DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-6, 8-16, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandev et al. (US 2016/0141193 A1) (hereinafter Pandev) in view of Stehle et al. (Multi-pass spectroscopic ellipsometry, 14 June 2013) (hereinafter Stehle) and Arnold et al. (US 2021/0231500 A1) (hereinafter Arnold).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 18, Pandev teaches a method, system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising one or more programs for executing the method (see Claims 1, 16, and 17) comprising:
measuring a workpiece using spectroscopic ellipsometry thereby generating first optical measurements [first set of signals may be raw data collected by a first metrology tool for each desired parameter of the training component; first metrology tool may be a Spectroscopic ellipsometer (SE)] (Para [0050-0052], see Claims 1 and 9);
measuring the workpiece using Raman spectroscopy thereby generating second optical measurements [second set of signals may be raw data collected by a second metrology tool for each desired parameter of the training component; second metrology tool may be a Raman spectroscopy device] (Para [0050-0052], see Claims 1 and 9);
combining, using a processor in electronic communication to the spectroscopic ellipsometry unit and Raman spectroscopy unit [processor of a computer in communication with the metrology tools] (Para [0044, 0067]), the first optical measurements and the second optical measurements to form combined measured data [combining the first and second set of signals] (Para [0054], see Fig. 2), and
determining, using the processor, a stress measurement of the workpiece using the combined measured data [measuring parametric values for the target component, such as stress] (Para [0040, 0058, see Figs. 1-2).
Pandev teaches wherein the metrology tools utilized may be a SE and a Raman spectroscopy device, but fails to teach the usage of multiple-pass spectroscopic ellipsometry (MPSE) and multi-wavelength Raman spectroscopy. Stehle teaches the usage of multiple-pass spectroscopic ellipsometry for enhanced sensitivity in measurement of thin films (see Section 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Pandev with Stehle such that the first metrology tool is a multi-pass spectroscopic ellipsometer, in order to enhance measurement sensitivity.
Pandev in view of Stehle fails to teach whereby the second optical measurements are generated by multi-wavelength Raman spectroscopy. Arnold teaches the usage of multi-wavelength Raman spectroscopy that allows several excitation wavelengths to be used simultaneously (Para [0087]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Pandev in view of Stehle with Arnold such that the second optical measurements are generated by multi-wavelength Raman spectroscopy, in order to further increase measurement sensitivity.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Pandev in view of Stehle and Arnold as applied to claims 1 and 10 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising determining, using the processor, a critical dimension of the workpiece using the combined measured data [geometric parameter is a critical dimension] (Pandev Para [0032, 0046], see Claim 7)
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Pandev in view of Stehle and Arnold as applied to claims 2 and 11 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising determining, using the processor, a shape of a feature on the workpiece using the combined measured data [measurement of shape] (Pandev Para [0040]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Pandev in view of Stehle and Arnold as applied to claims 3 and 12 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising determining, using the processor, electrical parametric performance of a device on the workpiece using the stress measurement, the critical dimension, and the shape of the feature [measurement of CD, SWA, shape, stress, composition, films, band-gap, electrical properties, focus/dose, overlay, generating process parameters (e.g., resist state, partial pressure, temperature, focusing model), and/or any combination thereof] (Pandev Para [0040]).
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 19, Pandev in view of Stehle and Arnold as applied to claims 1, 10, and 18 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the stress determination uses a model [unified dataset can be used for creating multiple training models that map the signals to each corresponding parameter; models could be linear models, neural networks, SVMs, or other machine learning models] (Pandev Para [0056]).
Regarding claims 6, 15, and 20, Pandev in view of Stehle and Arnold as applied to claims 1, 10, and 18 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the stress determination uses a machine learning algorithm [unified dataset can be used for creating multiple training models that map the signals to each corresponding parameter; models could be linear models, neural networks, SVMs, or other machine learning models] (Pandev Para [0056]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Pandev in view of Stehle and Arnold as applied to claims 1 and 10 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to further comprising determining a thickness, a strain, or a composition of the workpiece [thickness, composition] (Pandev Para [0040, 0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Pandev in view of Stehle and Arnold as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the stress measurement is of a transistor channel on the workpiece. Pandev additionally teaches wherein the method can be used to characterize source/drain regions of finFET devices, and that the method can determine stress measurements of the workpiece (Para [0040, 0060]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modiofy Pandev in view of Stehle and Arnold such that the stress measurement is of a transistor channel on the workpiece, in order to monitor a finFET device during a manufacturing process.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandev in view of Stehle and Arnold, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Suresh et al. (US 6,600,565 B1) (hereinafter Suresh).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Pandev in view of Stehle and Arnold, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the stress measurement includes a stressed volume and directional components. Suresh teaches wherein curvature information obtained optically can allow for stress computations including a stressed volume and directional components (Col 3, lines 1-43, see Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Pandev in view of Stehle and Arnold with Suresh such that the stress measurement includes a stressed volume and directional components, in order to further characterize stress in the workpiece.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights