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 29 and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: “claims 16” should be rewritten as --claim 16--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation 0.01 nm-50 nm, and the claim also recites 0.01 nm-20 nm, or 1 nm-10 nm, or 10 nm-20 nm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the 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.
Claims 16, 17, 19-23, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Voorst et al. [US 2019/0049861] in view of Banine et al. [US 2015/0192861].
For claim 16, Van Voorst teaches an apparatus (see Figs. 5(a) and Fig. 7) for measuring a parameter of a structure (T) on a substrate (W) related to a manufacturing process, the apparatus comprising:
a source assembly (510, 710) configured to provide measurement radiation having one or more first wavelengths for irradiating the structure on the substrate (see [0070]);
a filter (594, 794) arranged to receive scattered measurement radiation that has scattered from the structure, wherein the filter is configured to transmit the scattered measurement radiation at the one or more first wavelengths and filter out radiation at one or more second wavelengths (IR and visible suppression, see [0110]), and
a plurality of detectors (806, 814, see Fig. 7), located downstream of the filter, configured to detect the filtered, scattered radiation so as to measure the parameter of the structure.
Van Voorst fails to teach the filter comprises a film with a curvature in at least one direction.
Banine teaches the filter comprises a film with a curvature in at least one direction (curvature of filter 4, see Fig. 4 and [0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the curved filter as taught by Banine in the filter as taught by Van Voorst in order to reduce transmission variation as taught in paragraph [0140] of Banine.
For claim 17, in the combination of Van Voorst and Banine, Banine teaches substantially the entire surface of the film is curved (see the curvature in Fig. 4).
For claim 19, Van Voorst teaches the one or more second wavelengths are in a range from about 200 nm to about 10 μm (IR and visible, see [0110]).
For claim 20, Van Voorst teaches the radiation at one or more second wavelengths comprises pump radiation used by the source assembly to generate the measurement radiation or stray radiation generated by one or more components of the apparatus (pump laser 530 at particular wavelengths, see [0069], [0084], and [0093]).
For claim 21, Van Voorst teaches the measurement radiation comprises one or more wavelengths in a range of 0.01 nm-50 nm, or 0.01 nm-20 nm, or 1 nm-10 nm, or 10 nm-20 nm (EUV and SXR wavelengths uses for inspection, see [0057], [0124], and [0131]).
For claim 22, Van Voorst teaches the source assembly comprises a high harmonic generation source (HHG, see [0069], [0070], and [0120]).
For claim 23, Van Voorst teaches the filter film comprises zirconium, aluminium (Zr and AL, see [0072] and [0110]), carbon, boron, silicon, yttrium, and/or silver.
For claims 28-30, Van Voorst teaches a metrology tool, a lithographic apparatus, and a litho cell comprising the apparatus of claim 16 (see [0068]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Voorst in view of Banine as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Moriya et al. [US 2011/0309271].
For claim 18, Van Voorst and Banine fail to teach the film comprises two or more planar sections connected by a fold portion of the film.
Moriya teaches the film comprises two or more planar sections connected by a fold portion of the film (film formed on the planar segments of SPF 40, 50, see Figs. 14 and 19 with film formed thereon, see [0051]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the planar sections of the film as taught by Moriya in the filter as taught by Van Voorst in order to increase structural integrity and align the incident ray angle with a normal.
Claim 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Voorst in view of Banine as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kusunose et al. [US 2013/0234597].
For claims 24 and 31, Van Voorst fails to teach the filter film has a thickness in a range from 150 nm to 250 nm.
Kusunose teaches the filter film has a thickness in a range from 150 nm to 250 nm (200 nm, see [0047] and Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a filter film thickness as taught by Kusunose in the filter film as taught by Van Voorst in order to achieve a desired transmittance and structural integrity of the filter.
Claim 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Voorst in view of Banine as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Quintanilha et al. [US 2017/0357155].
For claims 25-27, Van Voorst fails to teach the apparatus further comprises an enclosure that is at least partially radiation-tight, wherein the plurality of detectors are located inside the enclosure., wherein the structure is located outside the enclosure.
Quintanilha teaches the apparatus further comprises an enclosure that is at least partially radiation-tight, wherein the plurality of detectors are located inside the enclosure, wherein the structure is located outside the enclosure (chambers 906 and 908 are separated and light only passes through the windows of chamber 908, see Fig. 7 and [0099]-[0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the chamber arrangement as taught by Quintanilha in the metrology chamber as taught by Van Voorst in order to provide different atmospheric conditions for each of the chambers to reduce cost for maintaining a high vacuum throughout and allow for quick exchange of wafers for testing thereby increasing throughput.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jak et al. [US 2011/0044425] teaches a curved filter in Figs. 7 and 8. Iizuka et al. [US 2012/0171622] teaches a curved filter in Figs. 9A-12. Witte et al. [US 2017/0176879] a filter in front of the sensor of a metrology device in Fig. 10. Hill et al. [US 2019/0033501] teaches in Figs. 1A-3B a curved filter 102.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759