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
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5 and 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (U.S.Pat. 10,495,982) in view of Naot (U.S.Pat. 11,487,929).
With respect to claims 1, 12-14 and 16, Chang discloses a system, a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium and a corresponding method comprising substantially all features of the instant claims such as: a charged-particle beam inspection apparatus (100; see figures 1 and 6) configured to scan a sample (112) that has a target with a plurality of pattern layers (118; 112; 124) and a controller (200) having circuitry configured to obtain detection data in response to a scan of the target and determine one or more characteristics of the sample (see figure 10) in dependence on the obtained detection data. Chang does not expressly disclose “a model wherein for each of the plurality pattern layers of the target, the model has a mathematical term that is dependence on properties of the pattern layer, as recited in the instant claims. Naot teaches determining measurement results using a mathematical model that depends on properties of individual layers (see e.g., figure 1, layer proper 105, simulation 112 and performance calculation 114) where contribution associated with different layer properties are combined to evaluate measurement outcomes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chang and Naot to obtain come up with the claimed invention as recited in the claims of the present application. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to present the respective layer-dependent contributions taught by Naot as corresponding mathematical terms of the model, since such representation constitutes a predictable mathematical implementation of Naot’s layer-dependent modeling approach for determining the combined measurement response of a multilayer target.
As to claim 2 , Chang determines characteristics from detected signals, it would have been obvious to refine such determination by fitting a mode to the detected data, as taught by Naot in order to improve measurement accuracy and reduce error.
With respect to claims 3 and 18, Chang discloses the one or more characteristics of the sample has overlay and/or critical dimension (see col.1, lines 20-25).
As to claims 4-5, and 19-20, it appears that the first pattern layer (124) has a grating with a first pitch and the second pattern layer (122) has a grating with a second pitch, and the first pitch is different with the second pitch (see figure 8).
Response to Amendment/Argument
Applicant’s amendment filed July 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6-13 have been amended. Applicant’s arguments in conjunction with the amendment have been carefully reviewed. The amendment and arguments are persuasive with respect to certain rejections, but are not persuasive with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons set forth below.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that the claimed invention, when considered as a whole, is directed to a practical application involving a charged-particle beam inspection apparatus that scans a physical sample and determines over or more physical characteristics of the sample based on detection data obtained from the scan. Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C §112(b)
Claim 1 has been amended to specify that, for each of the plurality of pattern layers, the model comprises a “mathematical term” dependent on properties of the respective pattern layer. Claims 6-13 have further been amended to clarify that the recited interaction signal models a physical interaction between the first pattern layer and the second pattern layer. Applicant argues that the amendments clarify the meaning and scope of the previously questioned limitations. Applicant’s amendment and arguments are found persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C §112(b) is withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C.§102(a)(2) over Lei et al
Applicant argues that Lei et al (U.S Patent Application Publication No.2024/0005457) is excepted from prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) because, not later than the effective filling date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in Lei and the claimed invention were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-5, 12-14 and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over Lei is withdrawn.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chang in view of Naot
Applicant argues that Chang and Naot fail to disclose or teach the limitation of claim 1 requiring “for each of the plurality of pattern layers of the target, the model comprises a mathematical term that is dependent on properties of the pattern layer”. Applicant particular argues that the previous Office Action acknowledged that Chang does not expressly this limitation and tat Naot does not remedy the deficiency because there is allegedly “no mention of a mathematical term for each pattern layer” in Naot. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
As acknowledge in the previous Office Action, Chang is relied upon for the charged-particle inspection and detection aspects of the claimed system, including obtaining detection information form a patterned sample and determining characteristics of the sample therefrom. Chang teaches detecting a radiation signal from a patterned substrate and extracting characteristic pattern information from the detected signal, including information used to determine overlay error. Chang further teaches an electron-beam implementation in which an electron signal redirected by the patterned layer is detected. Naot is relied upon for the layer-dependent modeling features not expressly disclosed by Chang. Naot teaches simulation and modeling of measurements of multilayer structures using properties associated with the individual layers. Such layer properties include, for example, layer thickness, refractive index, dielectric constant, and other properties of the respective layers. Naot further teaches target parameters including line width, spacing, line-CD, and line-pitch associated with patterned structures.
More particularly, Naot teaches performing simulations for respective layers of a stack and iteratively building simulation results as layers are added. Naot further describes the simulation inputs as variables used in equations to generate a mathematical approximation of the measurement response.
Thus, Applicant’ argument that Naot does not expressly recite the particular phrase “a mathematical term for each pattern layer” does not establish nonobviousness. The present rejection is under 35 U.S.C. 103 rather than anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102, and therefore does not require an express, word-for word disclosure of the claimed limitation in a single reference.
Given Naot’s express teaching of mathematically modeling a multilayer structure using respective properties associated with individual layers, including performing the simulation on a layer-by-layer basis, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in the art to represent the respective layer-dependent contributions as corresponding mathematical terms of the model. Such representations would have been a predictable mathematical implementation of Naot’s expressly disclosed layer-dependent modeling technique for mathematically determining the combined measurement response of a multilayer target. It further would have been obvious to apply Naot’s layer-dependent modeling technique to the detection system of Chang in order to account for contributions associated with individual layers of a multilayer target and thereby improve the accuracy and robustness of determining characteristics of the sample. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that neither Chang nor Naot expressly recites the claimed “mathematical term” for each pattern layer does not overcome the rejection.
Applicant further states that the cited portions of Chang and Naot are not properly combinable. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not require bodily incorporation of the particular apparatus of Naot into Chang. Rather, the rejection proposed applying Naot’s known layer-dependent mathematical modeling technique to the detection data obtained using the inspection arrangement taught by Chang. Chang obtains detected signals form patterned structures and uses such signals to determine the characteristics of the sample, whereas Naot teaches mathematical modeling of measurement responses based upon properties of individual layers of multilayer structures. Thus, the respective teachings are reasonably pertinent to the common problem of determining characteristics of multilayer patterned structures from measurement information.
One having ordinary skill in the art would therefore have had reason to apply Naot’s layer-dependent modeling approach to the detected information of Chang to more accurately account for the effects of the respective layers when determining characteristics of a multilayer sample, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining the predictable result of improved characterization of the multilayer structure. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection.
With respect to claims 2-5, 12-14 and 16-20, Applicant’s arguments based upon dependency is not persuasive because, for the reasons discussed above, the combination of Chang and Naot renders the subject matter of claim 1 obvious. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 2-5, 12-14 and 16-20 is maintained.
With respect to claims 6-11 and 15, the amendment to claims 6-11 more specifically define the model as including a Top-signal representing a modeled contribution from a first pattern layer, a Bottom-Signal representing a modeled contribution from a second pattern layer, and an interaction signal modeling a physical interaction between the first and second pattern layers, together with the additional modeling limitations recited in the respective dependent claims. Upon reconsideration of the prior art of record, the applied references do not sufficiently teach or suggest the specifically claimed decomposition of the model, particularly the recited interaction signal modeling a physical interaction between the first and second pattern layers. Accordingly, the prior art rejection of claims 6-11 and 15 is withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 and 15 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.
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 HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
8/23/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights