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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 January 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a radiation source configured to…” in claim 11: the radiation source is a mercury lamp (¶40, the source SO is a mercury lamp).
“an optical device configure to…” in claim 11: the optical device can be any one of various types of optical components, such as refractive, reflective, catadioptric, magnetic, electromagnetic, electrostatic, or other types of optical components, or any combination thereof (¶11, The optical device can be configured to direct the radiation toward a set of targets; ¶33, illumination system IL can include various types of optical components, such as refractive, reflective, catadioptric, magnetic, electromagnetic, electrostatic, or other types of optical components, or any combination thereof, for directing, shaping, or controlling the radiation beam B).
“a detection system configured to…” in claim 11: the detector system can be any of a bundle of multimode fibers, discrete pin detectors per channel, or CCD or CMOS (linear) arrays; or a single-cell detector or a multi-pixel detector (¶81, detector 428 can be an array of detectors. For the detector array, a number of options are possible: a bundle of multimode fibers, discrete pin detectors per channel, or CCD or CMOS (linear) arrays; and ¶94, detector 428 can be a single-cell detector (i.e., a single pixel detector), a multi-pixel detector (e.g., a camera) capable of resolving an image, or the like).
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausschnitt et al. (USPGPub 20200233317 A1) in view of Smith (USPGPub 20130208279 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ausschnitt teaches a method comprising: directing radiation toward a set of targets (15/16/17) comprising first (15) and second (16) targets using an optical system (see figure 4, first target 15 and second target 16; ¶193, FIG. 4 shows an example of a target that is applicable in example methods in combination with the use of an optical tool for capturing an image of a mark pattern, as described above (e.g. an IBO tool); see ¶192 for further details; and NOTE: an IBO tool implicitly includes a radiation source for directing radiation towards the above targets in order to perform imaging and measurements), wherein the first target (15) comprises a plurality of first grating line structures comprising first bias features having a first bias value so as to generate a first portion of scattered radiation (see figure 4, first target 15 having a first bias value of
w
0
-
∆
w
0
; ¶123, each target further comprises one or more offset marks designed to produce, by the lithography and etch steps and by the self-aligned patterning steps, one or more offset structures, and wherein the positions of the centroids are determined with respect to a characteristic position of one or more of the offset structures; and see ¶¶193-196 for further details), the second target (16) comprises a plurality of second grating line structures comprising second bias features having a second bias value different from the first bias value so as to generate a second portion of scattered radiation (see figure 4, second target 16 having a second bias value of
w
0
; and see ¶¶193-196 for further details), and detecting the first and second portions of scattered radiation using the optical system (¶70, one or more of the targets comprises asymmetric marks configured so that the position of the centroid of the asymmetric mark patterns is detectable by an optical tool, so that the parameter S can be measured with the help of the tool; and see ¶197 for further details); generating a first measurement signal indicative of a first position of the first target (15) based on the first bias features; generating a second measurement signal indicative of a second position of the second target (16) based on the second bias features (¶197, For the printed patterns of the three mark pairs, the measurement yields three values, labelled S.sub.0, S.sub.−1 and S.sub.+1; see remainder of ¶197 for further details; and ¶193, The mark design value w.sub.0 is chosen such that the variation of w.sub.0 within a given range around the design value leads to a measurable parameter (e.g. S, see further) obtained from the metrology target, which can be used to determine the deviation from CD.sub.p in each process step); and based on the first and second measurement signals, analyzing an effect of the first and second bias values on the first and second positions to determine at least one property of the set of targets (15/16/17) (¶193, The mark design value w.sub.0 is chosen such that the variation of w.sub.0 within a given range around the design value leads to a measurable parameter (e.g. S, see further) obtained from the metrology target, which can be used to determine the deviation from CD.sub.p in each process step). However, Ausschnitt fails to explicitly teach an optical scanning system wherein the directing of the radiation comprises scanning the radiation across the set of targets.
However, Smith teaches an optical scanning system wherein the directing of the radiation comprises scanning the radiation across the set of targets (see figure 6, scan line 170 being scanned over direction 172; and ¶39, The asymmetry of each overlay measurement pad may be determined by dividing each overlay measurement pad into a series of scan lines (y), each running along the direction of the measurement axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ausschnitt to incorporate the teachings of Smith to scan the radiation over the overlay targets as this method provides a plurality of values that can be averaged, combined, or separated in any desired way (Smith, see ¶42 for details).
Regarding claim 2, Ausschnitt as modified by Smith teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining the at least one property, wherein the at least one property comprises a critical dimension of the set of targets (Ausschnitt 15/16/17 | Smith 134), a contrast of the set of targets (Ausschnitt 15/16/17 | Smith 134), or the critical dimension and contrast (Ausschnitt, ¶193, For each step, a process value CD.sub.p for the critical dimension of pattern features is determined during the pattern and process development stage, involving pattern design and calibration methods known in the art. The result of these development procedures is (for each process step): a set of process conditions referred to as the process operating point, and the value of CD.sub.p for a variety of pattern features).
Regarding claim 3, Ausschnitt as modified by Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the analyzing of the effect of the first and second bias values comprises analyzing an apparent shift of the first position based on the first bias value, analyzing an apparent shift of the second position based on the second bias value, or analyzing the apparent shifts of the first and second positions (Ausschnitt, abstract, A position-related parameter S is defined that is essentially proportional to the design widths in the range. Determination of the shift δS of the S parameter with respect to a pre-defined process operating point, allows to assess the critical dimension of the features produced by the process step; and see ¶192 and ¶197 for further details).
Regarding claim 4, Ausschnitt as modified by Smith teaches the method of claim 3, the method further comprises determining a critical dimension, a contrast, or the critical dimension and contrast based on the analyzing of the apparent shifts of the first, second, or first and second positions (abstract, A position-related parameter S is defined that is essentially proportional to the design widths in the range. Determination of the shift δS of the S parameter with respect to a pre-defined process operating point, allows to assess the critical dimension of the features produced by the process step; see ¶202; and see ¶192 and ¶197 for further details).
Regarding claim 5, Ausschnitt as modified by Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the set of targets (Ausschnitt 15/16/17 | Smith 134)comprises a third target (Ausschnitt 17) (Ausschnitt, see figure 4, third target 17); the third target (Ausschnitt 17) comprises a plurality of third grating line structures comprising third bias features having a third bias value so as to generate a third portion of scattered radiation (Ausschnitt, see figure 4, third target 17 having a second bias value of
w
0
+
∆
w
0
; and see ¶¶193-196 for further details); the third bias value is different from the first and second bias values (Ausschnitt, see figure 4, first target 15 having a first bias value of
w
0
-
∆
w
0
, second target 16 having a second bias value of
w
0
, and third target 17 having a second bias value of
w
0
+
∆
w
0
); the method further comprises: detecting the third portion of scattered radiation (Ausschnitt, ¶70, one or more of the targets comprises asymmetric marks configured so that the position of the centroid of the asymmetric mark patterns is detectable by an optical tool, so that the parameter S can be measured with the help of the tool; and see ¶197 for further details); and generating a third measurement signal indicative of a third position of the third target (Ausschnitt 17) based on the third bias features; the analyzing is further based on the third measurement signal (Ausschnitt, ¶197, For the printed patterns of the three mark pairs, the measurement yields three values, labelled S.sub.0, S.sub.−1 and S.sub.+1; see remainder of ¶197 for further details; and ¶193, The mark design value w.sub.0 is chosen such that the variation of w.sub.0 within a given range around the design value leads to a measurable parameter (e.g. S, see further) obtained from the metrology target, which can be used to determine the deviation from CD.sub.p in each process step); and the analyzing further comprises analyzing an effect of the third bias value on the third position to determine the at least one property (Ausschnitt, ¶193, The mark design value w.sub.0 is chosen such that the variation of w.sub.0 within a given range around the design value leads to a measurable parameter (e.g. S, see further) obtained from the metrology target, which can be used to determine the deviation from CD.sub.p in each process step).
Regarding claim 6, Ausschnitt as modified by Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the first bias features comprise periodic structures having a pitch and a first duty cycle (Ausschnitt, see figure 4, first pattern 15 having pitch p and a first bias value of
w
0
-
∆
w
0
(i.e. first duty cycle)); the second bias features comprise periodic structures having the pitch and a second duty cycle (Ausschnitt, see figure 4, second pattern 16 having pitch p and second bias value of
w
0
(i.e. second duty cycle); ¶193, The middle pair 16 are designed for printing and etching an array of features of nominal pitch p; and ¶196, the upper pair of marks 15 comprise an array of features of design width w.sub.−1=w.sub.0−Δw.sub.0 and pitch p. The lower pair 17 comprise an array of features of design width w.sub.+1=w.sub.0+Δw.sub.0 and pitch p); and the analyzing is further based on a difference of the first and second duty cycles (Ausschnitt, ¶193, The mark design value w.sub.0 is chosen such that the variation of w.sub.0 within a given range around the design value leads to a measurable parameter (e.g. S, see further) obtained from the metrology target, which can be used to determine the deviation from CD.sub.p in each process step).
Regarding claim 7, Ausschnitt as modified by Smith teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the pitch is oriented approximately perpendicular to a pitch of the first grating line structures (Ausschnitt, see figure 1A).
Regarding claim 8, Ausschnitt as modified by Smith teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the pitch is oriented approximately parallel to a pitch of the first grating line structures (Ausschnitt, see figure 1B).
Regarding claim 9, Ausschnitt as modified by Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the optical scanning system comprises a diffraction-based alignment sensor (Smith 116) (Smith, see figure 1, detector 116; and ¶6, Overlay measurement may be performed optically, e.g., based on an image of specially designed overlay targets or using light that is diffracted from the overlay targets); the detecting comprises detecting the first and second portions of scattered radiation using the diffraction-based alignment sensor (Smith 116) (Smith, ¶6, Overlay measurement may be performed optically, e.g., based on an image of specially designed overlay targets or using light that is diffracted from the overlay targets. Image Based Overlay (IBO) measurements are performed using targets, such as box-in-box or bar-in-bar targets, that are imaged and the distance between target features printed on different layers is measured. Conventional IBO measurement targets are typically 20.times.20 .mu.m or 25.times.25 .mu.m in size. Diffracted-Based Overlay (DBO) typically uses targets having gratings that are not perfectly aligned, where a resulting diffraction pattern is used to determine the overlay error).
Regarding claim 10, Ausschnitt as modified by Smith teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the analyzing is performed by a processor of a lithographic apparatus (Ausschnitt, ¶2, The present disclosure is related to semiconductor processing, in particular to a metrology method for monitoring lithographic and/or etch processes during the fabrication of a semiconductor chip; and ¶140, The disclosure is equally related to a computer-implemented pitch walk verification unit configured to be integrated in an apparatus for semiconductor processing including lithography, etching and self-aligned patterning steps).
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausschnitt et al. (USPGPub 20200233317 A1) in view of Smith (USPGPub 20130208279 A1), Zwier (USPGPub 20190219931 A1), and Van Der Laan et al. (USPGPub 20190171116 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ausschnitt teaches a system comprising: an optical system comprising: a radiation source configured to generate radiation (¶193, FIG. 4 shows an example of a target that is applicable in example methods in combination with the use of an optical tool for capturing an image of a mark pattern, as described above (e.g. an IBO tool); see ¶192 for further details; and NOTE: an IBO tool implicitly includes a radiation source for directing radiation towards the above targets in order to perform imaging and measurements); the system configured to direct the radiation toward a set of targets (15/16/17) comprising first (15) and second (16) targets to generate scattered radiation from the set of targets (15/16/17) (see figure 4, first target 15 and second target 16; ¶193, FIG. 4 shows an example of a target that is applicable in example methods in combination with the use of an optical tool for capturing an image of a mark pattern, as described above (e.g. an IBO tool); see ¶192 for further details; and NOTE: an IBO tool implicitly includes a radiation source for directing radiation towards the above targets in order to perform imaging and measurements), a detection system configured to, based on the scattered radiation: generate a first measurement signal indicative of a first position of the first target (15) (¶197, For the printed patterns of the three mark pairs, the measurement yields three values, labelled S.sub.0, S.sub.−1 and S.sub.+1; see remainder of ¶197 for further details; and ¶193, The mark design value w.sub.0 is chosen such that the variation of w.sub.0 within a given range around the design value leads to a measurable parameter (e.g. S, see further) obtained from the metrology target, which can be used to determine the deviation from CD.sub.p in each process step); and generate a second measurement signal indicative of a second position of the second target (16) (¶197, For the printed patterns of the three mark pairs, the measurement yields three values, labelled S.sub.0, S.sub.−1 and S.sub.+1; see remainder of ¶197 for further details; and ¶193, The mark design value w.sub.0 is chosen such that the variation of w.sub.0 within a given range around the design value leads to a measurable parameter (e.g. S, see further) obtained from the metrology target, which can be used to determine the deviation from CD.sub.p in each process step); and a non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations (¶111, The monitoring unit may comprise a memory provided with a computer program for executing the method steps, when the program is run on the monitoring unit) comprising: analyzing the first and second measurement signals (¶193, The mark design value w.sub.0 is chosen such that the variation of w.sub.0 within a given range around the design value leads to a measurable parameter (e.g. S, see further) obtained from the metrology target, which can be used to determine the deviation from CD.sub.p in each process step), wherein the first target (15) comprises a plurality of first grating line structures comprising first bias features having a first bias value that affects the first measurement signal (see figure 4, first target 15 having a first bias value of
w
0
-
∆
w
0
; ¶123, each target further comprises one or more offset marks designed to produce, by the lithography and etch steps and by the self-aligned patterning steps, one or more offset structures, and wherein the positions of the centroids are determined with respect to a characteristic position of one or more of the offset structures; and see ¶¶193-196 for further details), the second target (16) comprises a plurality of second grating line structures comprising second bias features having a second bias value that affects the second measurement signal (see figure 4, second target 16 having a second bias value of
w
0
; and see ¶¶193-196 for further details), and the second bias value is different from the first bias value (see figure 4, first target 15 having a first bias value of
w
0
-
∆
w
0
and second target 16 having a second bias value of
w
0
), and the analyzing comprises analyzing an effect of the first and second bias values on the first and second positions to determine at least one property of the set of targets (15/16/17) (¶193, The mark design value w.sub.0 is chosen such that the variation of w.sub.0 within a given range around the design value leads to a measurable parameter (e.g. S, see further) obtained from the metrology target, which can be used to determine the deviation from CD.sub.p in each process step). However, Ausschnitt fails to explicitly teach an optical scanning system, wherein the radiation source comprises a mercury lamp; wherein the optical system further comprises an optical device configured to direct the radiation, wherein the optical scanning system is configured to actuate to scan the radiation across the set of targets; wherein the optical device comprises one or more of the following optical components: refractive, reflective, catadioptric, magnetic, electromagnetic, electrostatic, or other; and wherein the detection system comprises at least one of a bundle of multimode fibers, discrete pin detectors per channel, CCD array, CMOS (linear) arrays, a single-cell detector, or a multi-pixel detector.
However, Smith teaches an optical scanning system (see figure 6, scan line 170 being scanned over direction 172; and ¶39, The asymmetry of each overlay measurement pad may be determined by dividing each overlay measurement pad into a series of scan lines (y), each running along the direction of the measurement axis), wherein the optical system further comprises an optical device (110) configured to direct the radiation, wherein the optical device comprises one or more of the following optical components: refractive, reflective, catadioptric, magnetic, electromagnetic, electrostatic, or other (see figure 1, beam splitter 110; and ¶26, light produced by the light source 106 may be directed toward the sample 130, along optical axis 108 with a beam splitter 110); and wherein the detection system (116) comprises at least one of a bundle of multimode fibers, discrete pin detectors per channel, CCD array, CMOS (linear) arrays, a single-cell detector, or a multi-pixel detector (see figure 1, detector 116; and ¶26, a detector 116, such as a CCD array).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify Ausschnitt to incorporate the teachings of Smith to scan the radiation over the overlay targets as this method provides a plurality of values that can be averaged, combined, or separated in any desired way (Smith, see ¶42 for details). Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide a CCD array as the detection system due to their high sensitivity, low noise, and pixel output uniformity. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the radiation source comprises a mercury lamp; and wherein the optical scanning system is configured to actuate to scan the radiation across the set of targets.
However, Zwier teaches wherein the radiation source comprises a mercury lamp (¶96, the source may be an integral part of the lithographic apparatus, for example when the source is a mercury lamp).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ausschnitt and Smith to incorporate the teachings of Zwier to have a mercury lamp as the radiation source as they provide powerful, high-intensity UV light with improved energy efficiency and a small source size. However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the optical scanning system is configured to actuate to scan the radiation across the set of targets.
However, Van Der Laan teaches wherein the optical scanning system is configured to actuate to scan the radiation across the set of targets (¶153, the patterning device table MT is movable in a given direction (the so-called “scan direction”, e.g., the y direction) with a speed v, so that the projection beam B is caused to scan over a patterning device image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ausschnitt, Smith, and Zwier to incorporate the teachings of Van Der Laan to provide a system that can move/actuate in order to perform scanning over different areas of a sample.
Regarding claim 12, Ausschnitt as modified by Smith, Zwier, and Van Der Laan teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is further configured to store further instructions such that the operations further comprise determining the at least one property, wherein the at least one property comprises a critical dimension of the set of targets (Ausschnitt 15/16/17 | Smith 134 | Zwier 32-35 | Van Der Laan 32-35), a contrast of the set of targets (Ausschnitt 15/16/17 | Smith 134 | Zwier 32-35 | Van Der Laan 32-35), or the critical dimension and contrast (Ausschnitt, ¶193, For each step, a process value CD.sub.p for the critical dimension of pattern features is determined during the pattern and process development stage, involving pattern design and calibration methods known in the art. The result of these development procedures is (for each process step): a set of process conditions referred to as the process operating point, and the value of CD.sub.p for a variety of pattern features).
Regarding claim 13, Ausschnitt as modified by Smith, Zwier, and Van Der Laan teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is further configured to store further instructions such that the analyzing of the effect of the first and second bias values comprises analyzing an apparent shift of the first position based on the first bias value, analyzing an apparent shift of the second position based on the second bias value, or analyzing the apparent shifts of the first and second positions (Ausschnitt, abstract, A position-related parameter S is defined that is essentially proportional to the design widths in the range. Determination of the shift δS of the S parameter with respect to a pre-defined process operating point, allows to assess the critical dimension of the features produced by the process step; and see ¶192 and ¶197 for further details).
Regarding claim 14, Ausschnitt as modified by Smith, Zwier, and Van Der Laan teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is further configured to store further instructions such that the operations further comprise determining a critical dimension, a contrast, or the critical dimension and contrast based on the analyzing of the apparent shifts of the first, second, or first and second positions (Ausschnitt, abstract, A position-related parameter S is defined that is essentially proportional to the design widths in the range. Determination of the shift δS of the S parameter with respect to a pre-defined process operating point, allows to assess the critical dimension of the features produced by the process step; see ¶202; and see ¶192 and ¶197 for further details).
Regarding claim 15, Ausschnitt as modified by Smith, Zwier, and Van Der Laan teaches the system of claim 11, wherein: the set of targets (Ausschnitt 15/16/17 | Smith 134 | Zwier 32-35 | Van Der Laan 32-35) comprises a third target (Ausschnitt 17) (Ausschnitt, see figure 4, third target 17); the scattered radiation comprises radiation from the third target (Ausschnitt 17) (Ausschnitt, ¶70, one or more of the targets comprises asymmetric marks configured so that the position of the centroid of the asymmetric mark patterns is detectable by an optical tool, so that the parameter S can be measured with the help of the tool; and see ¶197 for further details); the detection system is further configured to, based on the scattered radiation, generate a third measurement signal indicative of a third position of the third target (Ausschnitt 17) (Ausschnitt, ¶197, For the printed patterns of the three mark pairs, the measurement yields three values, labelled S.sub.0, S.sub.−1 and S.sub.+1; see remainder of ¶197 for further details; and ¶193, The mark design value w.sub.0 is chosen such that the variation of w.sub.0 within a given range around the design value leads to a measurable parameter (e.g. S, see further) obtained from the metrology target, which can be used to determine the deviation from CD.sub.p in each process step); the third target (Ausschnitt 17) comprises a plurality of third grating line structures comprising third bias features having a third bias value that affects the third measurement signal (Ausschnitt, see figure 4, third target 17 having a second bias value of
w
0
+
∆
w
0
; and see ¶¶193-196 for further details); the non-transitory computer-readable medium is further configured to store further instructions such that the analyzing further comprises analyzing an effect of the third bias value on the third position to determine the at least one property (Ausschnitt, ¶193, The mark design value w.sub.0 is chosen such that the variation of w.sub.0 within a given range around the design value leads to a measurable parameter (e.g. S, see further) obtained from the metrology target, which can be used to determine the deviation from CD.sub.p in each process step); and the third bias value is different from the first and second bias values (Ausschnitt, see figure 4, first target 15 having a first bias value of
w
0
-
∆
w
0
, second target 16 having a second bias value of
w
0
, and third target 17 having a second bias value of
w
0
+
∆
w
0
).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mehta et al. (USPGPub 20220260929 A1): Mehta teaches an overlay measurement device for use in lithography having a plurality of patterned gratings (32-35) used to determine the critical dimension.
Van Der Schaar et al. (USPGPub 20220035255 A1): Van Der Schaar an overlay measurement device for use in lithography having a plurality of patterned gratings having various biases used to determine overlay errors between subsequent layers, line thicknesses, critical dimensions (CD).
Zhou et al. (USPGPub 20200110342 A1): Zhou teaches an overlay measurement device for use in lithography having a plurality of patterned gratings having various biases and different pitches.
Tripodi et al. (USPGPub 20190378012 A1): Tripodi teaches an overlay measurement device for use in lithography having a plurality of patterned gratings having a comb structure (see figures 12-13).
Van Der Schaar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10481503 B2): Van Der Schaar an overlay measurement device for use in lithography having a plurality of different patterned gratings (see figure 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights