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
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “that corresponding” is grammatically incorrect. For purposes of examination, examiner reads the phrase as “that corresponds”.
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 20 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the scanning probe microscope” inline 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is indefinite because parent claim 17 recites “a plurality of scanning probe microscopes”, so when claim 20 recites “the scanning probe microscope” it is impossible to determine to which microscope the limitation is directed. For purposes of examination, examiner reads the phrase in claim 20 as “one of the plurality of scanning probe microscopes”.
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 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20160054664).
As to claim 24, Wu teaches a method (Abstract “Systems and methods that include providing for measuring a first topographical height of a substrate”) comprising:
determining a height of a reference point (paragraph 0017 “The topographical height of a layer of a substrate includes identifying the plane of a surface of the layer on the substrate.”); and
determining, using a plurality of scanning probe microscopes (Figure 6, paragraph 0066 “level sensor 608”, paragraph 0027 “The imaging module may be a scanner; the metrology module (e.g., topographical height measurement device) may be a multi-tipped AFM tool such as described below with reference to FIG. 6.”), the height of a surface of a substrate at one or more points (Figure 3, paragraph 0016 “FIG. 3 illustrates a tool 300 for performing a lithography process and measuring a topographical height.”).
As to claim 25, Wu teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 24, in addition the height of the surface of the substrate at the one or more points is a relative height, relative to the height of a reference point (paragraph 0017 “The topographical height of a layer of a substrate includes identifying the plane of a surface of the layer on the substrate.” and it is inherent in a height measurement that one must have a starting point from which height is measured).
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 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modderman et al (United States Patent Application Publication 20050134816) in view of Gong et al (CN 2011552761) in view of Texas Instruments (“Introduction to Time-of-Flight Long Range Proximity and Distance Sensor System Design”, SBAU305B – March 2018 – Revised August 2019) in view of Wu, the combination of which is hereafter referred to as “MGTW”.
As to claim 22, Modderman teaches an apparatus (Title “Lithographic Apparatus”) comprising:
a height measuring sensor configured to determine a first height of a surface of a substrate within a region of interest (Figure 2, paragraph 0057 “first sensor 10”, paragraph 0103 “performing a first height measurement of a part of at least one substrate with a first sensor”);
a [sensor] configured to determine a second height of the surface of the substrate within the region of interest (Figure 2, paragraph 0057 “second sensor 11”, paragraph 0103 “performing a second height measurement of the same part of the at least one substrate with a second sensor”); and
a processor configured to determine a calibration map for the height measuring optical sensor for the region of interest, by comparing the first height and the second height (Figure 2, element 12 “processor”, paragraph 0103 “generating an offset error map of the first sensor based on a difference between the first and second height measurements and storing this offset error map in a memory unit” and paragraph 0060 “the measurements of the second sensor 11 may be calibrated as a function of the X,Y position and the process in which this second sensor 11 is used, and the respective calibration data may be stored in memory unit 13.”).
Modderman does not teach the first height is determined by an optical sensor. However, it is known in the art as taught by Gong. Gong teaches a wafer height measurement device (Abstract “a silicon wafer warping degree testing device”) using a laser height sensor (paragraph 64 “The laser ranging sensor is used for testing the surface height of the silicon wafer”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use an optical sensor, in order to avoid the measuring tool contacting and influencing the surface of the silicon wafer.
Examiner’s Note: Modderman discusses the need for the first sensor to be process-independent (paragraph 0059 “In an apparatus according to one embodiment of the invention, the first sensor 10 is a process independent sensor, such as an air gauge or a scanning needle profiler, of which the height measurements do not depend on the electrical and/or optical properties of the surface measured.”) and brings up a difficulty with an optical sensor (paragraph 0016 “If the level sensor is optical, these effects may, for example, be due to diffraction effects caused by the surface structure or by wavelength dependence in the surface reflectivity, and cannot always be predicted.”). However, this teaching away is based on the problem of the surface effect on the sensor light, and an optical sensor that is not affected by the properties of the surface would be an obvious choice for the level sensor, as it avoids the physical contact (and potential for damage) of e.g. a needle profiler. Such a sensor is demonstrated by the Texas Instruments OPT3101-based system, an optical distance sensor (page 4, Figure 4) that makes a time-of-flight measurement (page 3, Figure 1) and is target-independent (page 7 “OPT3101-based system can offer much more reliable and better performing system where results are independent of target type and ambient conditions”, page 7 “Can measure independent of target reflectivity” and page 8 “OPT3101-based system when compared, can or has: … more reliable detection, independent of the target material”). As such, the teachings of Gong as demonstrated by Texas Instruments is deemed applicable to the invention of Modderman.
Modderman as modified by Gong above does not teach a plurality of scanning probe microscopes that determine a second height of the surface of the substrate. However, it is known in the art as taught by Wu. Wu teaches measuring a substrate (paragraph 0016 “Illustrated in FIG. 1 is a system 100 for measuring a topographical height of a surface of a target substrate during a lithography process.”) using a plurality of scanning probe microscopes that determine a second height of the surface of the substrate (paragraph 0040 “The topography measurement module 312 includes a multi-tip atomic force microscopy (AFM) tool 314.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have a plurality of scanning probe microscopes that determine a second height of the surface of the substrate, in order to more accurately understand the substrate topography.
As to claim 23, MGTW teaches everything claimed, as applied above in claim 22, in addition Wu teaches the plurality of scanning probe microscopes is a plurality of atomic force microscopes (AFM) or near-field scanning optical microscopes (NSOM) (paragraph 0040 “The topography measurement module 312 includes a multi-tip atomic force microscopy (AFM) tool 314.”). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to have the plurality of scanning probe microscopes is a plurality of atomic force microscopes (AFM) or near-field scanning optical microscopes (NSOM), in order to more accurately understand the substrate topography.
As to claim 17, the method would flow from claim 22.
As to claim 18, the method would flow from claim 22, in addition Modderman teaches applying the calibration map for other regions of the substrate that corresponding to the region of interest (paragraph 0079 “averaging the focus offsets over all target portions C on the substrate W to determine an average process dependent offset error map, representative of a target portion C.”).
As to claim 19, the method would flow from claim 23.
As to claim 20, the method would flow from claim 22, in addition Modderman teaches the determining the second height comprises: measuring, using the [sensor], a height of the surface of the substrate within the region of interest (paragraph 0103 “performing a second height measurement of the same part of the at least one substrate with a second sensor” where the [sensor] is as taught by Wu in claim 22).
As to claim 21, the method would flow from claim 22, in addition Modderman teaches the determining the second height comprises: measuring, using the scanning probe microscope, a plurality of heights of the surface of the substrate for the at least on region of interest (Figure 1, paragraph 0041 “measure for each substrate a height map of part or all of the substrate”, see also paragraph 0079 “These focus offsets may be derived for every sensing area within a specific target portion C and then stored as a process dependent offset error map”); and calculating an average of the plurality of heights (paragraph 0079 “Such a method to determine the process dependent offset error map for a target portion C may be done by … averaging the focus offsets over all target portions C on the substrate W to determine an average process dependent offset error map, representative of a target portion C.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARREAS UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0600-1400 EST.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 2705789. 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.
/J.C.U/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights