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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 3, there is lack of antecedent basis for the limitation, “the first direction separate from the second direction”. This appears to be due to typographical error. Examiner suggest that the limitation “the first direction separate from the second direction” should be changed to —a first direction separate from a second direction—.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BHATTACHARYYA et al. (US 20120206703 A1, included in IDS on 06/17/2024), hereafter Bhattacharyya.
Regarding claim 1, Bhattacharyya teaches a metrology system (Fig. 7, [0089]), comprising:
a projection system (Fig. 1 element L3) configured to receive a plurality of diffraction orders diffracted from a target (Fig. 7 element 30); on a substrate (Fig. 7 element W), (target 30 generates a plurality of diffractions orders, [0093]); (“the light that is scattered by the target grating 30 and the surrounding product area (802 in FIG. 8) is collimated by lens L3 and the double telecentric system L3 and L4 make a magnified image of the grating and product environment on the field stop FS, [0095-0096])
a detector array (Fig. 7, the combination of elements S1-S4 “four spectrometers”, the four spectrometers are interpreted as “a detector array”, [0101]); and
a waveguide device (Fig. 7, element MF) configured to transmit the plurality of diffraction orders between the projection system (L3) and the detector array (S1-S4), (“Four multimode detection fibers MF are now used to capture the two zeroth order intensity components and the positive first and negative first order intensity components of the grating. Thus the fibers are a capturing device configured to capture one or more of the separately redirected diffraction orders.”, [0098]), (“The broadband light that is captured by the detection fibers is sent to four spectrometers” (S1-S4). [0101]. Therefore as shown in Fig. 7 the MF transmit diffraction zeroth, positive and negative first orders from element 30 + L3 to elements S1-S4.
wherein the detector array (S1-S4) is configured to detect each of the plurality of diffraction orders spatially separate from other ones of the plurality of diffraction orders, (“Four multimode detection fibers MF are now used to capture the two zeroth order intensity components and the positive first and negative first order intensity components of the grating. Thus the fibers are a capturing device configured to capture one or more of the separately redirected diffraction orders “, [0098]), (“The broadband light that is captured by the detection fibers is sent to four spectrometers that are preferably nominally identical. These four spectrometers simultaneously and in parallel measure the intensities of the two zeroth orders I.sub.0(.lamda.) and I.sub.0(.lamda.) and positive first order I.sub.+1'(.lamda.) and negative first order I.sub.-1(.lamda.) as a function of the wavelength”, [0101], as shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Bhattacharyya teaches the metrology system of claim 1, wherein the detector array (Fig. 7, the combination of elements S1-S4) is configured to individually measure an intensity of each of the plurality of diffraction orders, ([0101]).
Regarding claim 3, Bhattacharyya teaches the metrology system of claim 2, wherein the detector array (Fig. 7, the combination of elements S1-S4) is configured to determine a distribution measurement for where each of the plurality of diffraction orders land on the detector array, (Fig. 7 , [0098, 0101]).
Regarding claim 12, Bhattacharyya teaches the metrology system of claim 1, further comprising: a first lens system (Fig. 7 element L6) positioned at an upstream of the waveguide device (Fig. 7 element MF); an optical element (Fig. 7 element QW) positioned at an upstream of the first lens system (L6); and a second lens system (Fig. 7 element L5) positioned at an upstream of the optical element, (QW). (as shown in Fig. 7 the order of the elements is L5 → QW → L6 → MF , [0096]).
Regarding claim 13, Bhattacharyya teaches the metrology system of claim 12, wherein: the detector array (Fig. 7 elements S1-S4) comprises a first detector (Fig. 7 elements S1) configured to detect a first one of the plurality of diffraction orders and a second detector (Fig. 7 elements S2) configured to detect a second one of the plurality of diffraction orders, (as shown in Fig. 7 [0101-0102]), and the optical element (Fig. 7 element QW) comprises at least one of a tunable order splitter (QW), a tunable order blocker, or a spatial light modulator, (“The skilled person will appreciate that the arrangement of each of the four sub images in the image plane will depend on the wedge arrangement. Other arrangement of the sub images can therefore be achieved using different relative orientation of the wedges and/or one or more lenses L6. Furthermore, the sub images need not be arranged on the same plane”, [0096], “The four signals are measured for one given angle of incidence. The skilled person will appreciate that this can be repeated for more angles of incidence by changing the location of the illumination spot 708 in the illumination pupil plane 706”, [0103]).
Regarding claim 14, Bhattacharyya teaches the metrology system of claim 1, wherein the waveguide device (Fig. 7 element MF) comprises a multimode fiber, (four multimode detection fibers MF, [0098-0099]).
Regarding claim 16, Bhattacharyya teaches the metrology system of claim 1, wherein the waveguide device (Fig. 7 element MF) comprises one or more waveguide devices (element MF comprises four multimode detection fibers MF, [0098-0099]), each of the one or more waveguide device (MF) arranged such that the detector array (Fig. 7 element S1-S4) detects a different part of a pupil plane (Fig. 6 element PP + 718) of the projection system (Fig. 7 element L3) using the corresponding one of the one or more waveguide devices, (as shown in Fig. 7 by elements 718 + 720, indicated by 0, 0’, -1, +1’, [0096, 0098]).
Regarding claim 17, Bhattacharyya teaches the metrology system of claim 1, wherein the target (Fig. 7 element 30) comprises dual pitch marks (Grating pitch x direction and y direction) comprising a first segment having a first pitch and a second segment having a second pitch different from the first pitch, (the grating pitch in the x direction is p, the same as in the y direction, although it could be different from the pitch in the y direction, as shown in Figs. 13a and 15a [0135, 0137]).
Regarding claim 18, The metrology system of claim 17, wherein the detector array (Fig. 7 element S1-S4) is further configured to detect each of the plurality of diffraction orders spatially separate from other ones of the plurality of diffraction orders, [0122, 0126] in the first direction separate from the second direction, [0134,0135].
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharyya, in view of In view of Den Boef et al. (US 2016/0161863 A1), hereafter Boef.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Bhattacharyya teaches the metrology system, further comprising: a processor (Fig. 7 element PU, [0104]) configured to: determine a characteristic of the target (overlay error, [0093-0094]); determine a correction factor based at least on one of: a difference between the measured intensities of a positive diffraction order and a negative diffraction order for at least one of the plurality of diffraction orders, and a change in the distribution measurement for the at least one of the plurality of diffraction orders, [0094, 0105],
In the arguendo that Bhattacharyya do not clearly teaches:
(claim 4) determine a correction factor and revise the determined characteristic of the target based on the determined correction factor.
(claim 6) wherein the change in the distribution measurement is based on a layer thickness variation associated with the target.
Boef related to metrology systems and lithographic devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches:
(claim 4) determine a correction factor (sensitivity of asymmetry parameters, [0011, 0013]) and revise the determined characteristic of the target based on the determined correction factor, (“correct the calculation of overlay from overlay measurements”, [0015, 0120]
(claim 6) wherein the change in the distribution measurement is based on a layer thickness variation associated with the target, [0013, 0120, 0122].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bhattacharyya by including determine a correction factor and revise the determined characteristic of the target based on the determined correction factor wherein the change in the distribution measurement is based on a layer thickness variation associated with the target (as taught by Boef) for several advantages such as: the calculated lithographic process parameter is improved, thus increase the device and process accuracy, ([0119, 0175], Boef).
Regarding claim 5, Bhattacharyya in the combination outlined above teaches the metrology system of claim 4.
Bhattacharyya further teaches wherein the difference between the measured intensities of the positive diffraction order and the negative diffraction order is based on an asymmetry of the target, [0094].
Regarding claim 7, Bhattacharyya teaches the metrology system of claim 1, wherein: the detector array (Fig. 7, elements S1-S4) is configured to determine a distribution measurement for where each of the plurality of diffraction orders land on the detector array (Fig. 7 , [0098, 0101]), and the metrology system further comprises a processor (Fig. 7 element PU, [0104]) configured to determine a change in the distribution measurement for the at least one of the plurality of diffraction order, [0104, 0098].
Bhattacharyya do not clearly teach a processor configured to determine a change in the distribution measurement for the at least one of the plurality of diffraction order, the change in the distribution measurement being based on a layer thickness variation associated with the target.
Boef related to metrology systems and lithographic devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches a processor (Fig. 3A element PU) configured to determine a change in the distribution measurement for the at least one of the plurality of diffraction order, [0086], the change in the distribution measurement being based on a layer thickness variation associated with the target, [0013, 0120, 0122].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bhattacharyya by including a processor configured to determine a change in the distribution measurement for the at least one of the plurality of diffraction order, the change in the distribution measurement being based on a layer thickness variation associated with the target (as taught by Boef) for several advantages such as: the calculated lithographic process parameter is improved, thus increase the device and process accuracy, ([0119, 0175], Boef).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharyya, in view of Pandey (US 2020/0057387 A1), hereafter Pandey.
Regarding claim 8, Bhattacharyya teaches the metrology system of claim 1.
Even though Bhattacharyya teaches the waveguide (Fig. 7, element MF) and the detector array Fig. 7, the combination of elements S1-S4), Bhattacharyya fail to teach wherein the waveguide device is arranged such that the detector array is configured to detect a far field radiation pattern of an input to the waveguide device.
However, Pandey related to metrology systems and lithographic devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the waveguide device (optical fiber element 30) is arranged such that the detector array is configured to detect a far field radiation pattern (far field distribution element 90, in Fig. 12) of an input to the waveguide device, (as shown in Figs. 10, 12 and 17, [0068, 0096]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bhattacharyya by including wherein the waveguide device is arranged such that the detector array is configured to detect a far field radiation pattern of an input to the waveguide device (as taught by Pandey) for several advantages such as: allows to reduce the effects of the non-uniform illumination on the metrology measurements made with the metrology apparatus, thus increase the accuracy of the metrology measurement’s, ([0096], Pandey).
Regarding claim 10, Bhattacharyya in the combination outlined above teaches the metrology system of claim 8.
Bhattacharyya further teaches wherein a distance between the waveguide device (Fig. 6. Element MF) and the detector array (Fig. 6 elements S1-S4) is arranged such that the detector array detects at a pupil plane (Fig. 6 element PP) of the projection system (Fig. 6 element L3), [0091, 0096].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharyya, in view of Pandey and further in view of Goorden et al. (US 2020/0089135 A1), hereafter Goorden.
Regarding claim 9, Bhattacharyya in the combination outlined above teaches the metrology system of claim 8.
The modified device of Bhattacharyya fail to teach a lens system, wherein an output of the waveguide device is located at a focal point of the lens system, and wherein the detector array is located at a conjugate focal point of the lens system.
However, Goorden related to metrology systems and lithographic devices and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches a lens system (Fig. 6 elements 682a + 682b, [0085]), wherein an output of the waveguide device (Fig. 6 element 663) is located at a focal point of the lens system, (as shown in Fig. 6), and wherein the detector array (Fig. 6 element 678) is located at a conjugate focal point of the lens system (682a + 682b), [0085, 0088].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Bhattacharyya by including a lens system, wherein an output of the waveguide device is located at a focal point of the lens system, and wherein the detector array is located at a conjugate focal point of the lens system. (as taught by Goorden) for several advantages such as: the lens system allows to block the stray noise to reach the detector thus increasing the device’s accuracy, ([0088], Goorden).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharyya, in view of Pandey and further in view of Groot et al. (US 2015/0002852 A1), hereafter Groot.
Regarding claim 11, Bhattacharyya in the combination outlined above teaches the metrology system of claim 8.
Bhattacharyya further teaches an aperture (Fig. 7 element FS) configured to block or attenuate one or more of the plurality of diffraction orders, [0095-0096], the detector array (Fig. 7 elements (S1-S4, [0101]).
The modified device of Bhattacharyya fail to teach a mechatronic aperture wherein the detector array comprises a single pixel detector.
However, Groot related to metrology system of lithography and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches a mechatronic aperture, (“mechanical or electronic shutter may be controlled by the computer system”, [0103]) wherein the detector array comprises a single pixel detector, [0110].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Bhattacharyya by including a mechatronic aperture wherein the detector array comprises a single pixel detector (as taught by Groot) for several advantages such as: increase the speed at which data is acquired by the interferometry system, thus increase the device efficiency, ([0003], Groot).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharyya, in view of Edart et al. (US 2009/0153825 A1), hereafter Edart.
Regarding claim 15, Bhattacharyya teaches the metrology system of claim 1.
Even though Bhattacharyya teaches wherein the waveguide device (Fig. 7 element MF) comprises a fiber, (MF fibers, [0098-0099]), Bhattacharyya is silent about the waveguide device comprises a fiber bundle.
However, Edart related to Lithographic apparatus and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the waveguide device comprises a fiber bundle, (bundle of multimode fibers, [0091-0092]).
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bhattacharyya by including the waveguide device comprises a fiber bundle (as taught by Edart) for several advantages such as: enables any dissipating elements to be remotely located thus enhancing stability in the device, ([0092], Edart).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights