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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, 12, 16-20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stilian Ivanov Pandev et al. (US 20160282105), hereinafter ‘Pandev’ in view of Mari Matsumoto et al. (US 20220255730), hereinafter ‘Matsumoto’.
With regards to Claim 1, Pandev discloses
A method comprising:
obtaining a first set of metrology signals (uses the entire set of raw measurement data collected from a number of measurement sites across the wafer, or a subset of the wafer, for both training and subsequent measurement at each individual measurement site [0013]; Fig. 1), and
reference data comprising respective known reference values for a parameter of interest, the reference data corresponding to the first set of metrology signals (In block 301, an amount of reference measurement signals are received by computing system 130. The reference measurement signals are associated with measurements of a first set of instances of a metrology target having known values of a plurality of incidental model parameters and known values of a parameter of interest [0083]; Fig.14, Step 301);
obtaining at least a first constraining set of metrology signals and a second constraining set of metrology signals, the first constraining set of metrology signals and second constraining set of metrology signals relating to a same application as the first set of metrology signals (In block 302, an amount of reduced reference measurement signals are received by computing system 130. The reduced reference measurement signals are associated with measurements of a second set of instances of the metrology target having nominal values of the plurality of incidental model parameters and the known values of the parameter of interest [0084]; Fig.14, Step 302); and
training, using the first set of metrology signals and corresponding reference data, at least one model to infer a value for the parameter of interest from the first set of metrology signals subject to a constraint (a parameter isolation model is trained by mapping measurement signals associated with a first set of instances of a metrology target to a second set of instances of the metrology target [0009]; the trained parameter isolation model is trained based on measurements of a first set of instances of the metrology target having known values of a plurality of incidental model parameters and known values of a parameter of interest and a second set of instances of the metrology target having nominal values of the plurality of incidental parameters and the known values of the parameter of interest [0079]). In block 303, the parameter isolation model is trained by computing system 130. The training of the parameter isolation model is based on mapping the reference measurement signals to the reduced reference measurement signals [0085]; Fig. 14, Step 303).
However, Pandev does not specifically disclose that a difference between first inferred values for the parameter of interest using the at least one model on at least the first constraining set of metrology signals and second inferred values for the parameter of interest using the at least one model on the second constraining set of metrology signals is below a threshold value.
Matsumoto discloses determining degree of divergence (“difference”) between the inferred data and decoded data (i.e. “first (second) constraining set of metrology signals”) using a threshold (the determination processing module 105 compares an error value (difference) between the inference data and the decoded data with a threshold to determine a degree of divergence between the inference data and the decoded data … On the other hand, when the error value is less than the threshold, the determination processing module 105 determines that the inference data and the decoded data are the same [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pandev in view of Matsumoto to train at least one model to infer a value for the parameter of interest from the first set of metrology signals subject to a constraint that a difference between first inferred values for the parameter of interest using the at least one model on at least the first constraining set of metrology signals and second inferred values for the parameter of interest using the at least one model on the second constraining set of metrology signals is below a threshold value, similarly to using a difference between the inferred data and the coded data in Matsumoto to establish error value or the lack thereof to determine whether both inferred values based on the same two constraining sets and same model are satisfactory in inferring accuracy after training.
With regards to Claim 2, Pandev discloses using a (single) metrology tool (PIM measurement tool 122 [0016]; metrology system 100, Fig.1).
However, Pandev does not explicitly disclose wherein the first set of metrology signals, the first constraining set of metrology signals and the second constraining set of metrology signals are all measured on a single metrology tool.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pandev in view of Matsumoto to use a single metrology tool to avoid unnecessary/additionally measurement variability potentially affecting metrology results.
With regards to Claim 3, Pandev is silent on wherein at least the first constraining set of metrology signals and the second constraining set of metrology signals are each obtained using at least one different environmental condition and/or at a different time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pandev in view of Matsumoto to obtain metrology signals under different environmental conditions or at a different time to increase condition variability and develop a better and more accurate model that accounts for such variability and responsibly perform training under different conditions (Once the model is trained, it may be used to perform measurements of different instances of the same metrology targets, albeit with unknown values of one or more parameters of interest, Pandev 0051]).
With regards to Claim 4, Pandev additionally disclose wherein the first set of metrology signals, the first constraining set of metrology signals and the second constraining set of metrology signals are each different sets of metrology signals (selecting different wavelengths, measurement subsystems, and measurement methods that are optimized for each individual parameter. In addition, different model-based measurement solvers can be selected, or configured differently, for each parameter of interest [0011]; reference raw measurement data may be collected for a number of different parameters and multiple parameters may be selected as parameters of interest, while the remaining parameters are treated as incidental parameters for purposes of training a parameter isolation model associated with the multiple parameters of interest [0012]; In general, the aforementioned measurement techniques may be applied to the measurement of process parameters, structural parameters, layout parameters, dispersion parameters, or any combination thereof. By way of non-limiting example, overlay, profile geometry parameters (e.g., critical dimension, height, sidewall angle), process parameters (e.g., lithography focus, and lithography dose), dispersion parameters, layout parameters (e.g., pitch walk, edge placement errors), film thickness, composition parameters, or any combination of parameters may be measured using the aforementioned techniques [0086]).
With regards to Claim 5, Pandev in view of Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as discussed in Claim 4 and 3.
With regards to Claim 6, Pandev discloses the first constraining set of metrology signals and the second constraining set of metrology signals are each measured on a same set of targets (The reduced reference measurement signals 157 are associated with measurements of the same metrology targets [0048]).
With regards to Claim 7, Pandev wherein the first set of metrology signals are measured on the same set of targets (the parameter isolation model 162 is trained based on raw measurement data associated with a particular measurement application and used to perform measurements based on the same measurement application [0058]; the measurement application associated with signals 163 is the same measurement application associated with signals 156 and 157).
With regards to Claim 11, Pandev additionally discloses the difference is determined for respective pairs of metrology signals (The training of the parameter isolation model 162 is based on mapping signal components 158 to the signal components 159 [0056]; The training of the parameter isolation model is based on mapping the reference measurement signals to the reduced reference measurement signals [0085]).
With regards to Claim 12, Pandev does not specifically disclose the training trains the at least one model to minimize a difference between values for the parameter of interest inferred using the at least one model from the first set of metrology signals and their respective known reference values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pandev in view of Matsumoto to train at least one model to minimize a difference between values for the parameter of interest inferred (Matsumoto) to improve model accuracy.
With regards to Claim 16, Pandev in view of Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
With regards to Claims 17, 18, 19, and 20, Pandev in view of Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as discussed above with regards to Claims 16 and Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
With regards to Claim 22, Pandev in view of Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as discussed above with regards to Claims 16 and 11.
With regards to Claim 23, Pandev in view of Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as discussed above with regards to Claims 16 and 12.
Claims 8-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandev in view of Matsumoto, and further in view of Joannes Jitse VENSELAAR et al. (US 20190171115), hereinafter ‘VENSELAAR’.
With regards to Claim 8, Pandev is silent on wherein the first constraining set of metrology signals relate to measurements of the set of targets at a first substrate orientation and the second constraining set of metrology signals relate to measurements of the set of targets at a second different substrate orientation.
VENSELAAR discloses measurements of the set of targets at first and second different substrate orientations [0278-0279].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pandev in view of Matsumoto, in further view of Venselaar to relate the first and second constraining sets of metrology signals of the set of targets at the first and second different substrate orientations as different orientations are typically used (measurements performed at different rotational positions of the substrate, Venselaar [0242]) and would be helpful in training the model.
With regards to Claim 9, Pandev is silent on wherein the first constraining set of metrology signals relate to measurements of the set of targets at a first time and the second constraining set of metrology signals relate to measurements of the set of targets at a second time.
VENSELAAR discloses measurements of the set of targets at first and second different times [0242].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pandev in view of Matsumoto, in further view of Venselaar to relate the first and second constraining sets of metrology signals of the set of targets at the first and second times as known in the art (Venselaar [0242]) and would be helpful in training the model.
With regards to Claim 10, Pandev is silent on wherein the first constraining set of metrology signals relate to measurements of a first set of targets or a subset thereof and the second constraining set of metrology signals relate to measurements of a second set of targets, each of the second set of targets corresponding to one or more of the first set of targets or a subset thereof.
VENSELAAR discloses metrology signals relate to measurements of a first set of targets or a subset thereof (metrology targets consists of a subset of all instances of a predetermined metrology target type on the substrate W, wherein all the instances have the same nominal structure. Thus, a particular subset of metrology targets is chosen [0269].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pandev in view of Matsumoto, in further view of Venselaar to relate the first constraining set of metrology signals to measurements of a first set of targets or a subset thereof and, similarly, the second constraining set of metrology signals to measurements of a second set of targets, each of the second set of targets corresponding to one or more of the first set of targets or a subset thereof as known in the art (measurement step is proposed comprising measuring another subset of the targets on the substrate, a subset which may comprise all the targets on the substrate, Venselaar [0277]).
With regards to Claim 21, Pandev in view of Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as discussed above with regards to Claims 16 and 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights