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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not mention an “objective lens” as claimed in claims 1, 15, and 16. The examiner notes that the element is supported in Fig. 6.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “at least there lasers”. It is assumed this should be “at least 3 lasers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“affecting units that are configured to affect at least one or more conditions selected out of one or more illumination conditions and one or more collection conditions, wherein the one or more illumination conditions comprise an illumination polarization parameter, and the one or more collection conditions comprise one or more variable aperture parameters” in claim 1; and
“affecting units of the optical measurement system affect at least one or more conditions selected out of one or more illumination conditions and one or more collection conditions, wherein the one or more illumination conditions comprise an illumination polarization parameter, and the one or more collection conditions comprise one or more variable aperture parameters” in claim 15; and
“affecting units of the optical measurement system affect at least one or more conditions selected out of one or more illumination conditions and one or more collection conditions, wherein the one or more illumination conditions comprise an illumination polarization parameter, and the one or more collection conditions comprise one or more variable aperture parameters” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The examiner notes that no double patenting rejection is made because the patented claims of US 12066385 do not contain the limitation of an objective lens, and the patented claims US 10564106 and US 11275027 are inventions that are significantly different than the pending claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (US 7710564 B1), hereinafter “Hill”, and further in view of Pandev et al (US 2017/0045356 A1), hereinafter “Pandev”.
Regarding claim 1, Hill teaches a system for use in measuring one or more characteristics of a patterned structure on semiconductor wafer (abstract, Fig. 1A), the system comprising:
a light source system that defines an illumination channel having a variable polarization unit (ref 105; col. 2, lines 35-65), the light source system comprises at least three different wavelengths (ref 101; col. 2, lines 35-45);
a detection system that defines a collection channel having a variable aperture (ref 123; col. 2, lines 50-60), wherein the detection system is configured to obtain measured data indicative of at least one spectrum obtained from the patterned structure (ref 127; col. 2, lines 35-45);
one or more affecting units that are configured to affect at least one or more conditions selected out of one or more illumination conditions and one or more collection conditions, wherein the one or more illumination conditions comprise an illumination polarization parameter, and the one or more collection conditions comprise one or more variable aperture parameters (refs 103, 109, 117, 123; col. 2, lines 35-65);
an objective lens shared by the illumination and collection channel (ref 111).
Hill is silent regarding the light source system comprises at least three illumination sources with different wavelengths, wherein the detection system is configured to obtain measured data indicative of at least one Raman spectrum obtained from the patterned structure and a control unit that is configured to apply model based metrology on the measured data to provide one or more characteristics of the patterned structure from the measured data.
However, Pandev teaches a wafer measurement device (abstract) including the light source system comprises at least multiple illumination sources with different wavelengths (paragraph [0040]), wherein the detection system is configured to obtain measured data indicative of at least one Raman spectrum obtained from the patterned structure (paragraph [0035]) and a control unit that is configured to apply model based metrology on the measured data to provide one or more characteristics of the patterned structure from the measured data (paragraphs [0006], [0060]-[0062]).
Pandev teaches one or more sources, paragraph [0040]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least three sources, as it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would chose at least three sources in order to illuminate at different wavelengths, giving different resolutions for different depths.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Hill with the teaching of Pandev by including the light source system comprises at least multiple illumination sources with different wavelengths, wherein the detection system is configured to obtain measured data indicative of at least one Raman spectrum obtained from the patterned structure and a control unit that is configured to apply model based metrology on the measured data to provide one or more characteristics of the patterned structure from the measured data in order to measure polarization, control bandwidth and intensity, and accurately determine the parameters.
Regarding claim 2, Hill teaches wherein the one or more collection conditions comprise a collection polarization parameter (col. 2, lines 35-45).
Regarding claim 3, Hill is silent regarding wherein the at least three illumination sources comprise at least there lasers.
However, Pandev teaches one or more sources, paragraph [0040].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least three sources, as it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would chose at least three sources in order to illuminate at different wavelengths, giving different resolutions for different depths.
Regarding claim 5, Hill is silent regarding wherein the one or more characteristics comprise a stress relaxation of the patterned structure.
However, Pandev teaches wherein the one or more characteristics comprise a stress relaxation of the patterned structure (paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Hill with the teaching of Pandev by including wherein the one or more characteristics comprise a stress relaxation of the patterned structure in order to characterize the wafer, as improper stress can cause wafer warping.
Regarding claim 8, Hill is silent regarding wherein the model based metrology exhibits a characterization of an electromagnetic field penetration into the patterned structure and out of the patterned structure, as well as a modeling of a creation of a Raman Spectrum inside the structure.
However, Pandev teaches wherein the model based metrology exhibits a characterization of an electromagnetic field penetration into the patterned structure and out of the patterned structure, as well as a modeling of a creation of a Raman Spectrum inside the structure (paragraphs [0044]-[0047], [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Hill with the teaching of Pandev by including wherein the model based metrology exhibits a characterization of an electromagnetic field penetration into the patterned structure and out of the patterned structure, as well as a modeling of a creation of a Raman Spectrum inside the structure in order to characterize the wafer.
Regarding claim 9, Hill is silent regarding wherein the control unit is configured to compare the measured signal to a calculated signal that is calculated based on a model of the model based metrology and for one or more assumed properties of a test structure to provide a comparison result that is indicative of a similarity between the patterned structure and the test structure.
However, Pandev teaches wherein the control unit is configured to compare the measured signal to a calculated signal that is calculated based on a model of the model based metrology and for one or more assumed properties of a test structure to provide a comparison result that is indicative of a similarity between the patterned structure and the test structure (paragraph [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Hill with the teaching of Pandev by including wherein the control unit is configured to compare the measured signal to a calculated signal that is calculated based on a model of the model based metrology and for one or more assumed properties of a test structure to provide a comparison result that is indicative of a similarity between the patterned structure and the test structure in order to characterize the wafer.
Regarding claim 14, Hill is silent regarding wherein the one or more characteristics of the patterned structure comprises at least one of dimension or material composition.
However, Pandev teaches wherein the one or more characteristics of the patterned structure comprises at least one of dimension or material composition (paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Hill with the teaching of Pandev by including wherein the one or more characteristics of the patterned structure comprises at least one of dimension or material composition in order to characterize the wafer.
Regarding claim 15, Hill teaches a method for use in measuring one or more characteristics of a patterned structure (abstract, Fig. 1A), the method comprising:
illuminating the patterned structure (ref 115, col. 1, lines 50-55) by an illumination channel of an optical measurement system (ref 103, col. 2, lines 35-65);
obtaining, by a detection channel of the optical measurement system, measured data indicative of at least one spectrum obtained from the patterned by a detection system of the optical measurement system (ref 127; col. 2, lines 35-45); and
wherein the illuminating and the obtaining are executed while one or more affecting units of the optical measurement system affect at least one or more conditions selected out of one or more illumination conditions and one or more collection conditions, wherein the one or more illumination conditions comprise an illumination polarization parameter, and the one or more collection conditions comprise one or more variable aperture parameters (refs 103, 109, 117, 123; col. 2, lines 35-65);
wherein the optical measurement system further comprises an objective lens shared by the illumination and collection channel (ref 111); and
wherein the illumination channel is defined by a light source system that has a variable polarization unit (ref 105; col. 2, lines 35-65).
Hill is silent regarding wherein measured data indicative of at least one Raman spectrum obtained from the patterned by a detection system of the optical measurement system; a control unit that is configured to apply model based metrology on the measured data to provide one or more characteristics of the patterned structure from the measured data; and the light source system comprises at least three illumination sources with different wavelengths.
However, Pandev teaches a wafer measurement device (abstract) including wherein measured data indicative of at least one Raman spectrum obtained from the patterned by a detection system of the optical measurement system (paragraph [0035]); a control unit that is configured to apply model based metrology on the measured data to provide one or more characteristics of the patterned structure from the measured data (paragraphs [0006], [0060]-[0062]); and the light source system comprises at least multiple illumination sources with different wavelengths (paragraph [0040]),
Pandev teaches one or more sources, paragraph [0040]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least three sources, as it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would chose at least three sources in order to illuminate at different wavelengths, giving different resolutions for different depths.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Hill with the teaching of Pandev by including the light source system comprises at least multiple illumination sources with different wavelengths, wherein the detection system is configured to obtain measured data indicative of at least one Raman spectrum obtained from the patterned structure and a control unit that is configured to apply model based metrology on the measured data to provide one or more characteristics of the patterned structure from the measured data in order to measure polarization, control bandwidth and intensity, and accurately determine the parameters.
Regarding claim 16, Hill teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium for use in measuring one or more characteristics of a patterned structure (abstract, Fig. 1A), the non-transitory computer readable medium stores instructions for:
illuminating the patterned structure (ref 115, col. 1, lines 50-55) by an illumination channel of an optical measurement system (ref 103, col. 2, lines 35-65);
obtaining, by a detection channel of the optical measurement system, measured data indicative of at least one spectrum obtained from the patterned by a detection system of the optical measurement system (ref 127; col. 2, lines 35-45); and
wherein the illuminating and the obtaining are executed while one or more affecting units of the optical measurement system affect at least one or more conditions selected out of one or more illumination conditions and one or more collection conditions, wherein the one or more illumination conditions comprise an illumination polarization parameter, and the one or more collection conditions comprise one or more variable aperture parameters (refs 103, 109, 117, 123; col. 2, lines 35-65);
wherein the optical measurement system further comprises an objective lens shared by the illumination and collection channel (ref 111); and
wherein the illumination channel is defined by a light source system that has a variable polarization unit (ref 105; col. 2, lines 35-65).
Hill is silent regarding wherein measured data indicative of at least one Raman spectrum obtained from the patterned by a detection system of the optical measurement system; a control unit that is configured to apply model based metrology on the measured data to provide one or more characteristics of the patterned structure from the measured data; and the light source system comprises at least three illumination sources with different wavelengths.
However, Pandev teaches a wafer measurement device (abstract) including wherein measured data indicative of at least one Raman spectrum obtained from the patterned by a detection system of the optical measurement system (paragraph [0035]); a control unit that is configured to apply model based metrology on the measured data to provide one or more characteristics of the patterned structure from the measured data (paragraphs [0006], [0060]-[0062]); and the light source system comprises at least multiple illumination sources with different wavelengths (paragraph [0040]),
Pandev teaches one or more sources, paragraph [0040]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least three sources, as it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would chose at least three sources in order to illuminate at different wavelengths, giving different resolutions for different depths.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Hill with the teaching of Pandev by including the light source system comprises at least multiple illumination sources with different wavelengths, wherein the detection system is configured to obtain measured data indicative of at least one Raman spectrum obtained from the patterned structure and a control unit that is configured to apply model based metrology on the measured data to provide one or more characteristics of the patterned structure from the measured data in order to measure polarization, control bandwidth and intensity, and accurately determine the parameters.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill and Pandev as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Naka et al. (US 2006/0038980), hereinafter “Naka”.
Regarding claim 4, Hill is silent regarding a laser beam selection unit configured to select an excitation wavelength of the different wavelengths.
However, Naka teaches wafter measurement (abstract) including a laser beam selection unit configured to select an excitation wavelength of the different wavelengths (paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Hill with the teaching of Naka by including a laser beam selection unit configured to select an excitation wavelength of the different wavelengths in order to use a wavelength that measures the chosen layer, paragraph [0117]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill and Pandev as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Janik (US 7433056).
Regarding claim 6, Hill is silent regarding wherein the one or more characteristics comprise crystallinity of the patterned structure.
However, Janik teaches wafter measurement (abstract) including wherein the one or more characteristics comprise crystallinity of the patterned structure (col. 11, lines 34-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Hill with the teaching of Janik by including wherein the one or more characteristics comprise crystallinity of the patterned structure in order to obtain further sample properties.
Regarding claim 7, Hill is silent regarding wherein the one or more characteristics comprise a distribution of at least one of a stress relaxation of the patterned structure or a crystallinity of the patterned structure.
However, Janik teaches wafter measurement (abstract) including wherein the one or more characteristics comprise a distribution of at least one of a stress relaxation of the patterned structure or a crystallinity of the patterned structure (col. 11, lines 34-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Hill with the teaching of Janik by including wherein the one or more characteristics comprise a distribution of at least one of a stress relaxation of the patterned structure or a crystallinity of the patterned structure in order to obtain further sample properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 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:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a system for use in measuring one or more characteristics of a patterned structure on semiconductor wafer, the system comprising, among other essential elements, wherein the control unit is configured to determine a measurement scheme that defines at least the one or more conditions based on theoretical Raman spectra, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1 and the above claim. Claims 11-13 are dependent from claim 10 and therefore are also included in the allowed subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pandev (US20160282105A1) teaches a model-based wafer measurement device, but does not teach the above subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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 E Geisel can be reached at (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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights