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 § 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 16-23, 28-30, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Voorst et al. [US 2019/0049861] in view of Jak et al. [US 2011/0044425].
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, wherein the curvature is configured based on an angular distribution of the scattered measurement radiation.
Jak teaches the filter (80, see Fig. 8) comprises a film (foil or membrane, see [0086]) with a curvature in at least one direction (curvature of filter 80, see Fig. 8 and [0085]-[0088]), wherein the curvature is configured based on an angular distribution of the incident radiation (curved to ensure that filter is aligned with incoming radiation, see [0088]-[0092]).
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 Jaks in the filter for scattered measurement radiation as taught by Van Voorst in order to maximize transmission of desired wavelength.
For claim 17, in the combination of Van Voorst and Jak, Jak teaches substantially the entire surface of the film is curved (curvature across an entire surface to filter light from a point source, see Fig. 8).
For claim 18, Van Voorst fails to teach the film comprises two or more planar sections connected by a fold portion of the film.
Jak teaches the film comprises two or more planar sections connected by a fold portion of the film (planar segments connected by connection point 74, where material is a foil or membrane, see Fig. 7 and [0079]-[0084]).
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 Jak in the filter as taught by Van Voorst in order to increase structural integrity and reduce production complexity.
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 claims 21 and 32-34, 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 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Voorst in view of Jak 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 Jak 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Jak is relied upon to the salient feature of the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that The Office does not explain how the identified "pump laste[sic] 530 at particular wavelengths" (Office Action at 4) corresponds to the "one or more second wavelengths" that are filtered out of the scattered measurement radiation by the filter, as recited by claim 20.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is directed to the cited portions of the rejection. The pump laser of the SHG is an infrared laser, element 594 is an IR filter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights