DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2014/0139829 to Wolters et al.
In regards to claims 1, 11 and 13-17, Wolters discloses and shows in Figures 1-6, an inspection system for inspecting using a plurality of azimuthal angles comprising:
a controller (132) configured to be communicatively coupled to an optical sub-system (170) and comprising one or more processors (141) (Par. 26-31) configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to:
generate control signals for a beam-shaping channel (107) to configure the beam- shaping channel to provide one or more selected orientations of a beam profile of an illumination beam as projected onto the sample (par. 15, 51-51, 97, 100-102, 157; wherein a plurality of beam shaping optics are utilized to change an orientation of the illumination beam);
direct a stage (108) to perform one or more scans comprising a first scanning of the sample using a first configuration of the beam-shaping channel, wherein the first configuration of the beam-shaping channel is based on the control signals and controls an orientation of the beam profile of the illumination beam as projected onto the sample, wherein the first configuration is associated with a first orientation of the beam profile of the illumination beam as projected onto the sample (par. 34);
receive first scan data (127) associated with the first scanning of the sample (par. 26); and
identify one or more defects on the sample based on scan data associated with the one or more scans comprising at least the first scan data (par. 9, 31);
[claim 11] wherein the beam profile comprises a flat top profile such that an intensity distribution is uniform (Figure 3) (par. 43);
[claim 13] wherein the scan data from the one or more scans further comprises a second scan data associated with a second scanning of the sample (Figures 2-3) (par. 36-38; wherein one or more adjacent tracks are scanned across the sample);
[claim 14] wherein the scan data from the one or more scans further comprises a third scan data associated with a third scanning of the sample (Figures 2-3) (par. 36-38; wherein one or more adjacent tracks are scanned across the sample);
[claim 15] wherein the stage comprises an X-Y Θ stage configured to translate the sample in two orthogonal directions and rotate the sample (par. 34) (Figures 1-2);
[claim 16] wherein the controller is further configured to direct the X-Y Θ stage to at least translate the sample between the first scanning and a second scanning (par. 34) (Figures 1-2);
[claim 17] wherein the controller is further configured to: direct the X-Y Θ stage to simultaneously rotate the sample and translate the sample along two directions during the first scanning, wherein the first scanning is configured along a spiral scan pattern (par. 34) (Figures 1-2).
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.
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) 1-10, 12 and 18-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2016/0161245 to Fu et al., in view of Wolters.
In regards to claims 1-3, 7-9, 18-20, 24-25, 29-30, 34-36 and 37-38, Fu discloses and shows in Figures 1-14, an inspection system for inspecting using a plurality of azimuthal angles comprising:
an optical sub-system comprising:
an illumination sub-system comprising a beam-shaping channel (107), wherein a configuration of the beam-shaping channel controls an orientation of a beam profile of an illumination beam as projected onto the sample (par. 15, 51-52, 97, 100-102, 157; wherein a plurality of beam shaping optics are utilized to change an orientation of the illumination beam); and
a collection sub-system comprising a detector (118) configured to image the sample (par. 8-9, 59-60); and
a controller (130) communicatively coupled to the optical sub-system and comprising one or more processors (131) (Par. 164-167) configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to:
receive first scan data associated with a first orientation of the beam profile of the illumination beam as projected onto the sample and associated with a first scanning of the sample using a first configuration of the beam-shaping channel (par. 15, 51-52, 97, 100-102, 113);
receive second scan data associated with a second orientation of the beam profile of the illumination beam as projected onto the sample and associated with a second scanning of the sample using a second configuration of the beam- shaping channel (par. 15, 51-52, 97, 100-102, 113); and
identify one or more defects on the sample based on scan data associated with two or more scans comprising at least the first scan data and the second scan data (par. 2-4, 8-9);
[claims 2, 19, 35] wherein the first configuration of the beam-shaping channel includes a first orientation of a diffractive optical element of the beam-shaping channel, wherein the diffractive optical element is configured to be rotated around an axis of the illumination beam, wherein the first orientation of the diffractive optical element controls the orientation of the beam profile of the illumination beam as projected onto the sample (par. 15, 51-52, 97, 100-102);
[claim 3, 20, 36] wherein the controller is further configured to direct a rotation of the diffractive optical element around the axis of the illumination beam from the first orientation to a second orientation (par. 15, 51-52, 97, 100-102);
[claim 7] wherein the controller is further configured to direct at least one of a rotation or translation of one or more cylindrical lenses of the beam-shaping channel (par. 15, 51-52, 100-102);
[claims 8, 24] wherein the collection sub-system further comprises a detection plane rotator (117) configured to perform a rotation of collectable light as detected by the detector (118), wherein the rotation of the collectable light comprises at least one of a rotation of: an orientation of the collectable light incident on the detector; or an orientation of the detector (par. 45, 59-60, 99, 101);
[claims 9, 25] wherein the controller is further configured to: direct the detection plane rotator to perform the rotation of the collectable light (par. 101);
[claim 29, 37] wherein the scan data from the one or more scans further comprises a second scan data associated with a second scanning of the sample (par. 113; wherein a scanning mirror is utilized to scan the surface of an object);
[claim 30, 38] wherein the scan data from the one or more scans further comprises a third scan data associated with a third scanning of the sample (par. 113; wherein a scanning mirror is utilized to scan the surface of an object).
Fu differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the inspection system further configured to have a stage configured to translate and rotate a sample.
However, Wolters teaches and shows in Figures 1-2, a lithography inspection system wherein a wafer positioning system (125) further comprising a rotation stage (110) and a translation stage (112) are utilized to obtain a desired scanning pattern of a sample surface (par. 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fu to include the wafer positioning system discussed above for the advantage of obtaining a desired sample surface scanning pattern, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 4 and 21, Fu differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the inspection system further comprising:
wherein the controller is further configured to direct a translation of the diffractive optical element from the first orientation to a second orientation.
However, Wolters teaches and shows in Figures 1-6, an inspection system for inspecting a surface of a semiconductor wafer, wherein a beam shaping optical element (103) may be selectively translated (170) into and out of a beam path, to obtain a desired beam intensity and profile (par. 8-9, 50) (Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fu to include the translation actuator discussed above for the advantage of obtaining a desired beam intensity and profile to increase defect detection sensitivity, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 5-6, and 22-23, Fu discloses and shows in Figures 1-14, an inspection system further comprising wherein a plurality of beam shaping optics (107) may be utilized to obtain a desired beam shape and profile, including “other suitable elements” (par. 15, 51-52, 97, 100-102, 157).
Fu differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the inspection system further comprising:
[claims 5, 22] wherein the diffractive optical element comprises a Fresnel zone plate (FZP) offset from the axis of the illumination beam;
[claims 6, 23] wherein the beam-shaping channel further comprises a holographic optical element (HOE), and an aspherical lens.
However, Fresnel zone plates, holographic elements and aspherical lenes are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art, and one of ordinary skill would recognize the claimed well-known elements and configurations as being considered another “suitable element”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fu to include the beam shaping optical elements discussed above for the advantage of obtaining a desired beam shape profile and enabling simultaneous collection of angular and spectral information (par. 52), with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 10 and 26, Fu discloses and shows in Figures 1-14, an inspection system further comprising wherein a plurality of wavelength dispersive elements (117) and detectors (118) may be utilized to obtain a desired detection beam shape and profile, including “any other suitable elements” (par. 15, 51-52, 97, 100-102, 157).
Fu differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the inspection system further comprising:
[claims 10, 26] wherein the detection plane rotator comprises as least one of: a Dove Prism, a K-mirror, or a Schmidt-Pechan Prism.
However, Dove Prisms, K-mirrors and Schmidt-Pechan Prisms are well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art, and one of ordinary skill would recognize the claimed well-known elements and configurations as being considered another “suitable element”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fu to include the detection beam shaping optical elements discussed above for the advantage of obtaining a desired detection beam shape profile and enabling simultaneous collection of angular and spectral information (par. 52), with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 12 and 28, Fu discloses and shows in Figures 1-14, an inspection system further comprising wherein a plurality of beam shaping optics (107) may be utilized to obtain a desired beam shape and profile, including “any other suitable shapes”, such as “dots, arcs, curved lines” (par. 15, 51-52, 97, 100-102, 157).
Fu differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the inspection system further comprising:
wherein the beam profile comprises a spot array, wherein the spot array comprises a series of ellipses sequentially aligned in a row along a direction and wherein a major axis of each ellipse is angled at a non-zero angle with respect to the direction.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed array of ellipses as being considered another “suitable shape”, similar to “dots, arcs, and curved lines”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fu to include the beam profile of a spot array of ellipses discussed above for the advantage of enabling simultaneous collection of angular and spectral information (par. 52), with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 27, Fu differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the inspection system further configured to:
[claim 27] wherein the beam profile comprises a flat top profile such that an intensity distribution is uniform.
However, Wolters teaches and shows in Figures 1-6, an inspection system for inspecting a surface of a semiconductor wafer, wherein a beam shaping element (103) is utilized to shape and distribute a beam intensity profile, so as to provide a uniform beam intensity distribution and increase defect detection sensitivity (par. 9, 43) (Figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fu to include the uniform beam intensity distribution discussed above for the advantage of increasing defect detection sensitivity, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 31-33 and 39-41, Fu differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the inspection system further configured to:
[claim 31, 39] wherein the stage comprises an X-Y Θ stage configured to translate the sample in two orthogonal directions and rotate the sample;
[claim 32, 40] wherein the controller is further configured to direct the X-Y Θ stage to at least translate the sample between the first scanning and a second scanning;
[claim 33, 41] wherein the controller is further configured to: direct the X-Y Θ stage to simultaneously rotate the sample and translate the sample along two directions during the first scanning, wherein the first scanning is configured along a spiral scan pattern.
However, Wolters teaches and shows in Figures 1-2, a lithography inspection system wherein a wafer positioning system (125) further comprising a rotation stage (110) and a translation stage (112) are utilized to obtain a desired scanning pattern of a sample surface (par. 34) (Figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fu to include the wafer positioning system discussed above for the advantage of obtaining a desired sample surface scanning pattern, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights