DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 13, recites the limitation "the second actuator and the first actuator” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 16, recites the limitation "the rotated objective lens element” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 5-8, 10-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5754299 by Sugaya et al. (hereinafter Sugaya).
Regarding Claim 5, Sugaya teaches a method of reducing an effect of linear coma in a metrology apparatus (Fig. 19. Col. 28, lines 45-59: in order to correct the symmetric aberration of the image-forming optical system, a part of the second objective lens 107 and the relay lens 109 is appropriately driven along the optical axis thus teaches linear coma. Also, in order to correct the asymmetric aberration of the image-forming optical system, all or a part of the lens system comprising the second objective lens 107 and relay lens 109 may be eccentrically driven in perpendicular to the optical axis), the method comprising:
determining an amount of an axially symmetric coma aberration present in a lens system of the metrology device (Fig. 19, Claim 16); and
moving an optical element of the lens system in an axial z-direction to reduce the determined axially symmetric coma (Col. 28, lines 45-59: in order to correct the symmetric aberration of the image-forming optical system, a part of the second objective lens 107 and the relay lens 109 is appropriately driven along the optical axis. Also, in order to correct the asymmetric aberration of the image-forming optical system, all or a part of the lens system comprising the second objective lens 107 and relay lens 109 may be eccentrically driven in perpendicular to the optical axis).
Regarding Claim 6, Sugaya teaches the moving the optical element comprises moving an aperture stop in the z-direction (Fig. 19 @ 121, Col. 26. line 5-9).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugaya teaches the moving the optical element comprises moving a lens element in the z-direction to change a z- position of a pupil of the lens system (Fig. 19 @ 107, 109, Col. 26. line 5-9).
Regarding Claim 8, Sugaya teaches a metrology apparatus configured to reduce an effect of coma (Abstract: aberration condition, Col. 6, line 1-2: at least coma is included in the above asymmetric aberration, i.e. the coma), the metrology apparatus comprising:
an imaging lens system (Fig. 19, Col. 24, line 17-20), configured and arranged to image microscopic diffractive patterns (Fig. 19, 20 @ WM, Col. 4, line 29-44, Col. 24, line 58-60) on a substrate (Fig. 19, 20 @ W, Col. 4, line 29-44, Col. 24, line 58-60); and
at least one actuator (Fig. 19 @ 119, 120 form the at least one actuator, Col. 26, line 6-9), disposed within the imaging lens system (Fig. 19, Col. 24, line 17-20), and configured and arranged to move at least one optical element Fig. 19 @ 107, 109, Col. 26. line 5-9) of the imaging lens system (Fig. 19, Col. 24, line 17-20) to reduce an effect of offset coma and/or linear coma in the imaging lens system (Fig. 19. Col. 28, lines 45-59: in order to correct the symmetric aberration of the image-forming optical system, a part of the second objective lens 107 and the relay lens 109 is appropriately driven along the optical axis thus teaches offset coma and/or linear coma. Also, in order to correct the asymmetric aberration of the image-forming optical system, all or a part of the lens system comprising the second objective lens 107 and relay lens 109 may be eccentrically driven in perpendicular to the optical axis).
Regarding Claim 10, Sugaya teaches the actuator is configured and arranged to move the at least one optical element of the imaging lens system in an axial z-direction to reduce an effect of linear offset coma (Fig. 19, Col. 28, lines 45-59: in order to correct the symmetric aberration of the image-forming optical system, a part of the second objective lens 107 and the relay lens 109 is appropriately driven along the optical axis. Also, in order to correct the asymmetric aberration of the image-forming optical system, all or a part of the lens system comprising the second objective lens 107 and relay lens 109 may be eccentrically driven in perpendicular to the optical axis).
Regarding Claim 11, Sugaya teaches the at least one optical element is a field stop (Fig. 19 @ 121), and/or a lens element (Fig. 19 @ 107, 109) that, when moved in the axial z-direction, a pupil of the imaging lens system in the axial z-direction (Col. 26. line 5-9).
Regarding Claim 20, Sugaya teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising stored instructions, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors to cause performance of at the least the method of claim 5 (Col. 15, line 11-13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4, 9, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5754299 by Sugaya et al. (hereinafter Sugaya) in view of US Patent No. 6538740 B1 by Shiraishi et al. (hereinafter Shiraishi).
Regarding Claim 1, Sugaya teaches a method of reducing an effect of offset coma (Abstract: aberration condition, Col. 6, line 1-2: at least coma is included in the above asymmetric aberration, i.e. the offset coma) in a metrology apparatus wherein for a diffraction based overlay target having first and second portions separate from each other (Col. 28, line 65 - Col. 29, line 1: also applicable to an overlay accuracy measurement apparatus in which the positional deviation between the main scale by the first exposure and the vernier by the second exposure is measured), a best contrast for the first portion is obtained at a first substrate z- position, and a best contrast for the second portion is obtained at a second substrate z- position, different from the first substrate z-position (Col. 29, lines 4-13: the positions of the main scale and vernier or the difference in the amount of change in asymmetry with respect to focus may be measured as two different patterns so as to inspect the aberration condition and optical adjustment condition of the optical system and further to optimize these conditions. By using a difference between measurement lines of images of patterns having forms different from each other, the aberration condition of an optical system containing higher-order aberrations as well as lower-order aberrations can be inspected with high accuracy; Col. 13, lines 58-63: a position X of a spatial image of a pattern formed by way of an optical system to be inspected is measured under a plurality of defocus conditions (with an amount of defocus Z) holding the best focus condition (Z=0) therebetween. Here, the best focus position (Z=0) of the optical system to be inspected can be determined, for example, as a position where the light intensity of a bright and dark pattern image formed by way of the optical system to be inspected is maximized), the method comprising;
an objective lens element of the metrology apparatus (Col. 28, lines 45-59: in order to correct the symmetric aberration of the image-forming optical system, a part of the second objective lens 107 and the relay lens 109 is appropriately driven along the optical axis. Also, in order to correct the asymmetric aberration of the image-forming optical system, all or a part of the lens system comprising the second objective lens 107 and relay lens 109 may be eccentrically driven in perpendicular to the optical axis) until a best contrast for the first and second portions is achieved at a single substrate z-position, different from the first and second substrate z-positions (Col. 14, lines 1-5: When there is no remaining aberration in the optical system to be inspected and the optical adjustment of the optical system to be inspected is ideal, the image position X is constant, as indicated by straight line L1 in FIG. 3, regardless of the amount of defocus z). (Also see Col. 13, line 54 - Col. 15, line 42 and Figs. 3-5; Col. 24, line 11 - Col. 29, line 13 and Figs. 19, 20) but does not explicitly teach reducing an effect of offset coma and rotating an objective lens element.
However, Shiraishi teaches offset coma (Col 1. line 60-63: an aberration (coma or the like); Col 40. line 60-63: an asymmetrical aberration, such as coma) and rotating an objective lens element (Col 19. line 7-17: coma may be adjusted and removed by adjusting the positions or rotational angles of other optical members, such as the objective lenses 10). (Also see Fig. 1, Col.1 line 40 - Col.2, line 2; Col.12, line 33 - Col.14, line 46; Col. 18, line 64 - Col. 19, line 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sugaya by Shiraishi as taught above such that reducing an effect of offset coma and rotating an objective lens element of the metrology apparatus is accomplished such that coma may be adjusted and removed by adjusting the positions or rotational angles of other optical members, such as the objective lenses 10 (Shiraishi, Col 19. line 10-12).
Regarding Claim 2, Sugaya teaches performing the rotation (See Claim 1 rejection) over a plurality of intervals and after each interval, measuring (Shiraishi, Col. 16, line 39-49) a z-position for best contrast for each of the first and second portions (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 3, Sugaya teaches the first and second portions of the overlay target (See Claim 1 rejection) but does not explicitly teach are configured and arranged for use in a non-specular mode of operation of the metrology device.
However, it is considered obvious to try all known solutions when there is a recognized need in the art (non-specular mode), there had been a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to the recognized need (non-specular mode, specular mode), and when one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143, E. Furthermore, such an arrangement would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a non-specular mode of operation of the metrology device in order to analyzing scattered light (diffuse) for deeper material analysis or damage detection, moving beyond simple surface reflection.
Regarding Claim 4, Sugaya as modified by Shiraishi teaches repeating (Sugaya, Col. 28, lines 45-59, Col. 14, lines 1-5 thus teaches repeating. Also see Claim 1 rejection) the rotating to change the z-position at which best contrast is achieved (See Claim 1 rejection) based on changes to a fingerprint of an imaging process of the metrology apparatus over time (Shiraishi , Col. 19, line 7-17).
Regarding Claim 9, Sugaya as modified by Shiraishi teaches wherein the actuator (See Claim 8 rejection) is configured and arranged to rotate the at least one optical element of the imaging lens system to reduce an effect of offset coma (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 14, Sugaya as modified by Shiraishi teaches measuring the substrate (Abstract, Col. 30, line 4-22) using the rotated objective lens element of the metrology apparatus (See Claim 1 rejection).
Regarding Claim 15, Sugaya teaches moving an optical element of metrology apparatus in an axial z-direction to reduce linear coma (See Claim 10 rejection).
Regarding Claim 16, Sugaya as modified by Shiraishi teaches measuring the substrate using the rotated objective lens element of the metrology apparatus (See Claim 14 rejection).
Regarding Claim 17, Sugaya as modified by Shiraishi teaches repeating the moving to change the z-position based on changes to a fingerprint of an imaging process of the metrology apparatus over time (See Claim 4 rejection).
Regarding Claim 18, Sugaya as modified by Shiraishi teaches rotating an optical element of the lens system to reduce offset coma (See Claim 9 rejection).
Regarding Claim 19, Sugaya a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising stored instructions, the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors to cause performance of at the least the method of claim 1 (Col. 15, line 11-13).
8. Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5754299 by Sugaya et al. (hereinafter Sugaya).
Regarding Claim 12, Sugaya teaches at least one actuator (Fig. 19 @ 119, 120 form the at least one actuator) comprises a first actuator (Fig. 19 @ 119) configured to move the at least one optical element (Fig. 19 @ 107) over a first distance (inherently teaches) and a second actuator (Fig. 19 @ 120) configured to move the at least one optical element (Fig. 19 @ 109) over a second distance (inherently teaches) but does not explicitly teach shorter than the first distance.
However, it is well known to make elements of a system adjustable, where adjustability is needed such that a second distance shorter than the first distance in order to optimize the system configuration based on variations of the geometrical limitations of the system. It has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding Claim 13, Sugaya teaches the actuator (See Claim 8 rejection) but does not explicitly teach the second actuator has a higher precision than the first actuator.
However, it is well known to make elements of a system adjustable, where adjustability is needed such that the second actuator has a higher precision than the first actuator in order to optimize the system configuration based on variations of the geometrical limitations of the system. It has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 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.
/JAMIL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877