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 Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: On Lines 14-15, the Examiner assumes that “the measurement pupil” should actually be --the measurement spot--.
Claim 11: On Lines 2-3, the Examiner assumes that “three dimensional” should actually be --three-dimensional--.
Claim 18: On Line 2, the Examiner assumes that “three dimensional” should actually be --three-dimensional--.
Claim 19: On Lines 14-15, the Examiner assumes that “the measurement pupil” should actually be --the measurement spot--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krishnan et al. (US 2017/0356800, disclosed in IDS 30 March 2025), hereinafter Krishnan.
Claim 1: Krishnan discloses a spectroscopic metrology system (100, Fig. 1) comprising:
one or more illumination sources (110) configured to generate an amount of illumination light (117) [0033], the amount of illumination light (117) incident at a measurement spot (116) on a surface of a specimen (120) under measurement [0036] over a range of angles of incidence (α) and a range of azimuth angles (AZ) (“FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary, metrology system 100 for performing simultaneous spectroscopic measurements of semiconductor structures over a broad range of angles of incidence, azimuth angles, or both” [0032]);
a collection optics subsystem (122-125) configured to collect an amount of collected light (127) from the measurement spot (116) on the surface of the specimen (120) [0038] over a range of collection angles corresponding to the range of angles of incidence (α) and the range of azimuth angles (AZ) (evident since “[e]ach pupil segment includes signal information associated with distinct sub-ranges of the multiple angles of incidence, multiple azimuth angles, or a combination thereof” [0043]);
a dispersive element (150) having an incidence surface located in an optical path of the collection optics subsystem (122-125) at or near an image plane of the measurement spot [0047], wherein the dispersive element (150) disperses the amount of collected light (127) according to wavelength over a range of wavelengths (inherent to the function of a dispersion grating: “Light dispersed from each grating toward detector subsystem 160 is spatially separated at the surfaces of detector subsystem 160” [0047]); and
at least one detector (160) having a planar, two-dimensional surface sensitive to incident light (“In one example, the detectors of detector subsystem 160 are charge coupled devices (CCD) sensitive to ultraviolet and visible light” [0056]), the at least one detector (160) configured to detect the amount of collected light (127) dispersed by the dispersive element (150) (“Light dispersed from each grating toward detector subsystem 160 is spatially separated at the surfaces of detector subsystem 160” [0047]) and generate a set of multiple images indicative of the detected light (“detector subsystem 160 generates output signals 170 indicative of light simultaneously detected on each detector of the detector subsystem 160” [0056]); and
a computing system (130) configured to estimate a value of a parameter of interest characterizing a structural characteristic of the specimen (120) under measurement at the measurement spot (116) (“Metrology system 100 also includes computing system 130 configured to receive detected signals 170 and determines an estimate of a value of a parameter of interest 171 of the measured structure(s) based on the measured signals” [0057]) based on the set of multiple images associated with the amount of collected light (121) over the range of angles of incidence (α), the range of azimuth angles (AZ), (“simultaneously collecting spectra associated with different angular data” [0057]) and the range of wavelengths (evident since “[l]ight dispersed from each grating toward detector subsystem 160 is spatially separated at the surfaces of detector subsystem 160” [0047]).
Claim 2: Krishnan further discloses wherein each image of the set of multiple images is indicative of a portion of the amount of collected light (127) associated with a different angle of incidence (α), and wherein each image of the set of multiple images is indicative of the amount of collected light (127) dispersed onto the at least one detector (160) according to wavelength over the range of wavelengths along a first direction of the at least one detector (160) and according to azimuth angle (AZ) over the range of azimuth angles along a second direction of the at least one detector (160) (“As depicted in FIG. 4, the portion of collected light 127 incident on each segment includes the same azimuth angle information, but different angle of incidence information… pupil segments having different angular information are spatially distinguished and separately dispersed onto different sensor areas of a detector subsystem” [0052]).
Claim 7: Krishnan further discloses wherein the dispersive element (150) is a reflective grating structure (“the pupil segmentation and dispersion device includes multiple reflective gratings” [0047]).
Claims 8-9: Krishnan further discloses wherein the at least one detector (160) includes two or more detectors (“the collected light propagates to all detectors of metrology system 100” [0057]), wherein each of the two or more detectors detects a portion of the amount of collected light over different spectral ranges (“collecting spectra associated with different angular data” [0057]),
wherein each of the two or more detectors detects each portion of the amount of collected light over different spectral ranges simultaneously (“By simultaneously collecting spectra associated with different angular data, measurement times are reduced and all spectra are measured with the same alignment conditions” [0057]).
Claim 10: Krishnan further discloses wherein the at least one detector (160) includes two or more different surface areas (180A-D) each having different photosensitivity (“The four sensor chips include different material compositions that each exhibit different photosensitivity characteristics” [0071]), wherein the two or more different surface areas (180A-D) are aligned with a direction of wavelength dispersion across the surface of the at least one detector (160) (evident from Fig. 8).
Claim 11: Krishnan further discloses wherein the specimen (120) under measurement includes a three-dimensional NAND structure or a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) structure (claim 21).
Claim 12: Krishnan discloses a method (using spectroscopic metrology system 100, Fig. 1) comprising:
directing an amount of illumination light (117) at a measurement spot (116) on a surface of a specimen (120) under measurement [0036] over a range of angles of incidence (α) and a range of azimuth angles (AZ) (“FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary, metrology system 100 for performing simultaneous spectroscopic measurements of semiconductor structures over a broad range of angles of incidence, azimuth angles, or both” [0032]);
collecting an amount of collected light (127) from the measurement spot (116) on the surface of the specimen (120) [0038] over a range of collection angles corresponding to the range of angles of incidence (α) and the range of azimuth angles (AZ) (evident since “[e]ach pupil segment includes signal information associated with distinct sub-ranges of the multiple angles of incidence, multiple azimuth angles, or a combination thereof” [0043]);
dispersing the amount of collected light (127) according to wavelength over a range of wavelengths (inherent to the function of a dispersion grating: “Light dispersed from each grating toward detector subsystem 160 is spatially separated at the surfaces of detector subsystem 160” [0047]);
detecting the amount of dispersed, collected light (“Light dispersed from each grating toward detector subsystem 160 is spatially separated at the surfaces of detector subsystem 160” [0047]);
generating a set of multiple images indicative of the detected light (“detector subsystem 160 generates output signals 170 indicative of light simultaneously detected on each detector of the detector subsystem 160” [0056]); and
estimating a value of a parameter of interest characterizing a structural characteristic of the specimen (120) under measurement at the measurement spot (116) (“Metrology system 100 also includes computing system 130 configured to receive detected signals 170 and determines an estimate of a value of a parameter of interest 171 of the measured structure(s) based on the measured signals” [0057]) based on the set of multiple images associated with the amount of collected light (121) over the range of angles of incidence (α), the range of azimuth angles (AZ), (“simultaneously collecting spectra associated with different angular data” [0057]) and the range of wavelengths (evident since “[l]ight dispersed from each grating toward detector subsystem 160 is spatially separated at the surfaces of detector subsystem 160” [0047]).
Claim 13: Krishnan further discloses wherein each image of the set of multiple images is indicative of a portion of the amount of collected light (127) associated with a different angle of incidence (α), and wherein each image of the set of multiple images is indicative of the amount of collected light (127) dispersed onto the at least one detector (160) according to wavelength over the range of wavelengths along a first direction of the at least one detector (160) and according to azimuth angle (AZ) over the range of azimuth angles along a second direction of the at least one detector (160) (“As depicted in FIG. 4, the portion of collected light 127 incident on each segment includes the same azimuth angle information, but different angle of incidence information… pupil segments having different angular information are spatially distinguished and separately dispersed onto different sensor areas of a detector subsystem” [0052]).
Claim 17: Krishnan further discloses wherein the dispersive element (150) is a reflective grating structure (“the pupil segmentation and dispersion device includes multiple reflective gratings” [0047]).
Claim 18: Krishnan further discloses wherein the specimen (120) under measurement includes a three-dimensional NAND structure or a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) structure (claim 21).
Claim 19: Krishnan discloses a spectroscopic metrology system (100, Fig. 1) comprising:
one or more illumination sources (110) configured to generate an amount of illumination light (117) [0033], the amount of illumination light (117) incident at a measurement spot (116) on a surface of a specimen (120) under measurement [0036] over a range of angles of incidence (α) and a range of azimuth angles (AZ) (“FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary, metrology system 100 for performing simultaneous spectroscopic measurements of semiconductor structures over a broad range of angles of incidence, azimuth angles, or both” [0032]);
a collection optics subsystem (122-125) configured to collect an amount of collected light (127) from the measurement spot (116) on the surface of the specimen (120) [0038] over a range of collection angles corresponding to the range of angles of incidence (α) and the range of azimuth angles (AZ) (evident since “[e]ach pupil segment includes signal information associated with distinct sub-ranges of the multiple angles of incidence, multiple azimuth angles, or a combination thereof” [0043]);
a dispersive element (150) having an incidence surface located in an optical path of the collection optics subsystem (122-125) at or near an image plane of the measurement spot [0047], wherein the dispersive element (150) disperses the amount of collected light (127) according to wavelength over a range of wavelengths (inherent to the function of a dispersion grating: “Light dispersed from each grating toward detector subsystem 160 is spatially separated at the surfaces of detector subsystem 160” [0047]); and
at least one detector (160) having a planar, two-dimensional surface sensitive to incident light (“In one example, the detectors of detector subsystem 160 are charge coupled devices (CCD) sensitive to ultraviolet and visible light” [0056]), the at least one detector (160) configured to detect the amount of collected light (127) dispersed by the dispersive element (150) (“Light dispersed from each grating toward detector subsystem 160 is spatially separated at the surfaces of detector subsystem 160” [0047]) and generate a set of multiple images indicative of the detected light (“detector subsystem 160 generates output signals 170 indicative of light simultaneously detected on each detector of the detector subsystem 160” [0056]); and
a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (130) [0101], causes the one or more processors (130) to:
estimate a value of a parameter of interest characterizing a structural characteristic of the specimen (120) under measurement at the measurement spot (116) (“Metrology system 100 also includes computing system 130 configured to receive detected signals 170 and determines an estimate of a value of a parameter of interest 171 of the measured structure(s) based on the measured signals” [0057]) based on the set of multiple images associated with the amount of collected light (121) over the range of angles of incidence (α), the range of azimuth angles (AZ), (“simultaneously collecting spectra associated with different angular data” [0057]) and the range of wavelengths (evident since “[l]ight dispersed from each grating toward detector subsystem 160 is spatially separated at the surfaces of detector subsystem 160” [0047]).
Claim 20: Krishnan further discloses wherein each image of the set of multiple images is indicative of a portion of the amount of collected light (127) associated with a different angle of incidence (α), and wherein each image of the set of multiple images is indicative of the amount of collected light (127) dispersed onto the at least one detector (160) according to wavelength over the range of wavelengths along a first direction of the at least one detector (160) and according to azimuth angle (AZ) over the range of azimuth angles along a second direction of the at least one detector (160) (“As depicted in FIG. 4, the portion of collected light 127 incident on each segment includes the same azimuth angle information, but different angle of incidence information… pupil segments having different angular information are spatially distinguished and separately dispersed onto different sensor areas of a detector subsystem” [0052]).
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 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pandev et al. (US 2021/0165398), hereinafter Pandev.
Claims 3-4: Krishnan does not explicitly disclose wherein the estimating of the value of the parameter of interest involves a trained angle of incidence (AOI) and azimuth angle (AZ) resolved spectroscopic measurement model.
However, Krishnan does disclose the use of a trained measurement model [0103], wherein the computing system (130) receives modeling inputs and acquires modeling results [0100]. Pandev, furthermore, in the same field of endeavor of optical metrology, discloses wherein estimating a value of a parameter of interest characterizing a structural characteristic of a specimen under measurement [0067] involves a trained measurement model (“values of parameters of interest employed to train a measurement model are derived from measurements of DOE wafers by a reference metrology system” [0088]),
wherein the trained measurement model is trained based on multiple Design Of Experiments (DOE) measurements (“values of parameters of interest employed to train a measurement model are derived from measurements of DOE wafers by a reference metrology system” [0088]).
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 Krishnan’s computing system to estimate the value of the parameter of interest using a trained measurement model for the purpose of minimizing errors by using “a trusted measurement system that generates sufficiently accurate measurement results” (Pandev [0088]). It is evident then, in Krishnan’s modified computing system, that this trained measurement model receives, as input, the set of multiple images over the range of angles of incident and the range of azimuth angles since this set of multiple images is generated by the at least one detector (160) [0056]. It is also evident that each DOE measurement includes a training set of the multiple images (since there are multiple DOE measurements with modeling inputs).
Claims 14-15: Krishnan does not explicitly disclose wherein the estimating of the value of the parameter of interest involves a trained angle of incidence (AOI) and azimuth angle (AZ) resolved spectroscopic measurement model.
However, Krishnan does disclose the use of a trained measurement model [0103], wherein the computing system (130) receives modeling inputs and acquires modeling results [0100]. Pandev, furthermore, in the same field of endeavor of optical metrology, discloses wherein estimating a value of a parameter of interest characterizing a structural characteristic of a specimen under measurement [0067] involves a trained measurement model (“values of parameters of interest employed to train a measurement model are derived from measurements of DOE wafers by a reference metrology system” [0088]),
wherein the trained measurement model is trained based on multiple Design Of Experiments (DOE) measurements (“values of parameters of interest employed to train a measurement model are derived from measurements of DOE wafers by a reference metrology system” [0088]).
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 Krishnan’s method of estimating the value of the parameter of interest by using a trained measurement model for the purpose of minimizing errors by using “a trusted measurement system that generates sufficiently accurate measurement results” (Pandev [0088]). It is evident then, in Krishnan’s modified computing system, that this trained measurement model receives, as input, the set of multiple images over the range of angles of incident and the range of azimuth angles since this set of multiple images is generated by the at least one detector (160) [0056]. It is also evident that each DOE measurement includes a training set of the multiple images (since there are multiple DOE measurements with modeling inputs).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan.
Claim 5: Krishnan is silent with respect to a positioning subsystem configured to rotate the dispersive element about first and second axes in-plane with the planar, two-dimensional surface of the at least one detector.
However, Krishnan does disclose rotating a mask (141/143), which is placed just before the dispersive element (150), to more fully capture the angular information (“mask 141 or mask 143 may be rotated within the image plane to capture different swathes of AOI and Azimuth angle information” [0050]). Krishnan also discloses that, in the absence of a mask, the dispersive element performs the angular segmentation instead (“the pupil segmentation and dispersion techniques described herein do not require a mask located in an image plane of the measurement pupil” [0051]).
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 Krishnan’s metrology system with a positioning subsystem to rotate the dispersive element about first and second axes in-plane with the planar, two-dimensional surface of the at least one detector, wherein the first axis is aligned with a blaze direction of the dispersive element and the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis, for the purpose of “captur[ing] different swathes of AOI and Azimuth information” [0050].
Claim 16: Krishnan is silent with respect to rotating the dispersive element about first and second axes in-plane with the planar, two-dimensional surface of the at least one detector.
However, Krishnan does disclose rotating a mask (141/143), which is placed just before the dispersive element (150), to more fully capture the angular information (“mask 141 or mask 143 may be rotated within the image plane to capture different swathes of AOI and Azimuth angle information” [0050]). Krishnan also discloses that, in the absence of a mask, the dispersive element performs the angular segmentation instead (“the pupil segmentation and dispersion techniques described herein do not require a mask located in an image plane of the measurement pupil” [0051]).
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 Krishnan’s method by rotating the dispersive element about first and second axes in-plane with the planar, two-dimensional surface of the at least one detector, wherein the first axis is aligned with a blaze direction of the dispersive element and the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis, for the purpose of “captur[ing] different swathes of AOI and Azimuth information” [0050].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Novikov et al. (US 7,724,375), hereinafter Novikov.
Claim 6: Krishnan is silent with respect to the specific positioning subsystem used.
Novikov, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical metrology, discloses the use of a positioning subsystem (117) that includes a piezoelectric stage (Col. 3, Lines 12-14).
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 Krishnan’s positioning subsystem to include a piezoelectric stage for the purpose of using a well-known mechanism for precise control of movement, thus reducing or eliminating movement-related errors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights