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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
At p. 8 para 3 that Sandusky does not teach or suggest any "subranges of collection angles, each at a detector numerical aperture (NA) that is a fraction of the collection NA" as claimed.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Sandusky was used to reject “each at a detector numerical aperture (NA) that is a fraction of the collection NA (fig. 1 observational aperture 40, para [0018])”.
The “at least ten subranges of collection angles” (there are 10 subranges in the row of AOI in fig. 1)” was disclosed by Fu. Note that Fu teaches ten subranges of collection angles (para [0126] last sentence; 15–65 degrees means 15, 16, 17, …, 65, which are discrete subranges of collection angles (para [0029] lines 1-7 of the instant application)). These ten subranges of collection angles are dependent on the shape of the collection aperture 115 of Fu’s device (para [0136]). This means the teaching of Fu provides “resolved into ten different subranges by the detector” (para [0083] lines 20-26 of the instant application).
The collection mask 125 (fig. 1 of the instant application), which corresponds to the range of collection angles defined by the collection NA (para [0081] lines 1–6), are equated to the collection aperture 115 in Fu’s device and the observation aperture 40 in Sandusky’s device. This means the collection aperture 115 of Fu and the observation aperture 40 of Sandusky control the collection angles defined by the collection NA. The collection aperture 115 of Fu does not explicitly teach that this aperture 115 can change its numerical aperture (para [0136]). However, Sandusky’s aperture 40 can be changed from 0 to about 1 (Sandusky: claim 4). This means the teaching of Sandusky provides “collection NA dispersed across the detector is 0.01” (para [0083] lines 20-26 of the instant application).
With the arguments above, in which the examiner connects Sandusky to the teaching of Krishan, when modified by Wang and Fu, that is, Sandusky teaches “each at a detector numerical aperture (NA) (note that this is disclosed in Fu, these are the circle dark dots in element 188D in fig. 12 A) that is a fraction of the collection NA (fig. 1 observational aperture 40, para [0018])”, thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues:
At 9 para 2 to para 3 that “…the variable collection aperture taught by Sandusky fails to address the claim limitations, which require "the range of collection angles dispersed along the second direction is resolved into at least ten subranges of collection angles, each at a detector numerical aperture (NA) that is a fraction of the collection NA." In other words, for a particular measurement, i.e., detection interval, the range of collection angles ... is resolved into at least ten subranges of collection angles, each at a detector numerical aperture (NA) that is a fraction of the collection NA"…”.
Examiner response:
Again, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Fu with Sandusky teaches the limitation “the range of collection angles dispersed along the second direction is resolved into at least ten subranges of collection angles, each at a detector numerical aperture (NA) that is a fraction of the collection NA”. Replacing the collection aperture 115 of Fu with Sandusky’s aperture 40 to the teaching of Krishnan provides the limitation “the range of collection angles dispersed along the second direction is resolved into at least ten subranges of collection angles, each at a detector numerical aperture (NA) that is a fraction of the collection NA”. See arguments above.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan, S. et al., US20160245741A1 (hereinafter Krishnan) in view of Wang, D. et al., US 20130114085 A1 (hereinafter Wang), Fu, J. et al., US 20170082932 A1 (hereinafter Fu), and Sandusky, J., US 20040246481 A1 (hereinafter Sandusky).
Regarding claim 1, Krishnan teaches a spectroscopic metrology system comprising: one or more illumination sources configured to generate an amount of illumination light (fig. 5 illumination 110 and light 114, para [0041]), the amount of illumination light incident at a measurement spot (fig. 5 measurement spot 116) on a surface of a specimen (fig. 5 wafer 115, para [0041]) under measurement at a nominal angle of incidence (fig. 5 this is the angle α) and a range of angles of incidence (para [0038] lines 3-5) defined by an illumination numerical aperture (fig. 5 elements 111 and 112, para [0037] lines 7-11); “a collection optics subsystem configured to collect an amount of collected light from the measurement spot on the surface of the specimen” (the collection optics subsystem are elements between 115 and 123 in fig. 5) “over a range of collection angles corresponding to at least a portion of the range of angles of incidence” (para [0038] lines 3-5, this corresponds to the number of oblique angles), the collection optics subsystem including and “a dispersive element, wherein the dispersive element disperses the amount of collected light according to wavelength” (fig. 5 element 122, para [0037] lines 15-17); and “at least one detector having a planar, two-dimensional surface sensitive to incident light, the at least one detector configured to detect the amount of collected light and generate output signals indicative of the detected light” (fig. 5 detector 123, para [0037] lines 23-25).
Krishnan does not teach a collection mask disposed at or near a pupil plane of the collection optics subsystem, wherein the collection mask selects the amount of collected light within the range of collection angles defined by a collection numerical aperture (NA), “wherein the amount of collected light is dispersed by the collection optics subsystem onto the at least one detector according to wavelength along one direction of the at least one detector and according to collection angle over the range of collection angles along a second direction of the at least one detector, wherein the first and second directions are orthogonal, wherein the range of collection angles dispersed along the second direction is resolved into at least ten subranges of collection angles, each at a detector numerical aperture (NA) that is a fraction of the collection NA.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches a collection mask disposed at or near a pupil plane of the collection optics subsystem, wherein the collection mask selects the amount of collected light within the range of collection angles defined by a collection numerical aperture (NA) (fig. 2 element 215, para [0034] lines 5-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wang to Krishnan to have a collection mask disposed at or near a pupil plane of the collection optics subsystem, wherein the collection mask selects the amount of collected light within the range of collection angles defined by a collection numerical aperture (NA) in order to control the signal coming from the contamination from one or more targets on the sample (para [0034 last sentence]).
Krishan, when modified by Wang, fails to teach “wherein the amount of collected light is dispersed by the collection optics subsystem onto the at least one detector according to wavelength along one direction of the at least one detector and according to collection angle over the range of collection angles along a second direction of the at least one detector, wherein the first and second directions are orthogonal, wherein the range of collection angles dispersed along the second direction is resolved into at least ten subranges of collection angles, each at a detector numerical aperture (NA) that is a fraction of the collection NA.
Fu, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches wherein the amount of collected light is dispersed by the collection optics subsystem onto the at least one detector according to wavelength along one direction of the at least one detector and according to collection angle over the range of collection angles along a second direction of the at least one detector” (fig. 1 elements AOI and ʎ corresponds to the two directions, para [0063] lines 13-15), wherein the first and second directions are orthogonal (the two directions are orthogonal), wherein the range of collection angles dispersed along the second direction is resolved into at least ten subranges of collection angles” (the are 10 subranges in the row of AOI in fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Fu to the Krishnan, when modified by Wang, to have wherein the amount of collected light is dispersed by the collection optics subsystem onto the at least one detector according to wavelength along one direction of the at least one detector and according to collection angle over the range of collection angles along a second direction of the at least one detector, wherein the first and second directions are orthogonal, wherein the range of collection angles dispersed along the second direction is resolved into at least ten subranges of collection angles in order to improve the measurement parameters used for characterizing the semiconductor manufacturing processes and structures (para [0002] lines 3-5).
Krishan, when modified by Wang and Fu, does not teach each at a detector numerical aperture (NA) that is a fraction of the collection NA.
Sandusky, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches each at a detector numerical aperture (NA) that is a fraction of the collection NA (fig. 1 observational aperture 40, para [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Sandusky to the Krishnan, when modified by Wang and Fu, to have each at a detector numerical aperture (NA) that is a fraction of the collection NA in order to provides a method for scanning through a variety of incident or reflective angles, or both, by varying the numerical aperture in variable numerical aperture components (para [0018]).
Regarding claim 2, Krishnan does not teach the spectroscopic metrology system of claim 1, wherein the detector NA associated with each of the at least ten subranges of collection angles is less than 0.010.
Sandusky, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches the spectroscopic metrology system of claim 1, wherein the detector NA associated with each of the at least ten subranges of collection angles is less than 0.010 (para [0018], in the range between 0 to 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Sandusky to the Krishnan to have the spectroscopic metrology system of claim 1, wherein the detector NA associated with each of the at least ten subranges of collection angles is less than 0.010 in order to determine which range of angles at which light scattered from the structure are accepted and detected by the detector (para [0026] lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 7, Krishnan does not teach the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the illumination Numerical Aperture (NA) of the illumination source at the measurement spot is less than 0.15.
Sandusky, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the illumination Numerical Aperture (NA) of the illumination source at the measurement spot is less than 0.15 (para [0018], in the range between 0 to 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Sandusky to the Krishnan to have the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the illumination Numerical Aperture (NA) of the illumination source at the measurement spot is less than 0.15 in order to provide a scanning method through a variety of incident angles (para [0032]).
Regarding claim 9, Krishnan does not teach the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one detector includes two or more detectors, wherein each of the two or more detectors detects a portion of the amount of collected light over different spectral ranges. Regarding claim 10, Krishnan does not teach the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 7, wherein each of the two or more detectors detects each portion of the amount of collected light over different spectral ranges simultaneously. Regarding claim 11, Krishnan does not teach the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one detector includes two or more different surface areas each having different photosensitivity, wherein the two or more different surface areas are aligned with a direction of wavelength dispersion across the surface of the at least one detector.
Fu, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one detector includes two or more detectors, wherein each of the two or more detectors detects a portion of the amount of collected light over different spectral ranges (para [0015]) and the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 7, wherein each of the two or more detectors detects each portion of the amount of collected light over different spectral ranges simultaneously (para [0015]), the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one detector includes two or more different surface areas each having different photosensitivity, wherein the two or more different surface areas are aligned with a direction of wavelength dispersion across the surface of the at least one detector (para [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Fu to the Krishnan to have the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one detector includes two or more detectors, wherein each of the two or more detectors detects a portion of the amount of collected light over different spectral ranges, the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 7, wherein each of the two or more detectors detects each portion of the amount of collected light over different spectral ranges simultaneously, the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the at least one detector includes two or more different surface areas each having different photosensitivity, wherein the two or more different surface areas are aligned with a direction of wavelength dispersion across the surface of the at least one detector in order to measure across the entire wavelength range with sufficient accuracy (para [0015]).
Regarding claim 12, Krishnan teaches the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the specimen under measurement includes a three dimensional NAND structure (para [0030]) or a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) structure.
Regarding claim 14, Krishnan teaches a method comprising: directing an amount of illumination light (fig. 5 light 114, para [0041]) from an illumination source (fig. 5 illumination 110, para [0041]) to a measurement spot (fig. 5 measurement spot 116) on a surface of a specimen (fig. 5 wafer 115, para [0041]) under measurement over a range of angles of incidence (para [0038] lines 3-5) defined by an illumination Numerical Aperture (NA) (fig. 5 elements 111 and 112, para [0037] lines 7-11); the range of collection angles corresponding to at least a portion of the range of angles of incidence (para [0038] lines 3-5, this corresponds to the number of oblique angles); dispersing the amount of collected light according to wavelength across one direction of a planar (fig. 5 element 122, para [0037] lines 15-17).
Krishnan does not teach “collecting an amount of collected light from the measurement spot on the surface of the specimen over a range of collection angles defined by a collection NA”, two-dimensional surface of a detector and according to collection angle across a second direction of the planar, two-dimensional surface of the detector; and resolving the amount of collected light according to collection angle into at least ten subranges of collection angles, each at a detector NA that is a fraction of the collection NA.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches “collecting an amount of collected light from the measurement spot on the surface of the specimen over a range of collection angles defined by a collection NA” (fig. 2 element 215, para [0034] lines 5-12)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wang to Krishnan to have “collecting an amount of collected light from the measurement spot on the surface of the specimen over a range of collection angles defined by a collection NA” in order to control the signal coming from the contamination from one or more targets on the sample (para [0034 last sentence]).
Krishan, when modified by Wang, fails to teach two-dimensional surface of a detector and according to collection angle across a second direction of the planar, two-dimensional surface of the detector; and resolving the amount of collected light according to collection angle into at least ten subranges of collection angles, each at a detector NA that is a fraction of the collection NA.
Fu, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches teach two-dimensional surface of a detector and according to collection angle across a second direction of the planar, two-dimensional surface of the detector (fig. 1 elements AOI and ʎ corresponds to the two directions, para [0063] lines 13-15); and resolving the amount of collected light according to collection angle into at least ten subranges of collection angles (the are 10 subranges in the row of AOI in fig. 1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Fu to the Krishnan, when modified by Wang, to have two-dimensional surface of a detector and according to collection angle across a second direction of the planar, two-dimensional surface of the detector; and resolving the amount of collected light according to collection angle into at least ten subranges of collection angles in order to improve the measurement parameters used for characterizing the semiconductor manufacturing processes and structures (para [0002] lines 3-5).
Krishan, when modified by Wang and Fu, does not teach each at a detector NA that is a fraction of the collection NA.
Sandusky, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches each at a detector NA that is a fraction of the collection NA (fig. 1 observational aperture 40, para [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Sandusky to the Krishnan, when modified by Wang and Fu, to have each at a detector NA that is a fraction of the collection NA in order to provides a method for scanning through a variety of incident or reflective angles, or both, by varying the numerical aperture in variable numerical aperture components (para [0018]).
Regarding claim 15, Krishnan does not teach the method of Claim 14, wherein the detector NA associated with each of the at least ten subranges of collection angles is less than 0.010.
Sandusky, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches the method of Claim 14, wherein the detector NA associated with each of the at least ten subranges of collection angles is less than 0.010 (para [0018], in the range between 0 to 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Sandusky to the Krishnan to have the method of Claim 14, wherein the detector NA associated with each of the at least ten subranges of collection angles is less than 0.010 in order to determine which range of angles at which light scattered from the structure are accepted and detected by the detector (para [0026] lines 7-11).
Regarding claim 20, Krishnan teaches a spectroscopic metrology system comprising: an illumination source configured to generate an amount of illumination light (fig. 5 illumination 110 and light 114, para [0041]); an illumination optics subsystem (these are elements 111-113 in fig. 5) configured to direct the amount of illumination light from the illumination source to a measurement spot on a surface of a specimen (the spot is element 116 and the sample is 115) under measurement over a range of angles of incidence (para [0038] lines 3-5) defined by an illumination Numerical Aperture (NA) (fig. 5 elements 111 and 112, para [0037] lines 7-11).
Krishnan does not teach a reflective collection optics subsystem configured to collect an amount of collected light from the measurement spot on the surface of the specimen over a range of collection angles defined by a collection NA, at least one detector having a planar, two-dimensional surface sensitive to incident light, the at least one detector configured to detect the amount of collected light according to wavelength along one direction of the planar, two-dimensional surface and according to collection angle along another direction of the planar, two-dimensional surface, wherein the detector resolves the amount of collected light detected according to collection angle into at least ten subranges of collection angles, each at a detector NA that is a fraction of the collection NA.
Wang, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches a reflective collection optics subsystem configured to collect an amount of collected light from the measurement spot on the surface of the specimen over a range of collection angles defined by a collection NA (fig. 2 element 215, para [0034] lines 5-12)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wang to Krishnan to have a reflective collection optics subsystem configured to collect an amount of collected light from the measurement spot on the surface of the specimen over a range of collection angles defined by a collection NA in order to control the signal coming from the contamination from one or more targets on the sample (para [0034 last sentence]).
Krishan, when modified by Wang, fails to teach at least one detector having a planar, two-dimensional surface sensitive to incident light, the at least one detector configured to detect the amount of collected light according to wavelength along one direction of the planar, two-dimensional surface and according to collection angle along another direction of the planar, two-dimensional surface, wherein the detector resolves the amount of collected light detected according to collection angle into at least ten subranges of collection angles, each at a detector NA that is a fraction of the collection NA.
Fu, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches at least one detector having a planar, two-dimensional surface sensitive to incident light, the at least one detector configured to detect the amount of collected light according to wavelength along one direction of the planar, two-dimensional surface and according to collection angle along another direction of the planar, two-dimensional surface (fig. 1 elements AOI and ʎ corresponds to the two directions, para [0063] lines 13-15), wherein the detector resolves the amount of collected light detected according to collection angle into at least ten subranges of collection angles (the are 10 subranges in the row of AOI in fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Fu to the Krishnan, when modified by Wang, to have at least one detector having a planar, two-dimensional surface sensitive to incident light, the at least one detector configured to detect the amount of collected light according to wavelength along one direction of the planar, two-dimensional surface and according to collection angle along another direction of the planar, two-dimensional surface, wherein the detector resolves the amount of collected light detected according to collection angle into at least ten subranges of collection angles in order to improve the measurement parameters used for characterizing the semiconductor manufacturing processes and structures (para [0002] lines 3-5).
Krishan, when modified by Wang and Fu, does not teach each at a detector NA that is a fraction of the collection NA.
Sandusky, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches each at a detector NA that is a fraction of the collection NA (fig. 1 observational aperture 40, para [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Sandusky to the Krishnan, when modified by Wang and Fu, to have each at a detector NA that is a fraction of the collection NA in order to provides a method for scanning through a variety of incident or reflective angles, or both, by varying the numerical aperture in variable numerical aperture components (para [0018]).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan, Wang, Fu, and Sandusky as applied to claim(s) 1, 14 above, and in view of Krishnan, S. et al., US11309202B2 (hereinafter Veer).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Krishnan does not teach the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more illumination sources includes a spatially and temporally coherent light source. Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Krishnan does not teach the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 3, wherein the spatially and temporally coherent light source is a supercontinuum laser light source.
Veer, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more illumination sources includes a spatially and temporally coherent light source (col 6 lines 36-42) and the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 3, wherein the spatially and temporally coherent light source is a supercontinuum laser light source (col 6 lines 36-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Veer to the modified device of Krishnan to have the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the one or more illumination sources includes a spatially and temporally coherent light source and the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 3, wherein the spatially and temporally coherent light source is a supercontinuum laser light source in order the laser light to have high spatial and temporal coherence (col 6 lines 36-42).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Krishnan does not teach the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the amount of illumination light includes wavelengths in a range greater than 400 nanometers and less than 2,500 nanometers.
Veer, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the amount of illumination light includes wavelengths in a range greater than 400 nanometers and less than 2,500 nanometers (col 6 lines 11-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Veer to the modified device of Krishnan to have the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the amount of illumination light includes wavelengths in a range greater than 400 nanometers and less than 2,500 nanometers in order to provide illumination in any spectral range or ranges (col 6 lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Krishnan does not teach the method of Claim 14, wherein the amount of illumination light is spatially and temporally coherent.
Veer, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches the method of Claim 14, wherein the amount of illumination light is spatially and temporally coherent (col 6 lines 36-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Veer to the modified device of Krishnan to have the method of Claim 14, wherein the amount of illumination light is spatially and temporally coherent in order the laser light to have high spatial and temporal coherence (col 6 lines 36-42).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Krishnan does not teach the method of Claim 14, wherein the amount of illumination light includes wavelengths in a range greater than 400 nanometers and less than 2,500 nanometers.
Veer, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches the method of Claim 14, wherein the amount of illumination light includes wavelengths in a range greater than 400 nanometers and less than 2,500 nanometers (col 6 lines 11-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Veer to the modified device of Krishnan to have the method of Claim 14, wherein the amount of illumination light includes wavelengths in a range greater than 400 nanometers and less than 2,500 nanometers in order to provide illumination in any spectral range or ranges (col 6 lines 27-30).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan, Wang, Fu, and Sandusky as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Youl, K. et al., KR 20230045185 A (hereinafter Youl).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Krishnan does not teach the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein a dimension of maximum extent of the measurement spot is less than 70 micrometers.
Youl, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein a dimension of maximum extent of the measurement spot is less than 70 micrometers (p. 6 para 7 line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Youl to the modified device of Krishnan to have the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein a dimension of maximum extent of the measurement spot is less than 70 micrometers in order to quickly and precisely acquiring the optical critical dimensions information about a semiconductor specimen by including an atomic force microscope and a micro-spot spectroscopic ellipsometer in one single piece of equipment (Abstract lines 1-3, p. 3 para 10).
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan, Wang, Fu, and Sandusky as applied to claim(s) 1, 14 above, and in view Fu, J. et al., US 20160123894 A1 (hereinafter Sapiens).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Krishnan does not teach the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the collection NA of the collection optics subsystem at the measurement spot is at least 0.02 and less than 0.15.
Sapiens, the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the collection NA of the collection optics subsystem at the measurement spot is at least 0.02 and less than 0.15 (para [0058] lines 9-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Sapiens to modified device of Krishnan to have the spectroscopic metrology system of Claim 1, wherein the collection NA of the collection optics subsystem at the measurement spot is at least 0.02 and less than 0.15 in order to enable measurement of small pitch targets (para [0052] lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Krishnan does not teach the method of Claim 14, wherein the collection NA is at least 0.02 and less than 0.15.
Sapiens, the method of Claim 14, wherein the collection NA is at least 0.02 and less than 0.15 (para [0058] lines 9-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Sapiens to modified device of Krishnan to have the method of Claim 14, wherein the collection NA is at least 0.02 and less than 0.15 in order to enable measurement of small pitch targets (para [0052] lines 1-3).
Claim(s) 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan, Wang, Fu, and Sandusky as applied to claim(s) 1, 14 above, and in view of Wong, Wesley P., and Ken Halvorsen. "Beyond the frame rate: measuring high-frequency fluctuations with light-intensity modulation." Optics letters 34.3 (2009): 277-279 (hereinafter Wong).
Regarding claim 13, Krishnan does not teach the spectroscopy metrology system of Claim 1, further comprising: a moveable optical element in an illumination optical path between the coherent illumination source and the measurement spot, wherein the moveable optical element scans the amount of illumination light over the measurement spot at a frequency that is at least ten times a detection frequency of the at least one detector.
Fu, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches the spectroscopy metrology system of Claim 1, further comprising: a moveable optical element in an illumination optical path between the coherent illumination source and the measurement spot (this is element 143 in fig. 1, para [0172] lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Fu to the Krishnan to have the spectroscopy metrology system of Claim 1, further comprising: a moveable optical element in an illumination optical path between the coherent illumination source and the measurement spot in order to select the optimal AOI range (para [0172] last line).
Krishnan, when modified by Fu, fails to teach wherein the moveable optical element scans the amount of illumination light over the measurement spot at a frequency that is at least ten times a detection frequency of the at least one detector.
Wong, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches wherein the moveable optical element scans the amount of illumination light over the measurement spot at a frequency that is at least ten times a detection frequency of the at least one detector (Abstract last sentence; the Nyquist frequency is equated as the detection frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wong to Krishnan, when modified by Wong, to have wherein the moveable optical element scans the amount of illumination light over the measurement spot at a frequency that is at least ten times a detection frequency of the at least one detector in order to have a higher frame rate frequency in order to increase the accuracy of the measurement.
Regarding claim 19, Krishnan does not teach the method of Claim 14, further comprising: scanning the amount of illumination light over the measurement spot at a frequency that is at least ten times a detection frequency of the amount of collected light.
Wong, from the same field of endeavor as Krishnan, teaches the method of Claim 14, further comprising: scanning the amount of illumination light over the measurement spot at a frequency that is at least ten times a detection frequency of the amount of collected light (Abstract last sentence; the Nyquist frequency is equated as the detection frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wong to Krishnan to have the method of Claim 14, further comprising: scanning the amount of illumination light over the measurement spot at a frequency that is at least ten times a detection frequency of the amount of collected light in order to have a higher frame rate frequency in order to increase the accuracy of the measurement.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights