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, see page 6, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the existing rejection does not explicitly reject all limitations of the amended claim. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Roux.
Applicant argues on pages 6-9 that Roux does not teach a calibration height between the sensor and the substrate, and that Yeh, Jasper and Geffen do not sure the deficiencies of Roux.
Examiner’s position is that Nijmeijer (US 20040189964) is now being used as the primary reference, with Roux used to teach specific limitations.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nijmeijer et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20040189964) in view of Roux (United States Patent Application Publication 20080101684), the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “NR”.
As to claim 1, Nijmeijer teaches a sensor system for measuring a shape of a substrate (paragraph 0021 “A lithographic apparatus … wherein the level sensor is configured to determine a height of a surface of the substrate”), the sensor system comprising:
a substrate support (Figure 8, paragraph 0060 “substrate table WT”) to support a surface of the substrate (Figure 8, paragraph 0051 “substrate W (e.g. a resist-coated semiconductor wafer)”);
at least one sensor device (Figure 8, paragraph 0093 “confidence sensor 20a”), each sensor device comprising
an optical emitter to emit radiation onto the surface of the substrate, and an optical receiver to receive the radiation reflected from the surface (Figure 8, paragraph 0093 “beam generating and receiving parts 21a, 22a”); and
a controller (paragraph 0189 “embodiments of the method may also include one or more computers, processors, and/or processing units (e.g. arrays of logic elements) configured to control an apparatus to perform a method as described herein”) configured to:
determine at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device, based on the received radiation (Figure 8, elements 21a, 22a, paragraph 0096 “The confidence sensors are sensors capable of measuring the vertical position of the upper surface of the wafer at one or more points as the substrate table is scanned underneath it.”);
[a] calibration height representing a distance of the substrate, when supported on the substrate support, above the at least one sensor device (Figure 9, paragraph 0101 “These two steps contain the level sensor measurements (denoted "LS") on the (two or more) physical reference surfaces, which will define the reference plane (fixed to the wafer table) with respect to which the wafer height map is measured.”, and Figure 8, paragraph 0096 “The confidence sensors 20a and 20b are used at initial set-up of the apparatus, and periodically as required thereafter, to calibrate the differences between the Z-interferometers at the measurement and exposure stations.”); and
determine the shape of the substrate based on a comparison of the calibration height and the at least one measurement height (paragraph 0098 “In the calibration procedure, a partial height map of the reference wafer (as usual referenced to the physical reference surface) is generated at the measurement station using the confidence sensor 20b” and “the wafer is then scanned under the confidence sensor, and the height map is generated from the difference between the confidence sensor and Z-interferometer readings”).
Nijmeijer does not teach to compensate for gravitational sag of the substrate with respect to a calibration height. However, it is known in the art as taught by Roux. Roux teaches a sensor system for measuring a shape of a substrate (Abstract “The method begins with the generation of a topographical map for a reticle surface”) with respect to a calibration height (paragraph 0061 “The reticle is placed on a calibration chuck in a reticle handler (also not shown), as will be known by individuals skilled in the relevant arts. The topography of the surface is mapped with a mapping device, such as for example, reticle mapping device 220, that can be integrated within the reticle handler.” and paragraph 0057 “a comparison can be made between the loaded reticle and a theoretical estimate of the topography for the reticle.”), where the height map is compensated for gravitational sag of the substrate with respect to a calibration height (paragraph 0054 “the topographic map generated can be compensated for due to sag due to gravitational forces”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to compensate for gravitational sag of the substrate with respect to a calibration height, in order to have a more accurate map of the substrate’s surface.
As to claim 2, NR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nijmeijer teaches the calibration height is predetermined (paragraph 0097 “In the calibration process using the confidence sensor(s), a reference wafer is loaded onto the substrate table.”) and the controller is configured to obtain the calibration height from a memory coupled to the controller (paragraph 0189 “data storage medium (e.g. a magnetic or optical disk or semiconductor memory such as ROM, RAM, or flash RAM)” and paragraph 0099 teaches doing math on the height maps, indicating the data is obviously stored in an accessible memory).
As to claim 3, NR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim1, in addition Nijmeijer teaches the controller is configured to obtain the calibration height based on received radiation beams reflected from a surface of a test substrate supported by the substrate support (Figure 8, paragraph 0096 “The confidence sensors 20a and 20b are used at initial set-up of the apparatus, and periodically as required thereafter, to calibrate the differences between the Z-interferometers at the measurement and exposure stations.”).
As to claim 20, NR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, in addition Nijmeijer teaches the at least one sensor device comprises only a single sensor device (paragraph 0094 “a confidence sensor 20b, essentially the same as confidence sensor 20a at the exposure position, is provided” indicating a single sensor at each station).
As to claim 22, Nijmeijer teaches a lithographic apparatus (Figure 1, Abstract “A lithographic projection apparatus.”) comprising the sensor system of claim 1 (see the rejection for claim 1 above).
Claims 4, 10-11, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NR, and further in view of Yeh et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20200105557).
As to claim 4, NR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are rotated relative to each other. However, it is known in the art as taught by Yeh. Yeh teaches wafer shape measurement (Abstract “A wafer processing tool is capable of detecting wafer warpage.”) in which a controller (paragraph 0023 “process device 150, such as a computer”) is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate (Figure 2, paragraph 0022 “wafer 130”) and the at least one sensor device (Figure 2, paragraph 0022 “the sensors 122 of the sensor set 120 may include ultrasonic sensors, optical sensors, RF coupling sensors, or a combination thereof”) are rotated relative to each other (paragraph 0025 “when the wafer holder 110 rotates relative to the sensor set 120, the sensor set 120 scans the top surface 132 of the wafer 130”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are rotated relative to each other, in order to more easily scan of the entire surface with a smaller detector size.
As to claim 10, NR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are rotated relative to each other by an angle of less than 270 degrees. However, it is known in the art as taught by Yeh. Yeh teaches the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are rotated relative to each other by an angle of less than 270 degrees (Figure 6A, paragraph 0032 “the sensor sets 120a and 120b scan and detect the entire top surface 132 or the entire back surface 134 of the wafer 130 while the wafer holder 110 rotates relative to each of the sensor sets 120a and 120b by 180 degrees”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are rotated relative to each other by an angle of less than 270 degrees, in order to reduce the time to detect the surface height.
As to claim 11, NR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are rotated relative to each other by an angle of less than 135 degrees. However, it is known in the art as taught by Yeh. Yeh teaches the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are rotated relative to each other by an angle of less than 135 degrees (Figure 6B, paragraph 0034 “the sensor sets 124a, 124b, and 124c scan and detect the entire top surface 132 or the entire back surface 134 of the wafer 130 while the wafer holder 110 rotates relative to each of the sensor sets 124a, 124b, and 124c by 120 degrees or each of the sensor sets 124a, 124b, and 124c rotates relative to the wafer holder 110 by 120 degrees”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are rotated relative to each other by an angle of less than 135 degrees, in order to reduce the time to detect the surface height.
As to claim 14, NR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the at least one sensor device comprises: a first sensor device positioned along a first radius of the substrate; and a second sensor device positioned along a second radius of the substrate, the first radius different to the second radius. However, it is known in the art as taught by Yeh. Yeh teaches the at least one sensor device comprises: a first sensor device positioned along a first radius of the substrate (Figure 6B, paragraph 0033 “sensor set 124a”); and a second sensor device positioned along a second radius of the substrate (Figure 6B, paragraph 0033 “sensor set … 124b”), the first radius different to the second radius (the sensor sets are at 120 degree angles from one another). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the at least one sensor device comprises: a first sensor device positioned along a first radius of the substrate; and a second sensor device positioned along a second radius of the substrate, the first radius different to the second radius, in order to more rapidly scan the wafer.
As to claim 15, NR in view of Yeh teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 14, in addition Yeh teaches the first sensor device is the only sensor device of the at least one sensor device that is positioned along the first radius (in Figure 6B, examiner interprets the sensor set 124a as the claimed “sensor device”, and element 124a is the only sensor along that radius). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the first sensor device be the only sensor device of the at least one sensor device that is positioned along the first radius, in order to minimize the number of (and cost for) sensors required.
As to claim 16, NR in view of Yeh teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 15, in addition Yeh teaches the second sensor device is the only sensor device of the at least one sensor device that is positioned along the second radius (in Figure 6B, examiner interprets the sensor set 124b as the claimed “sensor device” and element 124b is the only sensor along that second radius). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the second sensor device be the only sensor device of the at least one sensor device that is positioned along the second radius, in order to minimize the number of (and cost for) sensors required.
As to claim 17, NR in view of Yeh teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 14, in addition Yeh teaches the first radius and the second radius are separated by an angle between 45 and 270 degrees (paragraph 0033 “an included angle α 1 between the sensor sets 124a and 124b, an included angle α 2 between the sensor sets 124b and 124c, and an included angle α 3 between the sensor sets 124c and 124a are the same. Each of the included angles α 1, α 2, and α 3 may substantially equal to 360/3 (i.e. 120) degrees.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the first radius and the second radius be separated by an angle between 45 and 270 degrees, in order to evenly space out the sensor sets and minimize the rotation (and time) necessary to fully scan the wafer.
As to claim 18, NR in view of Yeh teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 14, in addition Yeh teaches the at least one sensor device comprises a third sensor device positioned along a third radius of the substrate, the third radius different to the first radius and the second radius (Figure 6B, paragraph 0033 “sensor set … 124c”). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the at least one sensor device comprises a third sensor device positioned along a third radius of the substrate, the third radius different to the first radius and the second radius, in order to further reduce the time it takes to scan the entire wafer.
As to claim 19, NR in view of Yeh teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 18, in addition Yeh teaches the third sensor device is the only sensor device of the at least one sensor device that is positioned along the third radius (in Figure 6B, examiner interprets the sensor set 124c as the claimed “sensor device” and element 124c is the only sensor along that third radius). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the third sensor device be the only sensor device of the at least one sensor device that is positioned along the third radius, in order to minimize the number of (and cost for) sensors required.
Claims 7-9, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NR, and further in view of Jasper et al (United States Patent 6674510).
As to claim 7, NR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are moved linearly relative to each other. However, it is known in the art as taught by Jasper. Jasper teaches scanning the surface of a wafer (Abstract “In an off-axis levelling procedure a height map of the substrate is generated at a measurement station”) in which the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are moved linearly relative to each other (Figure 11, column 17:8-9 “The presently preferred scanning scheme is to scan the array of spots in a meander path 50”, and column 9:1-2 “The motion of the substrate table during the height mapping scan is largely only in the XY plane.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are moved linearly relative to each other, in order to more easily do a less comprehensive scan (i.e. only scan part of the substrate) to save time.
As to claims 8 and 9, NR in view of Jasper teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 7, in addition Jasper teaches
the substrate support is configured to move linearly relative to the at least one sensor device, and
the at least one sensor device is configured to move linearly relative to the substrate support
(in Figure 1, the height mapping is done on the right-hand stage, WTb, see column 6:15-17 “movement of the object tables MT, WTa, WTb will be realized with the aid of a long stroke module (course positioning) and a short stroke module (fine positioning)”, Figure 14 is an expanded view of the height-mapping elements, showing light source 111 (column 19:24) and detector 128 (column 20:31), and Figures 11 & 12 show scan patterns that move the wafer relative to the light source & detector, see also column 1:57-61 “each die is irradiated by progressively scanning the reticle pattern under the projection beam in a given reference direction (the "scanning" direction) while synchronously scanning the wafer table parallel or anti-parallel to this direction” indicating both move relative to each other). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the substrate support is configured to move linearly relative to the at least one sensor device, and the at least one sensor device is configured to move linearly relative to the substrate support, in order to more easily scan the entire wafer surface.
As to claim 12, NR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are rotationally stationary. However, it is known in the art as taught by Jasper. Jasper teaches the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are rotationally stationary (Figure 11, column 17:8-9 “The presently preferred scanning scheme is to scan the array of spots in a meander path 50”, and column 9:1-2 “The motion of the substrate table during the height mapping scan is largely only in the XY plane.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the controller is configured to determine the at least one measurement height of the surface of the substrate above each of the at least one sensor device while the substrate and the at least one sensor device are rotationally stationary, in order to more easily only scan a desired part of the wafer.
As to claim 13, NR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of the substrate support is configured to vacuum clamp the substrate to the substrate support. However, it is known in the art as taught by Jasper. Jasper teaches the substrate support is configured to vacuum clamp the substrate to the substrate support (column 15:42-43 “the wafer is clamped very rigidly using vacuum suction”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the substrate support is configured to vacuum clamp the substrate to the substrate support, in order to more easily repeatedly hold & release the wafer.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NR, and further in view of Geffen et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20050030528).
As to claim 21, NR teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 1, with the exception of one or more sensor device of the at least one sensor device is a confocal chromatic sensor device. However, it is known in the art as taught by Geffen. Geffen teaches a wafer inspection system (Abstract “A confocal wafer inspection system including: … (c) a confocal height measurement system, perpendicular to the table, for measuring the range to a point on a surface of the wafer and for enabling to recognize changes in surface altitude while the wafer moves with the table”) in which one or more sensor device of the at least one sensor device is a confocal chromatic sensor device (paragraph 0005 “Confocal Height Measuring System (CHMS) is assembled from a confocal imaging optical setup with chromatic aberration focusing lens, a light source, an optic head that separates the light source to its basic wavelength and a spectrometer.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have one or more sensor device of the at least one sensor device is a confocal chromatic sensor device, in order to more accurately measure the height of the wafer surface.
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 JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights