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 .
Status
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed on 7/21/2026, which amended claim 18. Claims 16-30 are currently pending.
Abstract
The amendments to the abstract were received on 7/21/2026 and are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 16, 18, 20-24, 26, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Den Boef et al. (EP3839635, Den Boef hereinafter; published 6/23/2021; cited by 1/23/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 16, Den Boef discloses a sensor module for a metrology apparatus (Figs. 1-2, 5-13, abstract, a dark field digital holographic microscope), the sensor module comprising:
an illumination device configured to illuminate a structure on a substrate (Figs. 1-2, 5-13, abstract, paras. [0056]-[0060], [0066]-[0069], [0074]-[0076], [0097]-[0098], an overlay target OT on a substrate WA is illuminated by an illumination beam IB1, IB2, 1010, 1020 emitted by a light source in an illumination branch comprising an illumination device), the illumination device comprising:
at least a first set of illuminators and a second set of illuminators (Figs. 5-13, abstract, paras. [0056]-[0060], [0066]-[0069], [0074], [0097]-[0098], illumination beams IB1, IB2 or 1010, 1020 illuminate the target on the wafer),
wherein the first set of illuminators comprise one or more illuminators which are each operable to illuminate the structure with first illumination comprising a first optical characteristic (Figs. 5-13, abstract, paras. [0056]-[0060], [0066]-[0069], [0074], [0097]-[0098], illumination beams IB1 or 1010 illuminate the target on the wafer at a first angle of incidence), and
wherein the second set of illuminators comprise one or more illuminators which are each operable to illuminate the structure with second illumination comprising a second optical characteristic different to the first optical characteristic (Figs. 5-13, abstract, paras. [0056]-[0060], [0066]-[0069], [0074], [0097]-[0098], illumination beams IB2 or 1020 illuminate the target on the wafer at a second angle of incidence from a second direction different from the first azimuthal angle);
an optical system being operable to capture scattered radiation scattered by the structure resultant from the structure being illuminated (Figs. 5-13, abstract, paras. [0056]-[0061], [0066]-[0071], [0074], [0085], objective lens OB, 1070 collects the radiation diffracted or scattered by the target); and
a detector operable to detect the scattered radiation (Figs. 5-13, paras. [0045]-[0057], [0059]-[0060], [0066], [0071], [0073], [0080], [0083]-[0086], [0094], [0096], image sensor IS, sensor 6, image sensor 1080 to detect radiation scattered by the target on the wafer).
Regarding claim 18, Den Boef discloses wherein: the first set of illuminators and second set of illuminators are arranged within and/or to provide illumination within a peripheral illumination region, the peripheral illumination region surrounding a central detection region comprising the optical system (Figs. 5-13, abstract, paras. [0056]-[0061], [0066]-[0071], [0074], [0085], illumination beams IB1, IB2 or 1010, 1020 illuminate the target on the wafer from oblique angles from a peripheral illumination region surrounding the central detection region including the objective lens OB, 1070).
Regarding claim 20, Den Boef discloses wherein the illumination device comprises one or more additional sets of illuminators each operable to illuminate the structure with illumination comprising a respective additional optical characteristic (Figs. 5-13, paras. [0097]-[0098], another two illumination beams that are not shown in the drawings are used to illumination the target in addition to beams 1010, 1020 such that four illumination beams illuminate the target).
Regarding claim 21, Den Boef discloses wherein each of the first set of illuminators and the second set of illuminators each comprise a single illuminator (Figs. 5-13, abstract, paras. [0056]-[0060], [0062], [0066]-[0069], [0074]-[0076], [0108], claims 14, a single light source 1110 emits illumination beams 1010, 1020).
Regarding claim 22, Den Boef discloses wherein the first set of illuminators and the second set of illuminators each comprise at least a pair of illuminators, each pair of illuminators being operable to illuminate the structure from a pair of different directions (Figs. 5-13, paras. [0097]-[0098], at least another set of two illumination beams that are not shown in the drawings are used to illumination the target in addition to beams 1010, 1020 such that at least four illumination beams illuminate the target along the x-z plane and the y-z plane).
Regarding claim 23, Den Boef discloses wherein at least one of:
the pair of different directions comprise substantially perpendicular directions (Figs. 5-13, paras. [0097]-[0098], in addition to beams 1010, 1020 arranged in the x-z plane, another two illumination beams are used to illumination the target in the y-z plane such that four illumination beams illuminate the target along the x-z plane and the y-z plane); and
the pair of different directions comprise substantially opposing directions (Figs. 5-13, paras. [0097]-[0098], another two illumination beams are used to illumination the target in addition to opposing beams 1010, 1020 such that four illumination beams illuminate the target along the x-z plane and the y-z plane).
Regarding claim 24, Den Boef discloses wherein the first set of illuminators and the second set of illuminators each comprise two pairs of illuminators operable to illuminate the structure from four different directions (Figs. 5-13, paras. [0097]-[0098], another two illumination beams are used to illumination the target in addition to beams 1010, 1020 such that four illumination beams illuminate the target along the x-z plane and the y-z plane).
Regarding claim 26, Den Boef discloses wherein the sensor module is configured to illuminate the structure with first illumination from the first set of illuminators and second illumination from the second set of illuminators simultaneously (Figs. 5-13, paras. [0058], [0067], [0068], the illumination beams 1010, 1020 illuminate the target simultaneously).
Regarding claim 27, Den Boef discloses wherein first set of illuminators and the second set of illuminators comprise an azimuthal angular separation which is sufficient so as to minimize crosstalk between the first illuminator and the second illuminator (the language “which is sufficient so as to minimize crosstalk between the first illuminator and the second illuminator” is functional language reciting the manner of operating the device that does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the structure disclosed by Den Boef. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 5-13, paras. [0058], [0069], [0083]-[0086], [0094], [0096], [0097]-[0099], the illumination beams 1010, 1020 are directed at first and second azimuth angles 180 degrees apart, and additional illumination beams illuminate the target along the y-z plane).
Regarding claim 29, Den Boef discloses a digital holographic microscope configured to determine a characteristic of interest of a structure, comprising the sensor module of claim 16 (see claim 16 rejection above, Figs. 5-13, paras. [0045]-[0057], [0059]-[0060], [0066], [0071], [0073], [0080], [0083]-[0086], [0094], [0096], the holographic microscope determines a characteristic of the structure of the metrology target).
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 17 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Boef as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Quintanilha (US PGPub 2013/0141730).
Regarding claim 17, Den Boef does not appear to explicitly describe wherein at least one of: the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first wavelength range, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second wavelength range, the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first polarization, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second polarization, the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first spot size, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second spot size, and the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first spot shape, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second spot shape.
Quintanilha discloses wherein at least one of: the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first wavelength range, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second wavelength range (Figs. 3 and 5-9, paras. [0057]-[0058], [0062]-[0069], [0072]-[0074], the illumination system provides different wavelengths illuminating the target at different angles),
the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first polarization, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second polarization (Figs. 3 and 5-9, paras. [0057]-[0058], [0062]-[0070], the illumination system provides polarization states illuminating the target at different angles),
the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first spot size, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second spot size, and
the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first spot shape, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second spot shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of: the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first wavelength range, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second wavelength range, the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first polarization, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second polarization, the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first spot size, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second spot size, and the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first spot shape, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second spot shape as taught by Quintanilha as the first and second optical characteristics in the sensor module as taught by Den Boef since including wherein at least one of: the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first wavelength range, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second wavelength range, the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first polarization, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second polarization, the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first spot size, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second spot size, and the first optical characteristic comprises at least a first spot shape, and the second optical characteristic comprises at least a second spot shape is commonly used to perform simultaneous measurements at different wavelengths to improve acquisition time and enable measurement of further optical properties of a film stack (Quintanilha, paras. [0006]-[0009], [0013]-[0014], [0065]-[0066]) and to reduce acquisition time and simplify calibration and simulation by illumination with different polarization states (Quintanilha, paras. [0006]-[0008], [0068]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 30, although Den Boef discloses an apparatus configured to determine a characteristic of interest of a structure, comprising the sensor module of claim 16 (see claim 16 rejection above, Figs. 5-13, paras. [0045]-[0057], [0059]-[0060], [0066], [0071], [0073], [0080], [0083]-[0086], [0094], [0096], the holographic microscope determines a characteristic of the structure of the metrology target), Den Boef does not appear to explicitly describe a scatterometer.
Quintanilha discloses a scatterometer configured to determine a characteristic of interest of a structure, comprising a sensor module (Figs. 3-9, paras. [0019], [0049]-[0058], [0061], [0062], [0065]-[0067], a scatterometer measures targets to determine parameters of the target using the elements of the metrology apparatus as shown in Figs. 3 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a scatterometer as taught by Quintanilha as the apparatus configured determine a characteristic of interest of a structure, comprising the sensor module as taught by Den Boef since including a scatterometer configured to determine a characteristic of interest of a structure, comprising the sensor module is commonly used to measure the properties of a metrology target to enable process control and verification (Quintanilha, paras. [0006]-[0007], [0057]) while improving acquisition time and enabling measurement of further optical properties of a film stack (Quintanilha, paras. [0006]-[0009], [0013]-[0014], [0065]-[0066]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Boef as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Seligson et al. (US Patent No. 10,139,528, Seligson hereinafter).
Regarding claim 19, Den Boef discloses further comprising a detection numerical aperture defined by a central detection (Figs. 5-13, para. [0056], the objective lens OB, 1070 collects the radiation diffracted or scattered by the target), Den Boef does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the detection numerical aperture region is greater than 0.7.
Seligson discloses further comprising a detection numerical aperture defined by a central detection, wherein the detection numerical aperture region is greater than 0.7 (Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 64-67, col. 3, lines 13-34, the objection lenses 100 includes a scatterometry detection region comprising 0.7 to 0.9 NA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included optimizing wherein the detection numerical aperture region is greater than 0.7 as taught by Seligson as the detection numerical aperture defined by the central detection in the sensor module as taught by Den Boef since including wherein the detection numerical aperture region is greater than 0.7 is commonly used to provide a single metrology objective that simultaneously performs imaging as well as scatterometry to provide cost savings in a metrology tool with a reduced physical footprint (Seligson, col. 2, lines 27-363, col. 4, lines 1-8).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Boef as applied to claim 24 and further in view of Van Dam et al. (US PGPub 2020/0072599, Van Dam hereinafter).
Regarding claim 25, Den Boef does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the four different directions are spaced by substantially 90 degrees.
Van Dam discloses wherein the four different directions are spaced by substantially 90 degrees (Figs. 6, 7, and 9, paras. [0063]-[0064], [0132]-[0134], the illumination branches 51, 52, 53, 54 illuminate the target from different directions spaced apart by 90 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the four different directions are spaced by substantially 90 degrees as taught by Van Dam as the different directions of the sets of illuminators in the sensor module as taught by Den Boef since including wherein the four different directions are spaced by substantially 90 degrees is commonly used to measure gratings of the metrology target having orthogonal orientations (Van Dam, paras. [0133]-[0134]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Boef as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Matsumoto (JP2008-209726, English language accompanies the 4/21/2026 Office Action).
Regarding claim 28, Den Boef does not appear to explicitly describe further comprising: an illuminator holding device accommodating the first set of illuminators and the second set of illuminators, wherein the illuminator holding device is an illuminator ring rotatable about an optical axis of the optical system, the illuminator ring being configured to rotate the first set of illuminators and the second set of illuminators about the optical axis.
Matsumoto discloses further comprising: an illuminator holding device accommodating the first set of illuminators and the second set of illuminators (Figs. 8-14, pg. 7 of English translation, the illumination unit 27 includes a movable portion 21 to mount LEDs 13A to 13D),
wherein the illuminator holding device is an illuminator ring rotatable about an optical axis of the optical system, the illuminator ring being configured to rotate the first set of illuminators and the second set of illuminators about the optical axis (Figs. 8-10, pgs. 7-9 of English translation, the movable portion 21 is rotated with respect to a fixed portion 20 and with respect to optical axis OA to rotate the LEDs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an illuminator holding device accommodating the first set of illuminators and the second set of illuminators, wherein the illuminator holding device is an illuminator ring rotatable about an optical axis of the optical system, the illuminator ring being configured to rotate the first set of illuminators and the second set of illuminators about the optical axis as taught by Matsumoto as the illuminator in the sensor module as taught by Den Boef since including an illuminator holding device accommodating the first set of illuminators and the second set of illuminators, wherein the illuminator holding device is an illuminator ring rotatable about an optical axis of the optical system, the illuminator ring being configured to rotate the first set of illuminators and the second set of illuminators about the optical axis is commonly used to easily switch irradiation orientations (Matsumoto, pg. 9 of English translation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 7/21/2026, with respect to the objection to the abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive owing to the abstract amendments. The abstract objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that Den Boef fails to disclose “wherein the first set of illuminators comprise one or more illuminators which are each operable to illuminate the structure with first illumination comprising a first optical characteristic, and wherein the second set of illuminators comprise one or more illuminators which are each operable to illuminate the structure with second illumination comprising a second optical characteristic different to the first optical characteristic” as recited in claim 16. The Applicant alleges that an angle of incidence is not an optical characteristic of the illumination beam and “is instead a geometric characteristic of an illumination device.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language “wherein the first set of illuminators comprise one or more illuminators which are each operable to illuminate the structure with first illumination comprising a first optical characteristic, and wherein the second set of illuminators comprise one or more illuminators which are each operable to illuminate the structure with second illumination comprising a second optical characteristic different to the first optical characteristic” does not preclude angle as an optical characteristic. The claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. MPEP 2111. The claim language “optical characteristic” is broad, the specification does not define “optical characteristics,” and the claim language fails to limit or define the optical characteristics beyond the second illumination having a second optical characteristic different to the first optical characteristic of the first illumination. The Applicant does not define the optical characteristic of the illumination to avoid an interpretation of angle as an optical characteristic of illumination. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language as drafted, Den Boef discloses wherein the first set of illuminators comprise one or more illuminators which are each operable to illuminate the structure with first illumination comprising a first optical characteristic (Figs. 5-13, abstract, paras. [0056]-[0060], [0066]-[0069], [0074], [0097]-[0098], illumination beams IB1 or 1010 illuminate the target on the wafer at a first angle of incidence), and wherein the second set of illuminators comprise one or more illuminators which are each operable to illuminate the structure with second illumination comprising a second optical characteristic different to the first optical characteristic (Figs. 5-13, abstract, paras. [0056]-[0060], [0066]-[0069], [0074], [0097]-[0098], illumination beams IB2 or 1020 illuminate the target on the wafer at a second angle of incidence from a second direction different from the first azimuthal angle). Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan 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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights