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 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 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 1-6, 8-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0279613 ("Fiolka") in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0132396 ("Shin").
Regarding claim 1, Fiolka discloses a system configured to condition light for metrology, the system comprising:
an optically transparent plate (721, Fig. 8, or 920, Fig. 9, paragraphs [0027], [0077]);
one or more actuators (931-938, Fig. 9) configured to apply force to the plate to generate a stress pattern (see Fig. 10) in the plate (920, Fig. 9, paragraph [0077]); and
one or more processors (actuator drivers, paragraph [0028], or control device, paragraph [0079]) configured to control the one or more actuators to apply the force to generate the stress pattern (paragraphs [0027], [0077], [0079]) to impart a specific polarization to light passing through the plate in accordance with a desired metrology function (Fiolka discloses the same structure, therefore it similarly functions to impart a specific polarization, see also paragraphs [0012], [0074], [0078]).
Fiolka does not explicitly disclose one or more processors.
However, Shin discloses one or more processors (140, paragraph [0065]) can be used to control the one or more actuators (paragraph [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a processor to control the one or more actuators as disclosed by Shin in the device of Fiolka to enable feedback control and/or decide when and how much to actuate.
Regarding claim 2, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 1, and Fiolka further discloses that, responsive to the force being applied to the plate, the plate comprises a waveplate (it is well known in the art that a retarder plate constructed of birefringent material is a waveplate).
Regarding claim 3, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 1, and Fiolka further discloses that the plate (721, Fig. 8) comprises a transparent material (calcium fluoride, paragraphs [0076]-[0077]), and wherein, responsive to the force (F, Figs. 7-9, paragraph [0074]) being applied to the plate to generate the stress pattern (Fig. 10), the plate is configured to change the light passing through the plate from a first polarization state to a second polarization state (change to the polarization state occurs, paragraphs [0074]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 4, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 1, and Fiolka further discloses that the applied force induces an orientation and a retardance in the plate (Fiolka discloses the same structure, therefore it similarly induces an orientation and retardance in the place, see also paragraphs [0012], [0072], [0074]-[0075], [0077]).
Regarding claim 5, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 4, and Fiolka further discloses that the orientation is controlled by a location and/or distribution of force applied to the plate by the one or more actuators (see Figs. 9-10, paragraphs [0077]-[0078]).
Regarding claim 6, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 4, and Fiolka further discloses that the retardance is controlled by a magnitude of force applied to the plate by the one or actuators (paragraphs [0012], [0027]).
Regarding claim 8, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 1, and Fiolka further discloses that the one or more actuators are piezoelectric (paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claim 9, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 1, and Fiolka further discloses that the stress pattern comprises birefringence (paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 10, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 1, and Fiolka further discloses the one or more processors are configured to individually control each of the one or more actuators such that the stress pattern inside the plate is dynamically adjustable before, during, and/or after the light passes through the plate (Figs. 9-10, paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 13, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 1, and Fiolka further discloses that the one or more actuators (931-938, Fig. 9) are arranged on one or more edges of the plate (920, Fig. 9, paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 14, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 1, and Fiolka further discloses that the one or more actuators (931-938, Fig. 9) comprise a plurality of actuators distributed symmetrically around one or more edges of the plate (Fig. 9, paragraphs [0076]-[0077]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiolka in view of Shin further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0115551 ("Spilman").
Regarding claim 7, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of any of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that the plate comprises glass or crystal.
However, Spilman discloses a plate (120, Fig. 10) comprises glass (paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use glass for the plate as disclosed by Spilman in the device of Fiolka in view of Shin in order to induce stress birefringence.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiolka in view of Shin further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0069292 ("Den Boef").
Regarding claim 11, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 10, and Fiolka further discloses that the dynamic adjustment comprises applications of different combinations of force magnitudes at different actuators around the plate to change birefringence in the plate (Figs. 9-10, paragraph [0077]).
Fiolka in view of Shin does not disclose sub-millisecond control speeds.
However, Den Boef discloses sub-millisecond control speeds (paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to drive the actuators in a desired speed as disclosed by Den Boef in the device of Fiolka in view of Shin as required for a given measurement.
Regarding claim 12, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 10, wherein dynamic adjustment comprises applications of different combinations of force magnitudes at different actuators around the plate to change an orientation in the plate (Figs. 9-10, paragraph [0077]).
Fiolka in view of Shin does not disclose sub-millisecond control speeds.
However, Den Boef discloses sub-millisecond control speeds (paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to drive the actuators in a desired speed as disclosed by Den Boef in the device of Fiolka in view of Shin as required for a given measurement.
Claim 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiolka in view of Shin further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0007316 ("De Witt").
Regarding claim 15, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose that the plate, the one or more actuators, and the one or more processors are configured such that the light passing through the plate can have a wavelength that ranges from about 300 nanometers to about 1.5 micrometers.
However, De Witt discloses that the light passing through the plate can have a wavelength that ranges from about 300 nanometers to about 1.5 micrometers (paragraph 0079]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure light in any desired wavelength as disclosed by De Witt in the device of Fiolka in view of Shin in order to ensure metrology process robustness.
Regarding claim 16, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose that imparting of a specific polarization to the light comprises conditioning of the light passing through the plate for metrology.
However, De Witt discloses imparting of a specific polarization to the light comprises conditioning of the light passing through the plate for metrology (paragraphs [0049], [0077]).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to condition the light for metrology as disclosed by De Witt in the device of Fiolka in view of Shin in order to ensure sufficient sensitivity to make useful measurements.
Regarding claim 17, Fiolka in view of Shin discloses the system of claim 1, but does not disclose that the system further comprising a polarizer and a sensor, wherein the sensor is configured to generate a metrology signal based on light received by the sensor after the light passes through the polarizer and the plate.
However, De Witt discloses a polarizer (55, Fig. 5) and a sensor (scatterometer, Fig. 5), wherein the sensor is configured to generate a metrology signal (inherent, paragraph [0051]) based on light received by the sensor after the light passes through the polarizer (55, Fig. 5)and the plate (54, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a polarizer and a sensor as disclosed by De Witt in the device of Fiolka in view of Shin in order to measure property of a substrate, for example.
Regarding claim 20, Fiolka in view of Shin and De Witt discloses the system of any of claim 17, but does not disclose that the metrology signal comprises an overlay signal associated with a semiconductor manufacturing process.
However, De Witt discloses that the metrology signal comprises an overlay signal associated with a semiconductor manufacturing process (paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to measure an overlay signal as disclosed by De Witt in the device of Fiolka in view of Shin and De Witt in order to monitor a lithographic process.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiolka in view of Shin and De Witt further in view of Den Boef.
Regarding claim 18, Fiolka in view of Shin and De Witt discloses the system of claim 17, but does not disclose that the sensor is included in a camera.
However, Den Boef discloses the sensor is included in a camera (46, Fig. 7, paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a camera as disclosed by Den Boef in the device of Fiolka in view of Shin in order to measure overlay in two directions.
Regarding claim 19, Fiolka in view of Shin and De Witt discloses the system of claim 17, but does not disclose an imaging lens positioned between the plate and the sensor.
However, Den Boef discloses an imaging lens (45, Fig. 7) positioned between the plate and the sensor (46, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an imaging lens as disclosed by Den Boef in order to form an image on the sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA T. TABA whose telephone number is (571)272-1583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 pm.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MONICA T TABA/Examiner, Art Unit 2878