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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Both claims 6, 9 and original claim 7 claim methods for processing the Muller Matrix to derive critical dimensions of the target sample. They are disclosed in the specification as alternatives and not described as being usable together. Thus, by moving the scope of the limitations of claim 7 into the independent claim without deleting claims 6 & 9 the applicant has created new matter not previously disclosed in their application since those methods were not disclosed as usable together.
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.
Claims 6 & 9 are 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.
The applicant has moved the scope of the limitations from original claim 7 into the independent claims without deleting Claims 6 & 9. Since those are not disclosed usable together and are all mathematical methods for deriving the CD from a muller matrix they appear to be in conflict. This confuses the scope since it isn’t clear if these are being substituted for the method in the independent claims or somehow being combined. Therefore, the scopes claims are indefinite.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-16, & 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haxton et al (PGPub 2025/0146961) (Haxton) in view of Yin et al (Qiyuan Yin, Wanrong Gao, and Ying Chang, "Mueller matrix polarization imaging and quantitative parameters analysis method," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 40, 714-721 (2023)) (Yin)
Regarding Claims 1 , 18, & 19, Haxton discloses a method for measuring a semiconductor device by an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises a light source assembly comprising a light source (206, Fig. 1) configured to emit light and a first optical system (208, 210) in a traveling path of the light emitted from the light source, a light reception assembly (212, 214, 216) comprising a second optical system in a traveling path of reflected light which is reflected from a target sample (Paragraph 52) after passing through the first optical system, and a detector (218) configured to detect the reflected light that passed through the second optical system, and at least one processor (152) configured to process an electrical signal outputted from the light reception assembly and obtain a dispersion of a critical dimension of the target sample, the method comprising:
obtaining polarization spectrum data corresponding to a change in a polarization state of the reflected light based on the electrical signal outputted by the light reception assembly (Fig. 4, Step 401a, Paragraph 102);
extracting, based on the polarization spectrum data, depolarization information corresponding to a degree of depolarization in the reflected light (Fig. 4, Step 401b, Paragraphs 94 & 102); and
obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information (Step 404 & 405, Paragraph 103). Further, Haxton discloses that one can use material dispersion parameters and structural geometric parameters to create a model of the sample that creates the synthetic DoP spectrum that’s used in the comparison (Paragraph 123). Thus, when the proper fit is found one has obtained the dispersion of the critical dimension;
wherein the acquiring the polarization spectrum data comprises: obtaining a Mueller matrix corresponding to a change in the polarization state of each wavelength of the reflected light based on the electrical signal outputted by the light reception assembly (Paragraph 100); and
extracting the depolarization information based on the Mueller matrix (Paragraph 100). The disclosure shows the method of extracting the depolarization information is using a Muller Matrix;
Haxton fails to explicitly disclose wherein the extracting the depolarization information based on the Mueller matrix comprises decomposing the Mueller matrix into a product of a plurality of sub-matrices corresponding to the change in the polarization state of the reflected light, and wherein the obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information comprises obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on at least some of the plurality of decomposed sub-matrices;
However, Yin discloses wherein the extracting the depolarization information based on the Mueller matrix comprises:
decomposing the Mueller matrix into a product of a plurality of sub-matrices corresponding to the change in the polarization state of the reflected light (Pgs. 715 & 716, Section B. Mueller Matrix Analysis Method, the section on MMPD, Equations 3 & 4); and
wherein the obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information comprises obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on at least some of the plurality of decomposed sub-matrices (PG 716, Section C. Polarization Parameter Combination). This limitation is obvious in combination with Haxton since in Yin it states that a combination of several polarization parameters can lead to structural information about the specimen;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haxton with wherein the extracting the depolarization information based on the Mueller matrix comprises decomposing the Mueller matrix into a product of a plurality of sub-matrices corresponding to the change in the polarization state of the reflected light, and wherein the obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information comprises obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on at least some of the plurality of decomposed sub-matrices because this is just another mathematical method of calculating the depolarization and would be obvious to try to arrive at the desired information.
Regarding Claims 3 & 20, Haxton as modified by Yin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Haxton discloses wherein the extracting the depolarization information based on the Mueller matrix comprises obtaining a degree of polarization (DoP) based on the Mueller matrix (Paragraph 100), and wherein the obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information comprises obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the degree of polarization. The equation in the disclosure is the formula for the depolarization index which is 1-Degree of polarization (DoP) which is why the applicant is using depolarization and DoP interchangeably.
The limitation of Claim 20 is also met by this disclosure since it claims one of the options as using a degree of polarization. The examiner also notes that claims 4-6 would also read on this claim.
Regarding Claim 4, Haxton as modified by Yin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Haxton discloses wherein the extracting the depolarization information based on the Mueller matrix comprises obtaining an average DoP based on the Mueller matrix, and wherein the obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information comprises obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the average DoP (Paragraph 100). Using the calculated average Mueller Matrix will result in an average DoP.
Regarding Claim 5, Haxton as modified by Yin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Haxton discloses wherein the extracting the depolarization information based on the Mueller matrix comprises obtaining a weighted DoP based on the Mueller matrix, and wherein the obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information comprises obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the weighted DoP (Paragraph 142). The disclosure teaches using a weighted average of elements in the Muller Matrix during simulation thus the limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 6, Haxton as modified by Yin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Haxton discloses wherein the extracting the depolarization information based on the Mueller matrix comprises obtaining a depolarization index (DI) based on the Mueller matrix, and wherein the obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information comprises obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization index (Paragraph 100). As previously discussed, the figure in the disclosure is a DI.
Regarding Claims 8, 21, & 22, Haxton as modified by Yin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Yin discloses wherein the extracting the depolarization information based on the Mueller matrix comprises decomposing the Mueller matrix into a product of a polarization transformation matrix corresponding to a depolarization element of the reflected light, a polarization rotation matrix corresponding to a phase retardation element of the reflected light, and a polarization diattenuation matrix corresponding to a diattenuation element of the reflected light, and wherein the obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information comprises obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the polarization transformation matrix (Pgs. 715 & 716, Section B. Mueller Matrix Analysis Method, the section on MMPD, Equations 3 & 4);
The reasons for combination remain the same as above.
Regarding Claim 9, Haxton as modified by Yin discloses the aforementioned but does not explicitly disclose wherein the extracting the depolarization information based on the Mueller matrix comprises decomposing the Mueller matrix into a weighted sum of a plurality of non-depolarizing sub-matrices, and wherein the obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information comprises obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on at least some sub-matrices corresponding to the depolarization element of the reflected light among the plurality of decomposed non-depolarizing sub-matrices, and a weight corresponding to each of the at least some sub-matrices;
However, based on applicant’s disclosure, the examiner finds this to be an obvious variation and patentably indistinct to the prior art’s disclosed methods for extracting the depolarization information;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haxton as modified by Yin with wherein the extracting the depolarization information based on the Mueller matrix comprises decomposing the Mueller matrix into a weighted sum of a plurality of non-depolarizing sub-matrices, and wherein the obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information comprises obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on at least some sub-matrices corresponding to the depolarization element of the reflected light among the plurality of decomposed non-depolarizing sub-matrices, and a weight corresponding to each of the at least some sub-matrices because this is just another mathematical method of calculating the depolarization and would be obvious to try to arrive at the desired information.
Regarding Claim 10, Haxton as modified by Yin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Haxton discloses wherein the obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information comprises obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample from the depolarization information based on a dispersion prediction model (403); and
the dispersion prediction model being modeled based on a correlation between a first data set related to the depolarization information (403d) and a second data set corresponding to the dispersion of the critical dimension (403a). The geometric model which includes the dispersion of the critical dimension is input into the library which then generates a synthetic spectra, then that is converted into the Synthetic DoP which is depolarization information. Thus, this limitation is met since the first data set is the information for doing that conversion;
Haxton does not explicitly disclose wherein the first data set comprises depolarization information extracted from polarization spectrum data on a training sample, and wherein the second data set comprises a dispersion which is obtained based on critical dimension information from the training sample or an image from photographing of the training sample;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haxton as modified by Yin with wherein the first data set comprises depolarization information extracted from polarization spectrum data on a training sample, and wherein the second data set comprises a dispersion which is obtained based on critical dimension information from the training sample or an image from photographing of the training sample because basing the calculations on a training set is a well-known method for deriving information from newly measured data that can be faster than doing mathematical calculations.
Regarding Claim 11, Haxton as modified by Yin discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dispersion prediction model comprises a linear model that is generated by linear regression based on the first data set and the second data set;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haxton as modified by Yin with wherein the dispersion prediction model comprises a linear model that is generated by linear regression based on the first data set and the second data set because linear regression is a well-known method for fitting theoretical data to measured data that can offer accurate results.
Regarding Claim 12, Haxton discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dispersion prediction model comprises a machine learning model that is generated by machine learning based on the first data set and the second data set;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haxton as modified by Yin with wherein the dispersion prediction model comprises a machine learning model that is generated by machine learning based on the first data set and the second data set because machine is a well-known method for producing the desired output from data that once trained can be faster than traditional processing techniques while maintaining a high degree of accuracy.
Regarding Claim 13, Haxton as modified by Yin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Haxton discloses wherein the obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information comprises estimating the dispersion of the critical dimension by comparing (Step 404) expected depolarization information (Step 403), which is extracted based on a model corresponding to expected polarization spectrum data based on an average condition of the critical dimension and a dispersion condition of the critical dimension (Paragraph 100), with the depolarization information (Step 401b).
Regarding Claim 14, Haxton as modified by Yin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Haxton discloses wherein the obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample based on the depolarization information comprises estimating the dispersion of the critical dimension by comparing expected depolarization information (Steps 403d & 404), which is extracted based on a model corresponding to expected polarization spectrum data according to a wavelength band condition (403c), an average condition of the critical dimension (μCD, Paragraphs 102 & 126), and a dispersion condition of the critical dimension (Paragraph 123, Step 403a), with the depolarization information (401b);
Haxton fails to explicitly disclose obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample is also based on an incident angle range condition of incident light entering the target sample;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haxton as modified by Yin with obtaining the dispersion of the critical dimension of the target sample is also based on an incident angle range condition of incident light entering the target sample because the angle of incidence of the light on a target sample will effect the measurement and it provides a more robust and accurate model to also figure this in thus resulting in more accurate results.
Regarding Claim 15, Haxton as modified by Yin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Haxton discloses wherein the target sample comprises a semiconductor element, and wherein the critical dimension of the target sample comprises a critical dimension of a fine pattern included in the semiconductor element (Paragraphs 3 & 39).
Regarding Claim 16, Haxton as modified by Yin discloses the aforementioned. Further, Haxton discloses wherein the first optical system comprises a polarizer (Fig. 1, 208) configured to polarize the light emitted from the light source, and wherein the second optical system comprises an analyzer (216) configured to analyze the polarization state of the reflected light.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haxton in view of Yin and further in view of Keller et al (Keller, Nick & Antonelli, George & Linford, Matthew. (2021). Optical Critical Dimension Metrology for Semiconductor Manufacturing) (Keller).
Regarding Claim 17, Haxton as modified by Yin discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first optical system further comprises a first compensator configured to modulate a phase of the light passed through the polarizer, and wherein the second optical system further comprises a second compensator configured to modulate a phase of the reflected light;
However, Keller discloses a Muller Matrix Spectroscopic Ellipsometer (MMSE) (Fig. 2) with compensators (C1 & C2) in each arm that rotate (Page 34, rightmost column). This would meet the limitation;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Haxton as modified by Yin with wherein the first optical system further comprises a first compensator configured to modulate a phase of the light passed through the polarizer, and wherein the second optical system further comprises a second compensator configured to modulate a phase of the reflected light because a MMSE captures a complete description of the polarized reflection, including cross-polarization and circular polarization, in a matrix of 16 elements at each wavelength. Further, Cross polarization carries important information about material characteristics such as symmetry, edge roughness and anisotropic optical properties. Thus it would allow for a more complete examination of the sample and provide a more accurate result.
Conclusion
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 JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 September 3, 2026
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights