metrology measurements and the one or more delta metrics comprises: determine a fitting function relating the ground-truth metrology measurements to the one or more delta metrics; and generate the reference data based on the fitting function. However, Klein does teach delta metrics (Fig. 4, block 406). Further, Pandev teaches wherein generate the reference data based on the ground-truth metrology measurements and the one or more delta metrics comprises: determine a fitting function relating the ground-truth metrology measurements to the one or more delta metrics; and generate the reference data based on the fitting function (paragraphs [0036], [0039]-[0042], and [0056], data fitting). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the data fitting taught in Pandev in the system of Klein, and apply the data fitting taught in Pandev to the delta metrics of Klein, in order to overcome the problem of insufficient measurement performance of individual metrology tools (see Pandev, paragraph [0006]), and in order to optimize collected data (see Pandev, paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 5, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 3. Klein further teaches wherein the in-line measurement sub-system comprises: an optical measurement sub-system (paragraph [0046], scatterometer).
Regarding Claim 6, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 5. Klein does not specifically teach wherein the reference measurement sub-system comprises: at least one of an x-ray measurement sub-system or a particle-beam measurement sub-system. However, Pandev teaches wherein the reference measurement sub-system comprises: at least one of an x-ray measurement sub-system or a particle-beam measurement sub-system (paragraphs [0049] and [0052], XPS and SEM). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the XPS or SEM of Pandev in the system of Klein, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the multiple metrology tools taught in Pandev in the system of Klein, in order to overcome the problem of insufficient measurement performance of individual metrology tools (see Pandev, paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 7, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 3. Klein further teaches wherein the in-line measurement sub-system comprises: a particle-beam measurement sub-system (Klein, paragraph [0046], scanning electron microscope, as evidenced by paragraph [0065] of Applicant’s specification as filed).
Regarding Claim 8, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 7. Klein does not specifically teach wherein the reference measurement sub-system comprises: at least one of an x-ray photon spectrometer system or a transmission electron microscope system. However, Pandev teaches wherein the reference measurement sub-system comprises: at least one of an x-ray photon spectrometer system or a transmission electron microscope system (paragraphs [0049] and [0052], XPS and TEM). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the XPS or TEM of Pandev in the system of Klein, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the multiple metrology tools taught in Pandev in the system of Klein, in order to overcome the problem of insufficient measurement performance of individual metrology tools (see Pandev, paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 9, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 3. Klein further teaches wherein the measurement model comprises: a machine learning model trained on the second measurement data and at least one of the one or more delta metrics (Fig. 5, model 510) or the reference data (optional due to “or”).
Regarding Claim 20, Klein teaches an inspection system comprising: an in-line measurement sub-system (Fig. 3, metrology tools MT); and a controller including one or more processors configured to execute program instructions (Fig. 3, computer system CL) causing the one or more processors to: receive first measurement data of one or more training samples after a first process step with the in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the first process step is prior to fabrication of a plurality of instances of a feature on the one or more training samples (Fig. 4, block 402, first data, paragraph [0067]); receive second measurement data of the plurality of instances of the feature after a second process step with the in-line measurement sub-system, wherein the second process step is after the fabrication of the plurality of instances of the feature (Fig. 4, block 404, second data, paragraph [0067], etching and polishing fabricate features on the substrate); determine one or more delta metrics associated with the first and second measurement data for the plurality of instances of the feature (Fig. 4, block 406, first class of fingerprint components; paragraph [0068]); generate, using the second measurement data, a measurement model for determining metrology measurements of the plurality of instances of the feature based on at least the second measurement data (Fig. 4, block 408; paragraphs [0068]-[0069] and [0072]-[0075], Fig. 5, model 510); and determine values of the metrology measurements for one or more additional instances of the feature based on at least one of the second measurement data or the one or more delta metrics associated with the one or more additional instances of the feature generated with the in-line measurement sub-system (Fig. 4, block 408; paragraphs [0068]-[0069] and [0072]-[0075], Fig. 5, model 510).
Klein does not specifically teach a reference measurement subsystem, and receive ground-truth metrology measurements of the plurality of instances of the feature after the one or more second process steps with the reference measurement sub-system; generate reference data based on the ground-truth metrology measurements and the one or more delta metrics; and generate, using the second measurement data and the reference data, a measurement model for determining metrology measurements of the plurality of instances of the feature based on at least the second measurement data (emphasis added). However, Klein does teach collecting data after a second process step (Fig. 4, block 404), and determining a model based on one or more delta metrics (Fig. 4, blocks 406 and 408). Further, Pandev teaches wherein the program instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: receive ground-truth metrology measurements of the plurality of instances of the feature after the one or more second process steps with the reference measurement sub-system (Fig. 2, blocks 206 and 208, first and second metrology components that are different from each other); and generate reference data based on the ground-truth metrology measurements and the one or more delta metrics (Fig. 2, block 210 and 212 and paragraph [0054]-[0055], combined and transformed first set of signals and second set of signals used to determine corresponding relationship), generate, using the second measurement data and the reference data, a measurement model for determining metrology measurements of the plurality of instances of the feature based on at least the second measurement data (Fig. 2, block 214, create trained model). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the multiple metrology tools taught in Pandev in the system of Klein, and apply the model building taught in Pandev to the delta metrics of Klein, in order to overcome the problem of insufficient measurement performance of individual metrology tools (see Pandev, paragraph [0006]).
Klein in view of Pandev does not specifically teach that the feature is a test feature, wherein the plurality of instances of the test feature provide a distribution of intentional variations of one or more aspects of the test feature. However, Bomholt teaches a test feature, wherein the plurality of instances of the test feature provide a distribution of intentional variations of one or more aspects of the test feature in paragraph [0009]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the test feature taught in Bomholt in the system of Klein and Pandev, in order to provide relevant data for process monitoring and yield analysis (see Bomholt, paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claim 21, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 20. Klein does not specifically teach wherein generate the reference data based on the ground-truth metrology measurements and the one or more delta metrics comprises: determine a fitting function relating the ground-truth metrology measurements to the one or more delta metrics; and generate the reference data based on the fitting function. However, Klein does teach delta metrics (Fig. 4, block 406). Further, Pandev teaches wherein generate the reference data based on the ground-truth metrology measurements and the one or more delta metrics comprises: determine a fitting function relating the ground-truth metrology measurements to the one or more delta metrics; and generate the reference data based on the fitting function (paragraphs [0036], [0039]-[0042], and [0056], data fitting). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the data fitting taught in Pandev in the system of Klein, and apply the data fitting taught in Pandev to the delta metrics of Klein, in order to overcome the problem of insufficient measurement performance of individual metrology tools (see Pandev, paragraph [0006]), and in order to optimize collected data (see Pandev, paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 22, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 20. Klein further teaches wherein the in-line measurement sub-system comprises: an optical measurement sub-system (paragraph [0046], scatterometer).
Regarding Claim 24, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 22. Klein does not specifically teach wherein the reference measurement sub-system comprises: at least one of an x-ray measurement sub-system or a particle-beam measurement sub-system. However, Pandev teaches wherein the reference measurement sub-system comprises: at least one of an x-ray measurement sub-system or a particle-beam measurement sub-system (paragraphs [0049] and [0052], XPS and SEM). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the XPS or SEM of Pandev in the system of Klein, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the multiple metrology tools taught in Pandev in the system of Klein, in order to overcome the problem of insufficient measurement performance of individual metrology tools (see Pandev, paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 25, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 20. Klein further teaches wherein the in-line measurement sub-system comprises: a particle-beam measurement sub-system (paragraph [0053], scanning electron microscopy).
Regarding Claim 26, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 25. Klein further teaches wherein the in-line measurement sub-system comprises: a critical dimension scanning electron microscope system (paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claim 27, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 26. Klein does not specifically teach wherein the reference measurement sub-system comprises: at least one of an x-ray photon spectrometer system or a transmission electron microscope system. However, Pandev teaches wherein the reference measurement sub-system comprises: at least one of an x-ray photon spectrometer system or a transmission electron microscope system (paragraphs [0049] and [0052], XPS or TEM). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the XPS or TEM of Pandev in the system of Klein, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the multiple metrology tools taught in Pandev in the system of Klein, in order to overcome the problem of insufficient measurement performance of individual metrology tools (see Pandev, paragraph [0006]).
Claim(s) 10-11, 23, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev, in further view of Rampoldi.
Regarding Claim 10, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 3. Klein further teaches wherein the in-line measurement sub-system comprises an optical measurement sub-system (paragraph [0046], scatterometer). Klein does not specifically teach wherein the measurement model comprises an electromagnetic model. However, Rampoldi teaches, in paragraph [0035], using RCWA model for metrology, which is an EM model. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the EM model taught in Rampoldi in the system of Klein, because such a model is suitable for generating measurement data of a test feature, as evidenced by paragraph [0062] of Applicant’s Specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 11, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 10. Klein does not specifically teach wherein the electromagnetic model comprises: a rigorous coupled-wave analysis (RCWA) model. However, Rampoldi teaches, in paragraph [0035], using RCWA model for metrology. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the EM model taught in Rampoldi in the system of Klein, because such a model is suitable for generating measurement data of a test feature, as evidenced by paragraph [0062] of Applicant’s Specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 23, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 22. Klein does not specifically teach wherein the optical measurement sub-system is configured to determine at least some Mueller matrix elements associated with the plurality of instances of the test feature. However, Rampoldi teaches measuring Mueller matrix elements using a metrology tool in paragraphs [0018]-[0021]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the EM model taught in Rampoldi in the system of Klein, because such a configuration is suitable for generating measurement data of a test feature, as evidenced by paragraph [0062] of Applicant’s Specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 28, Klein in view of Bomholt and Pandev teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 20. Klein does not specifically teach wherein the in-line measurement sub-system comprises: an x-ray measurement sub-system. However, Rampoldi teaches a metrology tool that uses x-rays in paragraph [0031]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the x-ray metrology taught in Rampoldi in the system of Klein, because such a configuration is suitable for generating measurement data of a test feature, as evidenced by paragraph [0062] of Applicant’s Specification as filed.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Bomholt, in further view of Rampoldi et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0139032, hereinafter “Rampoldi”, cited on Applicant’s IDS dated 3/22/2024).
Regarding Claim 13, Klein in view of Bomholt teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Klein further teaches wherein the in-line measurement sub-system comprises an optical measurement sub-system (paragraph [0046], scatterometer). Klein does not specifically teach wherein the measurement model comprises an electromagnetic model. However, Rampoldi teaches, in paragraph [0035], using RCWA model for metrology, which is an EM model. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the EM model taught in Rampoldi in the system of Klein, because such a model is suitable for generating measurement data of a test feature, as evidenced by paragraph [0062] of Applicant’s Specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 14, Klein in view of Bomholt teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 13. Klein does not specifically teach wherein the electromagnetic model comprises: a rigorous coupled-wave analysis (RCWA) model. However, Rampoldi teaches, in paragraph [0035], using RCWA model for metrology. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the EM model taught in Rampoldi in the system of Klein, because such a model is suitable for generating measurement data of a test feature, as evidenced by paragraph [0062] of Applicant’s Specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 16, Klein in view of Bomholt teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Klein does not specifically teach wherein the optical measurement sub-system is configured to determine at least some Mueller matrix elements associated with the plurality of instances of the test feature. However, Rampoldi teaches measuring Mueller matrix elements using a metrology tool in paragraphs [0018]-[0021]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the EM model taught in Rampoldi in the system of Klein, because such a configuration is suitable for generating measurement data of a test feature, as evidenced by paragraph [0062] of Applicant’s Specification as filed.
Regarding Claim 18, Klein in view of Bomholt teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Klein does not specifically teach wherein the in-line measurement sub-system comprises: an x-ray measurement sub-system. However, Rampoldi teaches a metrology tool that uses x-rays in paragraph [0031]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the x-ray metrology taught in Rampoldi in the system of Klein, because such a configuration is suitable for generating measurement data of a test feature, as evidenced by paragraph [0062] of Applicant’s Specification as filed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571)272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights