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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton et al. (US 5,486,701) hereinafter known as Norton, and further in view of Arbore et al. (US 2010/0219327) hereinafter known as Arbore, and Pawlowski (US 2023/0350308).
With regards to claim 1, Norton discloses a method and system for performing reflectance measurements of a sample using radiation having UV frequency components and visible frequency components (Abstract; FIG. 1), comprisin
a xenon arc lamp 10 which emits radiation beam 12 comprising visible and/or UV radiation (col. 1; lines 63-65)(Norton also teaches “…a tungsten lamp and a deuterium lamp can be used in combination to cover the same spectrum covered by the xenon lamp.”; col. 2; lines 16-19), wherein each of the source/s is configured to emit a spectral bands with different wavelength bandwidth (col. 1; lines 63-65)(col. 8; lines 11-18);
a beam splitter (beam divider 45 and flip-in dichroic 152) optically coupled to the xenon lamp 10, wherein the beam splitter splits the spectral bands into a first optical path and a second optical path (col. 8; lines 31-34; “…the illuminating radiation is split into a sample beam and a reference beam…One reference detector generates a signal indicative of reference beam components in the UV band. The other reference detector generates a signal indicative of reference beam components in the visible band.”) (col. 3; line 1; sample beam 46 and reference beam 48),
a reflective objective lens, wherein (col. 3; lines 13-22; Reflecting objective 40, 15X Schwarzchild design all-reflective objective) optically coupled to the beam splitter 45 along the second optical path (sample beam path 46), wherein the reflective objective lens comprises a first mirror and a second mirror (col. 3; lines 13-22; Norton teaches that the objective 40 includes a 15X Schwarzchild design all-reflective objective, one with ordinary skill within the art would have knowledge that a Schwarzchild objective lens is utilizes a primary and secondary mirror for the purpose of chromatically correcting deep ultraviolet to far-infrared.); and
an optical sensor (sample channel photodiode array 72 and reference channel photodiode array 74)( photodiodes 255 and 257) configured to measure the spectral bands after the spectral bands have reflected off of a substrate (col. 4; lines 5-13)(col. 4-5; 63-13).
Norton teaches “… a tungsten lamp and a deuterium lamp can be used in combination to cover the same spectrum covered by the xenon lamp but this combination still leaves a gap in brightness in the mid-UV wavelengths. Brightness of the spectrum is important, because with less intensity, reflected radiation must be collected for longer periods, thus lower intensities slow the measurement process.” (col. 2; lines 16-24). Further, the reference teaches “…it is possible that the arc in lamp 10 might shift and cause the intensity of light across a cross section of measurement beam 25 to shift causing apparent fluctuations in the relative reflectance spectrum determined from the output of photodiode arrays 72 and 74.” (col. 2; lines 36-41). Finally, the reference further teaches the use of a Schwarzchild design all-reflective objective (col. 3; lines 16-22).
Norton do not disclose;
a light engine, wherein the light engine comprises a plurality of light sources, wherein each of the plurality of light sources is configured to emit a spectral bands with different wavelength bandwidth and a power monitor optically coupled to the beam splitter along the first optical path.
Arbore discloses a Quantum Efficiency (QE) measurement device that includes at least one device under test (DUT) (Abstract). Arbore discloses a light source ([0054][0061]; FIG. 2; 200), wherein the light source comprises a plurality of light sources ([0011]; “The light source included an array of light emitting diodes (LEDs)…”), wherein each of the plurality of light sources is configured to emit a spectral bands with different wavelength bandwidth [0006][0050][0058]([0067]; “…the amplitude of the current delivered to each LED is individually controlled so that the spectral content of light can be modified to closely match a target spectrum…”). Arbore further discloses a partially reflective optic ([0061]; FIG. 5; 512; The Examiner views the partially reflective optic as an beamsplitter.) that captures a fraction of incident light (from source fibers 502) and directs it to a pair of photodiodes 510(a)/510(b) which are used to monitor/measures incident light intensity [0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art to modify the system of Arbore with an intensity/power monitor that can monitor the light intensity/power. The motivation is to monitor the intensity/power of the light sources to ensure the sources maintain the required intensity/brightness for longer periods of time during the measurement process.
Arbore teaches of an array of LEDs [0050] and Norton teaches of a tungsten lamp and a deuterium lamp that can be used in combination (col. 2; lines 16-19).
The references do not specifically disclose of a light engine.
Pawlowski discloses an inspection system [0002] that utilizes a DMD projection device that includes a light engine wherein the light engine can be modified into a combination of LEDs to achieve generation of a spectral signal of interest [0106].
In view of Pawlowski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Norton with a light engine. The light engine provides controllable/tunable LEDs that can generate spectral emissions within certain bandwidths to interrogate a test substrate/sample.
With regards to claim 2, modified Norton discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reflective objective lens is a Schwarzschild reflective objective lens. (see the rejection of claims 1)
With regards to claim 7, modified Norton disclose the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
an analyzer between the reflective objective lens and the optical sensor (Arbore; [0067]; spectrometer)(Norton; col. 12; lines 1-21)
With regards to claim 9, modified Norton disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of spectral bands have wavelength bandwidths up to 60 nm. (Arbore; [0050]) (Norton; col. 11; lines 53-60)
With regards to claim 10, modified Norton disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light engine emits the plurality of spectral bands sequentially. (Pawlowski; [0106])
With regards to claim 11, modified Norton disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein a field of view (FOV) up to 2mm on a side is captured from the substrate. (Norton; col. 21; lines 14-22)
5. Claim(s) 12, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2022/0196576) hereinafter known as Wang, and further in view of Pawlowski (US 2023/0350308).
With regards to claim 12, Wang discloses an apparatus (FIG. 1; [0055]; SXR based metrology tool 100), comprising:
a chamber ([0132][0133]; vacuum chamber 123), wherein a wall of the chamber comprises a window (vacuum window 124);
a stage within the chamber (Wang do not specifically disclose a stage in the vacuum chamber. However, Wang teaches that the x-ray detector 119 can be maintained in the same atmospheric environment (gas purged environment) as the specimen 101 [0133]. The reference additionally teaches that the specimen 101 is fixedly supported on a wafer chuck 103 which is also coupled to a specimen positioning system 140 (The Examiner views the wafer chuck and positioning system as a stage.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art to recognize that the wafer chuck and positioning system would also be placed within the vacuum chamber along with the specimen.); and
an imaging reflectometer (x-ray illumination source 110 and computing system 130)([0104]; x-ray reflectometry) outside of the chamber, wherein the imaging reflectometer comprises:
a plurality of light sources ([0057]; “…, one or more x-ray sources are employed to ensure that the x-ray source supplies light at wavelengths that allow sufficient penetration into the specimen under measurement.”)([0061][0065]; LSP light sources), wherein each light source emits a spectral band with a different wavelength bandwidth [0065][0095][0096];
a reflective objective lens ([0075]; “The reflective spherical optical elements 211 and 212 are arranged in a Schwarzschild configuration.”) optically coupled to the sources [0075][0108] and positioned over the window, wherein the reflective objective lens reflects the spectral bands through the window towards the stage ([0131]; “The illumination beam 114 passes through window at the end of flight tube before incidence with specimen 101.”); and
an optical sensor that is optically coupled to the reflective objective lens [0117][0119][0157].
Wang teaches of using a plurality of sources [0057][0064][0069], however, the reference do not disclose a light engine.
Pawlowski discloses an inspection system [0002] that utilizes a DMD projection device that includes a light engine wherein the light engine can be modified into a combination of LEDs to achieve generation of a spectral signal of interest [0106].
In view of Pawlowski, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Norton with a light engine. The light engine provides controllable/tunable LEDs that can generate spectral emissions within certain bandwidths to interrogate a test substrate/sample.
With regards to claim 14, Wang, in view of Pawlowski, discloses the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the reflective objective lens is a Schwarzschild reflective objective lens. (Wang; [0025][0075])
With regards to claim 15, Wang, in view of Pawlowski, discloses the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the light engine emits the spectral bands sequentially, and wherein two or more of the spectral bands have a different power. (Pawlowski; [0094][0106][0130])
With regards to claim 16, Wang, in view of Pawlowski, discloses the apparatus of claim 15, wherein an image capture of the optical sensor is configured to be synchronized with the sequentially emitted spectral bands. (Pawlowski; [0094][0106][0130])
With regards to claim 17, Wang, in view of Pawlowski, discloses the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the stage is displaceable in a plane parallel to a surface of the window, wherein the imaging reflectometer is displaceable, or both the stage and the imaging reflectometer are displaceable. (Pawlowski; [0091][0094])(Wang; [0127])
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton, and further in view of Wang.
With regards to claim 18, Norton discloses a method for performing reflectance measurements of a sample (Abstract), comprising:
propagating a series of input beams into an optics system with a beam splitter, a reflective objective lens, a power monitor, and an optical sensor (see the rejection of claim 1); and
Norton do not disclose;
wherein the optics system is outside of a chamber;
reflecting the series of input beams off of a substrate that is inside the chamber;
receiving the reflected series of input beams with the optical sensor to provide a plurality of monochromatic images of the substrate.
Wang discloses methods for performing measurements of semiconductor structures (Wang; Abstract), comprising;
the optics system is outside of a chamber (Wang; see the rejection of claim 12);
reflecting the series of input beams off of a substrate that is inside the chamber (Wang; FIG. 1; see the rejection of claim 12);
receiving the reflected series of input beams with the optical sensor to provide a plurality of monochromatic images of the substrate (Wang; [0017][0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art to incorporate the method of Wang into the method of Norton to obtain the required method. The motivation is to obtain a method of utilizing a reflectometer utilizing a vacuum chamber wherein the imaging optics are outside the chamber and the substrate and detector is within the detector. Having the substrate and detector within a sealed vacuum chamber prevents substrate surface contamination and detection signal fluctuations.
With regards to claim 19, Norton, in view of Wang, discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the series of input beams are propagated into the optics system sequentially (Wang; [0104][0105][0109]), and wherein each of the series of input beams comprises a different bandwidth of wavelengths (Wang; [0109][0035][0096]).
With regards to claim 20, Norton, in view of Wang, discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising:
employing a machine-learning and/or artificial intelligence model to correlate spectral image data from the plurality of monochromatic images of the substrate to one or more process parameters including one or more of yield data, electrical test data, or external metrology data (Wang; [0123][0135][0144]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 3, modified Norton do not disclose the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a polarizer between the light engine and the beam splitter.
With regards to claim 4, modified Norton do not disclose the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a compensator between the beam splitter and the reflective objective lens.
Claims 5-6 are objected due to dependency on objected claim 4.
With regards to claim 8, modified Norton do not disclose the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the analyzer is rotatable.
With regards to claim 13, Wang, in view of Pawlowski, do not disclose the apparatus of claim 12, wherein a distance between the reflective objective lens and the stage is up to 24 mm, and wherein the window has a thickness that is up to 1 cm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2013/0321810)
Nikoonahad et al. (US 2004/0150820)
Lee et al. (US 6,184,984)
Fay et al. (US 2012/0089365)
Mei et al. (US 2013/0044300)
Marcus et al. (US 2007/0100580)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGH H MAUPIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/HUGH MAUPIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884