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 Objections
Claims 1, 2, 20, 39, and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 20, and 39, line 3 of each claim should be amended from “directing an illumination beam to the sample with light” to “directing an illumination beam to the sample”.
As for claims 2 and 40, the phrase “the one or more process” in line 1 of each claim should be amended to read “the one or more processors”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-58 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 39, lines 14-16 of each claim state that the step-and-settle sampling plan iteratively causes at least one of the multi-column inspection tool or the translation stage to perform operations such as generating parallel images, translating the sample, waiting a settling time, and generating additional parallel images. However, because “at least one of the multi-column inspection tool or the translation stage” can be reasonably read to read that either the multi-column inspection tool or the translation stage can perform all of the claimed functions of the controller, the limitation is unclear, as the multi-column inspection tool or the translation stage, on their own, cannot perform all of the claimed functions of the controller. The inspection tool on its own, for instance, cannot translate the sample, and the translation stage, on its own, cannot generate the parallel images. To overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends amending the claim to make it clear which functionality is associated with the inspection tool and which functionality is associated with the stage, or make it more clear that it is a combination of the inspection tool and the translation stage that is needed to perform all of the claimed functions.
Claims 2-19 and 40-58 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on at least claim 1 or claim 39, respectively, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
Regarding claim 20, lines 2-3 of the claim recite that the optical inspection tool is “configured to identify by directing an illumination beam to the sample”. However, the limitation appears to be incomplete as it does not state what is being identified, making the claim indefinite. It appears as though the limitation should state “configured to identify the candidate defects by directing an illumination beam to the sample”; such an amendment would overcome this rejection.
Claims 21-38 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on at least claim 20, thereby containing all the limitations of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 15-24, 26-31, 34-43, 45-50, and 54-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (WO 2020/097137) in view of Noji et al (2013/0313429).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Chen discloses a hybrid inspection system (claim 1) and a corresponding hybrid inspection method (claim 20), the system and method comprising (see Figs. 6 and 7) an optical inspection tool 600 (see the device shown in Fig. 6) configured to identify candidate defects (see abstract) on a sample 634 by directing an illumination beam 605 from source 604 to the sample and collecting scattered light using lens 632 from the sample (see paragraph 0075) in response to the illumination beam (for the overall use of the optical inspection tool, see paragraphs 0072-0085); a multi-column inspection tool 700 (see the device in Fig. 7) to identify defects of interest from the candidate defects (see abstract; see also paragraph 0086), wherein the multi-column inspection tool comprises: two or more columns 702a, 702b to simultaneously image using charged particles from charged particle sources 707a, 707b two or more measurement regions on the sample (see paragraphs 0086-0087 which describe the optics and detectors needed for imaging); a translation stage 708 configured to secure and position the sample with respect to the two or more columns (see paragraph 0092), wherein the translation stage is configured to position the sample to allow the two or more columns to image at least a portion of the candidate defects (see paragraphs 0089 and 0092); and a controller 718 including one or more processors (see paragraph 0093) configured to execute program instructions iteratively causing at least one of the multi-column inspection tool and the translation stage to: generate parallel images of the sample with the two or more columns (see paragraphs 0086-0088 which describe using multiple probes to image the sample simultaneously); translate the sample by a step size with the translation stage (see paragraphs 0052-0053 for a detailed discussion of stage translation); and generate additional parallel images of the sample with two or more columns (see paragraphs 0052-0053).
Chen fails to disclose positioning the sample using a step-and-settle sampling plan, where the plan includes waiting a settling time required for vibrations of the translation stage to settle below a selected tolerance during the step-and-settle sampling plan.
Noji is directed to an apparatus and method for inspecting a sample surface. Noji discloses that the stage unit that holds the sample is provided with a brake system that may be used upon stopping the stage to allow for a settling time to reduce or even eliminate any minute vibration during stopping motion (see paragraph 0078). This brake can be combined with the teachings of Chen in order to provide the iterative step-and-settle sampling plan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step-and-settle sampling plan to the system and method of Chen as taught by Noji in order to allow for vibrations of the stage to settle below a selected tolerance during the step-and-settle plan. The motivation for allowing vibrations of the stage to settle is that Chen acknowledges that vibrations of the stage are a problem during movement of the stage during scanning with the multi-column inspection tool (see paragraphs 0059-0061), and the ability to reduce or eliminate vibrations as taught by paragraph 0078 of Noji will allow for more accurate measurements to take place as the stage and therefore the sample are not impacted by vibrations, and are therefore not moving, during imaging.
Regarding claim 39, Chen discloses a hybrid inspection system comprising (see Figs. 6 and 7) an optical inspection tool 600 (see the device shown in Fig. 6) configured to identify candidate defects (see abstract) on a sample 634 by directing an illumination beam 605 from source 604 to the sample and collecting scattered light using lens 632 from the sample (see paragraph 0075) in response to the illumination beam (for the overall use of the optical inspection tool, see paragraphs 0072-0085); a multi-column inspection tool 700 (see the device in Fig. 7) to identify defects of interest from the candidate defects (see abstract; see also paragraph 0086), wherein the multi-column inspection tool comprises: two or more columns 702a, 702b to simultaneously image using charged particles from charged particle sources 707a, 707b two or more measurement regions on the sample (see paragraphs 0086-0087 which describe the optics and detectors needed for imaging); a translation stage 708 configured to secure and position the sample with respect to the two or more columns (see paragraph 0092), wherein the translation stage is configured to position the sample to allow the two or more columns to image at least a portion of the candidate defects (see paragraphs 0089 and 0092) with a swathing sampling plan (see paragraphs 0043-0048 for a description of a swathing plan); and a controller 718 including one or more processors (see paragraph 0093) configured to execute program instructions iteratively causing at least one of the multi-column inspection tool and the translation stage to: generate parallel images of the sample with the two or more columns (see paragraphs 0086-0088 which describe using multiple probes to image the sample simultaneously); translate the sample by a step size with the translation stage (see paragraphs 0052-0053 for a detailed discussion of stage translation); and generate additional parallel images of the sample with two or more columns (see paragraphs 0052-0053), and wherein the swathing sampling plan comprises generating parallel images of the sample with the two or more measurement columns while the sample is in motion (see paragraphs 0043-0048; in particular see paragraph 0044 which describes scanning swaths of the wafer under the probes).
Chen fails to disclose positioning the sample using a step-and-settle sampling plan, where the plan includes waiting a settling time required for vibrations of the translation stage to settle below a selected tolerance during the step-and-settle sampling plan.
Noji is directed to an apparatus and method for inspecting a sample surface. Noji discloses that the stage unit that holds the sample is provided with a brake system that may be used upon stopping the stage to allow for a settling time to reduce or even eliminate any minute vibration during stopping motion (see paragraph 0078). This brake can be combined with the teachings of Chen in order to provide the iterative step-and-settle sampling plan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step-and-settle sampling plan to the system and method of Chen as taught by Noji in order to allow for vibrations of the stage to settle below a selected tolerance during the step-and-settle plan. The motivation for allowing vibrations of the stage to settle is that Chen acknowledges that vibrations of the stage are a problem during movement of the stage during scanning with the multi-column inspection tool (see paragraphs 0059-0061), and the ability to reduce or eliminate vibrations as taught by paragraph 0078 of Noji will allow for more accurate measurements to take place as the stage and therefore the sample are not impacted by vibrations, and are therefore not moving, during imaging.
As for claims 2, 21, and 40, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses the one or more processors are further configured to generate the step-and-settle sampling plan based on the candidate defects identified by the optical inspection tool (see Fig. 2 and paragraphs 0036-0040 of Chen).
As for claims 3, 22, and 41, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses generating the step-and-settle sampling plan comprises characterizing a selected percentage of the candidate defects within a selected time (see paragraphs 0047-0056 of Chen, particularly paragraphs 0048 and 0050 which describe sampling at least 5 million sites in an hour, along with paragraph 0056 which discloses the time scanning for defects cannot exceed swathing time).
As for claims 4, 23, and 42, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses generating the step-and-settle sampling plan comprises causing a selected number of columns to inspect a measurement region within a main field of view (see paragraph 0043 of Chen – “The probes also include their own scanning electronics to scan the individual sites, in the illustrated example, 30 probes are arranged so that at least 5 million sites on a wafer can be visited and inspected in less than an hour”).
As for claims 5, 24, and 43, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses that the step-and-settle plan comprises a constant step size (see paragraph 0053 of Chen disclosing a constant step size of 1 pixel).
As for claims 7, 26, and 45, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses that the step-and-settle plan comprises determining the step size so each main field of view includes at least one measurement region for each of the two or more columns (see Fig. 4A of Chen, which shows that the step size is determined so that the main field of view includes a measurement region for each of the columns; see also Fig. 3A showing a field of view for a pair of the columns in probe system 302).
As for claims 8, 27, and 46, the combination of Chen and Noji that the step-and-settle plan comprises determining the step size using at least one of time, sample geometry, candidate defect density, or translation stage constraints (the plan is based on performing scanning within an hour or less as in paragraphs 0048 and 0050 of Chen).
As for claims 9, 28, and 47, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses identifying the defects of interest from the candidate defects based on images of the sample (see paragraph 0033, showing defects of interest being detected in optical scans).
As for claims 10, 29, and 48, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses that the translation stage orients the sample to direct each of the two or more columns to a main field of view on the sample, wherein each main field of view corresponds to a column of the two or more columns (see paragraphs 0043 and 0044 and Fig. 3A, showing the stage orienting the sample to direct the columns to a main field of view of the sample.
As for claims 11, 30, and 49, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses that each of the main fields of view comprise a measurement region, wherein each of the two or more columns performs a sub field scan of the measurement region within the main field of view corresponding to the column (see paragraph 0043 of Chen which discloses each of the probes scanning individual sites; see also paragraph 0059).
As for claims 12, 31, and 50, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses that the two or more columns are configured to rescan the sample to image a second measurement region within a main field of view (see paragraph 0044 of Chen disclosing a first set of scans that have spaces in between, then a second set of scans to fill in the spaces in the field of view).
As for claims 15, 34, and 54, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses that the multi-column inspection tool is a multi-column electron beam inspection tool (see paragraph 0047 of Chen – scanning electron microscope).
As for claims 16, 35, and 55, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses that the multi-column inspection tool is an atomic force microscopy inspection tool (see paragraph 0047 of Chen – atomic force microscope probes).
As for claims 17, 36, and 56, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses that the multi-column inspection tool is a multi-column near-field microwave inspection tool (see paragraph 0047 of Chen – a near-field microwave tool with multiple probes).
As for claims 18, 37, and 57, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses that the multi-column inspection tool is a multi-column proximal optical inspection tool (see paragraph 0047 of Chen – multiple proximal optical probes).
As for claims 19, 38, and 58, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses that the defects of interest correspond to sites that adversely impact operation of any devices on the sample (see claim 1 of Chen - “reviewing each candidate defect’s higher-resolution image to separate real defects that adversely impact operation of any devices on the sample from the candidate defects”).
Claims 6, 25, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (WO 2020/097137) in view of Noji et al (2013/0313429) and in further view of Xiao et al (WO 2016/191482).
As for claims 6, 25, and 44, the combination of Chen and Noji disclose the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claims 2, 21, and 40, respectively, but fails to disclose that the step-and-settle plan includes a variable step size.
Xiao, in a defect imaging system and method, discloses such a variable step size during its step-and-settle (step and scan) plan (see paragraph 0047, which discloses varying between step and scan and a swath scan, which the examiner interprets as having a variable step size).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the step-and-settle plan of the combination of Chen and Noji have a variable step size as per Xiao, the motivation being to allow for different step sizes based on the density of the defects being imaged (see paragraph 0047 of Xiao).
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (WO 2020/097137) in view of Noji et al (2013/0313429) and in further view of Hill et al (2021/0096061).
As for claim 51, the combination of Chen and Noji discloses the claimed invention as set forth above regarding claim 39, but fails to disclose that step-and-settle is selected when a density of the candidate defects is below a threshold and swathing is selected when the density is above the threshold.
Hill, in an optical metrology system with scanning and static modes, discloses, when scanning metrology targets, that swathing is selected when metrology targets are densely arranged, and use step-and-settle (or static mode) when metrology targets are sparsely distributed (see paragraph 0059). The examiner considers the metrology targets being imaged in Hill to be equivalent to the defects being imaged in the combination of Chen and Noji for this purpose.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the step-and-settle sampling plan in the combination of Chen and Noji when the density of defects is below a threshold, and swathing when the density is above the threshold, as disclosed by Hill, the motivation being that efficiency is increased by scanning multiple densely packed defects using a swathing mode, while efficiency is increased for sparser defects by perform a step-and-settle plan (see paragraph 0059 of Hill).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 14, 32, 33, 52, and 53 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 13, 32, and 52, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claims 1, 20, and 39, respectively, wherein the step size is selected based on a density of the candidate defects to provide at least one of the candidate defects within each of the two or more measurement regions for each step size with a selected probability, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claims.
As to claims 14, 33, and 53, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious the further limitation of claims 1, 20, and 39, respectively, wherein the step size is selected based on a density of the candidate defects to provide images of a selected percentage of the candidate defects, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the above claim.
With further regard to the above claims, while Chen, in particular, discloses a step size for the imaging of the defects on the wafer, and can vary between a step plan and a swathing plan depending on need, and while Hill discloses switching between step-and-settle and swathing based on density, none of the prior art discloses selecting the step size based on the density of the candidate defects in order to produce the desired outcomes as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “Automatic Defect Review of a Patterned Wafer using Hybrid Metrology” by Ahn et al. discloses hybrid metrology using both a white light interferometer and an atomic force microscope, combining the speed advantages of interferometry with the accuracy of atomic force microscopy (see abstract), and “Enabling Future Generation High-Speed Inspection Through a Massively Parallel E-beam Approach” by Malloy et al. discloses massively parallel e-beam defect inspection using both a multicolumn and a multibeam approach (see Fig. 2 and associated text).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael A. Lyons whose telephone number is (571)272-2420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights