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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2024. The submission is following the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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)(l) 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 16, 17, 19, 20, 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goorden et al., (WO 2021/001102 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Goorden et al., disclose a method of determining a value for a parameter of interest from a target on a substrate ([0047], “The objective lens focusses the off-axis beams 330 onto a sample (e.g., periodic structure/alignment mark) located on a substrate 350, and [0055], “When making a measurement of a target, for example in alignment or to measure overlay (or other parameter of interest such as focus)”), the method comprising:
obtaining metrology data comprising at least two or more single-wavelength parameter of interest values ([0056], “In each case, measuring at a plurality of different wavelengths”), each single-wavelength parameter of interest value having been obtained using a respective different measurement wavelength ([0058], “for a measurement using K colors, an optimized measured position xoptmay be calculated by a linear weighted combination of each measured position xk”, and [0067], “ these measured positions xpos and xneg will each comprise a weighted combination (via the intensities) of the measured positions for each of the respective constituent wavelengths”, and see the formulars in [0068], each wavelength value X1 to X5 is calculated individually); and
determining the value for the parameter of interest from a weighted combination of the single- wavelength parameter of interest values ([0058], “an optimized measured position xopt may be calculated by a linear weighted combination of each measured position xk… where Wk is the weighting”), the weighted combination is weighted by a stack sensitivity derived weighting ([0058], “The weighting may be determined… layer thickness variation”, and [0055], “Layer thickness variation and interference within a stack”).
Regarding claim 17, Goorden et al., as discussed in claim 16, disclose the parameter of interest being overlay ([0055], “When making a measurement of a target, for example in alignment or to measure overlay (or other parameter of interest such as focus)”).
Regarding claim 19, Goorden et al., as discussed in claim 16, disclose the combination suppresses the magnitude and/or mean of a measurement error resultant from nuisance contributions to the parameter of interest ([0055], “unwanted contributions from the target affect the measurement signal, which have an impact on the measured position or overlay value”, and “the effect of the unwanted contributions is a wavelength dependent alignment position deviation (APD), such that different colors result in different position indications for a real (i.e. non-perfect) substrate”; and [0056] “In each case, measuring at a plurality of different wavelengths can enable correction for or mitigation for APD”) resulting from imperfections in the target and/or a tool used to measure the target ([0055], “ Grating asymmetry- unwanted grating asymmetry, for example in the form of floor tilt in the bottom grating or unequal side wall angles, cause a wavelength dependent APD”).
Regarding claim 20, Goorden et al., as discussed in claim 16, disclose the combination suppressing the variation across a substrate of a measurement error ([0068], “the aim of the concepts described is to choose the colors and the intensities such that the position xopt obtained…is robust to process variations (e.g., such that the partial derivatives are 0)”) resultant from nuisance contributions to the parameter of interest resulting from imperfections in the target and/or a tool (“sensor”, in [0055]) used to measure the target ([0055], “unwanted contributions from the target affect the measurement signal such as grating asymmetry- unwanted grating asymmetry, for example thickness variation and sensor aberrations- Layer thickness variation and interference within a stack”).
Regarding claim 26, Goorden et al., as discussed in claim 16, disclose the different measurement wavelengths all corresponding to a same-signed stack sensitivity for the target (([0057], “ OCW based methods aim to determine an optimal (e.g., weighted) combination of all the colors used to minimize the impact of target deformations on a measurement value, and [0058], “The weighting may be determined… layer thickness variation” , which is the film stack variation. [0063], “integrating positive weighted wavelengths together and negative weighted wavelengths together. As such the method may comprise integrating all of the positive weighted wavelengths in one positive-weighted capture”).
Regarding claim 27, Goorden et al., as discussed in claim 16, disclose measuring the target ([0055], “When making a measurement of a target, for example in alignment or to measure overlay “) using each the different measurement wavelength to obtain the metrology data ([0056], “measuring at a plurality of different wavelengths can enable correction for or mitigation for APD”, and [0059], “There are a number of different solutions presently employed for obtaining the measurement data for multiple wavelengths”, and “each full measurement of a target comprises sequential measurement captures at each of three wavelengths”).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Goorden et al., as discussed in claim 16, disclose a processor configured to perform the method ([0047], “processor”).
Regarding claim 30, Goorden et al., as discussed in claim 16, disclose program instructions operable to perform the method of claim 16, when run on a suitable apparatus ([0047], “Figure 4 shows a possible implementation of such a metrology device, and a processor 380 running suitable software can then process the image(s) of the interference pattern captured by camera”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goorden et al., in view of Lee et al., (US 2014/0358485 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Goorden et al., as discussed in claim 16, disclose the different measurement wavelengths comprise one or more pairs of wavelengths ([0064]). Goorden et al., do not disclose a first derivative of stack sensitivity with respect to wavelength corresponding to the first wavelength of each pair having a similar magnitude to a second derivative of stack sensitivity with respect to wavelength corresponding to a second wavelength of each pair as claimed. Lee et al., disclose a first derivative of stack sensitivity with respect to wavelength corresponding to the first wavelength of each pair ([0054], “Compute derivatives of the Mueller matrix element m00 for each wavelength…, and the derivatives are denoted D(λj, pi), where λj and pi represent wavelength and parameter, respectively”). Further, although Goorden et al., and Lee et al., do not disclose the similar magnitude as claimed, Goorden et al., disclose in [0067], selecting and weighting an optimized subset of wavelengths to process variations (e.g., such that the partial derivatives are 0), and Lee et al., disclose ([0054]) calculating the derivatives of stack parameters for a plurality of wavelengths, denoted D as (λj, pi). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goorden et al., by utilizing the teaching of Lee et al., to select pairs of wavelengths whose magnitudes similar/match, to achieve the zero-derivation process robustness.
Regarding claims 22-25, Goorden et al., in view of Lee et al., as discussed in claim 21, do not disclose the different between first derivative and the second derivative and the difference between the first wavelength and second wavelength as claimed. However, this is a design choice. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goorden et al., in view of Lee et al., accordingly in order to achieve the zero-derivation process robustness.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 18 is 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.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art fails to disclose the weighting for each single-wavelength parameter of interest value comprising a ratio of the magnitude of stack sensitivity corresponding to the measurement wavelength used to obtain that single-wavelength parameter of interest value to the sum of the magnitudes of stack sensitivities for all of the measurement wavelengths.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAI THI NGOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272- 3456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00-5:30pm.
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, GEORGIA EPPS can be reached on (571)272-2328. 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. Visithttps://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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights