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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seidel [US 20220057598 A1].
As per Claim 1, Seidel teaches a method for determining a location (an arbitrary point P(x.sub.k, Y.sub.k)) of an object surface (an object to be measured) in relation to a target location in a measuring device for semiconductor technology, the location being determined on the basis of at least two measured values which represent the location (Para 8-13, wherein from at least three basis measurement points), characterized in that the determination of the location comprises a probability analysis (Para 20).
As per Claim 2, Seidel teaches the method of claim 1, characterized in that the target location is the location of a focal plane of the measuring device (Para 10).
As per Claim 3, Seidel teaches the method of claim 1, characterized in that for sub-combinations of at least three measured values, a mean value of the respective sub-combination is determined in each case as a combination result (Para 48-50).
As per Claim 4, Seidel teaches the method of claim 3, characterized in that probability functions are defined for the at least three measured values, and a probability (W.sub.GEx) is determined in each case for possible combination results of the three measured values (Para 19-20).
As per Claim 5, Seidel teaches the method of claim 4, characterized in that to determine the probability (W.sub.GEx), the values of the probability functions for the respective combination result are added (Para 19-20, the deviation A.sub.z(P)k is interpolated on the basis of the stored deviations A.sub.z(M)j).
As per Claim 6, Seidel teaches the method of claim 1, characterized in that a probability function for metrological expectations is included in the probability analysis (Para 20).
As per Claim 7, Seidel teaches the method of claim 6, characterized in that the value of the probability function for the metrological expectations is used for the combination result determined in each case (Para 19, interpolated on the basis of the stored deviations).
As per Claim 8, Seidel teaches the method of claim 5, characterized in that to determine the probability, the value of the probability function for the metrological expectations is added to the combination result determined in each case (Para 19, interpolated on the basis of the stored deviations).
As per Claim 9, Seidel teaches the method of claim 3, characterized in that the combination result with the highest probability is selected as a measure for the location to be determined (Para 19, interpolated on the basis of the stored deviations).
As per Claim 10, Seidel teaches the method of claim 4, characterized in that when defining at least one probability function, a standard deviation for the probability function is specified by way of a sensitivity analysis (Para 10, a deviation A.sub.z(P)k).
As per Claim 11, Seidel teaches the method of claim 10, characterized in that the standard deviation is chosen such that the value of the most probable location ascertained during the sensitivity analysis on the basis of the probability analysis is continuous within a predetermined range (Para 15, the deviations A.sub.z(M)j of the surface from a nominal surface are ascertained).
As per Claim 12, Seidel teaches the method of claim 2, characterized in that for sub-combinations of at least three measured values, a mean value of the respective sub-combination is determined in each case as a combination result (Para 19).
As per Claim 13, Seidel teaches the method of claim 12, characterized in that probability functions are defined for the at least three measured values, and a probability (W.sub.GEx) is determined in each case for possible combination results of the three measured values (Para 19-20).
As per Claim 14, Seidel teaches the method of claim 13, characterized in that to determine the probability (W.sub.GEx), the values of the probability functions for the respective combination result are added (Para 19-20).
As per Claim 15, Seidel teaches the method of claim 14, characterized in that to determine the probability, the value of the probability function for the metrological expectations is added to the combination result determined in each case (Para 8 and 19-20).
As per Claim 16, Seidel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein object surface is a surface of a photolithography mask (Para 14).
As per Claim 17, Seidel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method is implemented electronically (See fig. 1, Para 45).
As per Claim 18, Seidel teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the method is implemented electronically (See fig. 1, Para 45).
As per Claim 19, Seidel teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the method is implemented electronically (See fig. 1, Para 45).
As per Claim 20, Seidel teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the method is implemented electronically (See fig. 1, Para 45).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882