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 § 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 3 and 18 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the second surface" in Lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of interpretation, the Examiner assumes that the third limitation should read: --a determination unit configured to determine whether a position of a defect of the film, when the first surface side in a thickness direction of the film is located above and a second surface side on an opposite side of the first surface is located below, is the defect above the first surface of the film or the defect below the first surface based on a combination of an observation result of bright-field observation in the first optical system and an observation result of dark-field observation in the second optical system;--.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the second surface" in Lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, for purposes of interpretation, the Examiner assumes that the third limitation should read: --determining in a determination unit whether a position of a defect of the film, when the first surface side in a thickness direction of the film is located above and a second surface side on an opposite side of the first surface is located below, is the defect above the first surface of the film or the defect below the first surface based on a combination of an observation result of the bright-field observation in the first optical system and an observation result of the dark-field observation in the second optical system,--.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa (JPH11194098), hereinafter Yonazawa, in view of Yasui (JPH06258241, disclosed in IDS 08 January 2025), hereinafter Yasui.
Claims 1,13: Yonezawa discloses an inspection apparatus (Fig. 1), and corresponding method, comprising:
a first optical system (1) configured to illuminate a film (wafer 8) with first light and receive first observation light from a first surface side of the film (8) [0013];
a second optical system (10) configured to illuminate the film (8) from the first surface side with second light being reflected from the first surface of the film (8) and receive second observation light from the first surface side [0014]; and
a determination unit (30) configured to determine a defect of the film (8) based on a combination of an observation result of bright-field observation in the first optical system (1) and an observation result of dark-field observation in the second optical system (10) (“the CCD camera 21 captures images of the wafer 8 illuminated by the light source 2 and the light source 21 respectively as described above, and the second image data by the bright field illumination light and the dark field illumination light is input to the image processing device 30.” [0020]).
Yonezawa is silent with respect to determining whether a position of the defect of the film is above a first surface of the film or below the first surface of the film.
Yasui, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical film inspection, discloses an inspection apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a determination unit (4) configured to determine whether a position of a defect (15/18) of the film (10), when the first surface (11) side in a thickness direction of the film (10) is located above and a second surface (12) side on an opposite side of the first surface (11) is located below, is the defect (15) above the first surface (11) of the film (10) (as in Fig. 7) or the defect (18) below the first surface (11) (as in Fig. 8) [0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa’s determination unit by configuring it to determine whether a position of a defect of a film is above or below the film for the purpose of assessing which films may still be used for lithographic purposes, since defects above the film may be ok, but defects below the film indicate that the semiconductor membrane is compromised (Yasui [0006]).
Yonezawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the first light is transmitted through the film.
However, the Examiner takes Official notice that the transmission of light through a material is dependent on factors such as the wavelength, index of refraction, and incidence angle. Since Yonezawa’s first light has normal incidence on the film, Snell’s Law dictates that the index of refraction and the incidence angle do not apply. Thus, only the wavelength of the first light will dictate the transmission of the first light through the film.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa’s inspection apparatus with a first light of a desired wavelength to transmit through the film for the purpose of fully characterizing the film.
Claim 4: Yonezawa further discloses wherein
the first optical system (1) makes an optical axis of the first light perpendicular to the first surface (evident from Fig. 1; “Illuminate from the vertical direction” [0013]),
the second optical system (10) uses off-axis illumination in which an optical axis of the second light is inclined with respect to the first surface (evident from Fig. 1; “illuminate a substantially entire surface area of the wafer 8 from an oblique direction” [0014]), and
an objective lens (6) configured to receive the second observation light in the second optical system (10) is common to the objective lens (6) configured to receive the first observation light in the first optical system (1) (evident from Fig. 1, [0016]).
Claim 9: Yonezawa is silent with respect to a pellicle attached to a photomask.
Yasui, however, discloses wherein the film (10) includes a pellicle [0020] attached to a photomask (implied by the presence of “the pellicle film 10” [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa’s film to include a pellicle attached to a photomask for the purpose of using the inspection apparatus in semiconductor manufacturing applications. Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intended use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).
Claim 10: Yonezawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the objective lens has a focal depth smaller than a distance between the photomask and the pellicle.
However, Applicant has failed to provide any criticality for the focal depth to be smaller than the photomask-to-pellicle distance, disclosing only that “the objective lens may have a focal length smaller” [0015], but also that “the objective lens 13 may have a focal depth larger than the thickness of the film” [0047].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa’s objective lens to have a certain focal depth, such as smaller than a distance between the photomask and the pellicle, for the purpose of optimizing the lithographic inspection conditions. “Determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995)).
Claim 11: Yonezawa is silent with respect to a pellicle attached to a photomask.
Yasui, however, discloses wherein the film (10) includes a pellicle [0020] attached to a photomask (implied by the presence of “the pellicle film 10” [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa’s film to include a pellicle attached to a photomask for the purpose of using the inspection apparatus in semiconductor manufacturing applications. Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intended use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).
In this modified apparatus, Yonezawa further discloses wherein the first optical system (1) observes a patterned surface formed on the photomask [0002].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa, in view of Yasui as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bultman et al. (US 7,106,425), hereinafter Bultman, Nishiyama et al. (JP 2008275540), hereinafter Nishiyama.
Claim 6: Yonezawa does not explicitly disclose the wavelengths of the first and second lights, and the angle of incidence of the second light.
However, Applicant has provided no criticality for the claimed wavelength ranges and the claimed range of angle of incidence.
Bultman, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical defect detection, discloses an inspection apparatus (Fig. 24) comprising a first optical system (comprising light source 282),
wherein a first light (282) in the first optical system includes a wavelength equal to or larger than 600 nm and equal to or smaller than 750 nm (Col. 116, Lines 14-20),
but is silent with respect to a second optical system.
Nishiyama, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical defect detection, discloses an inspection apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising a second optical system (3/4),
wherein a second light (301) in the second optical system (3/4) includes a wavelength equal to or larger than 350 nm and equal to or smaller than 550 nm (“The wavelength is preferably approximately 550 nm or less. For example, a light source of 532 nm, 355 nm” [0029]), and
an angle of incidence (90[Symbol font/0xB0]-α) of the second light (301) in the second optical system (3/4) includes an angle equal to or larger than 60[Symbol font/0xB0] and equal to or smaller than 85[Symbol font/0xB0] (“the illumination angle α is preferably set to about 20 degrees” [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bultman’s inspection apparatus with Nishiyama’s second optical system for the purpose of reducing speckle noise (Nishiyama [0029]).
It would have been furthermore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa’s first optical system so that the first light is in the range of 600-750 nm for the purpose of using a well-known laser for defect detection. “Determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa, in view of Yasui as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2023/0194845), hereinafter Choi.
Claim 12: Yonezawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the photomask includes a photomask for EUV exposure.
Choi, however, in the same field of endeavor of lithographic inspection apparatus, discloses an inspection apparatus (1000) comprising a photomask (410) (Fig. 1),
wherein the photomask (410) includes a photomask for EUV exposure [0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yonezawa’s photomask to include a photomask for EUV exposure for the purpose of improved lithographic resolution (Choi [0003]). Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intended use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).
Claims 1-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuai et al. (JP 4001653, also published as JPH 1090192), hereinafter Tsuai, in view of Yasui.
Claim 1: Tsuai discloses an inspection apparatus (Fig. 9), comprising:
a first optical system (with light source 10) configured to illuminate a film (wafer 14) with first light and receive first observation light from a first surface side of the film (14) [0024];
a second optical system (with light source 12) configured to illuminate the film (14) from the first surface side with second light being reflected from the first surface of the film (14) and receive second observation light from the first surface side [0024]; and
a determination unit (24) configured to determine a defect of the film (wafer 14) based on a combination of an observation result of bright-field observation in the first optical system and an observation result of dark-field observation in the second optical system [0016-0017].
Tsuai is silent with respect to determining whether a position of the defect of the film is above a first surface of the film or below the first surface of the film.
Yasui, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical film inspection, discloses an inspection apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a determination unit (4) configured to determine whether a position of a defect (15/18) of the film (10), when the first surface (11) side in a thickness direction of the film (10) is located above and a second surface (12) side on an opposite side of the first surface (11) is located below, is the defect (15) above the first surface (11) of the film (10) (as in Fig. 7) or the defect (18) below the first surface (11) (as in Fig. 8) [0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tsuai’s determination unit by configuring it to determine whether a position of a defect of a film is above or below the film for the purpose of assessing which films may still be used for lithographic purposes, since defects above the film may be ok, but defects below the film indicate that the semiconductor membrane is compromised (Yasui [0006]).
Tsuai does not explicitly disclose wherein the first light is transmitted through the film.
However, the Examiner takes Official notice that the transmission of light through a material is dependent on factors such as the wavelength, index of refraction, and incidence angle. Since Tsuai’s first light has normal incidence on the film, Snell’s Law dictates that the index of refraction and the incidence angle do not apply. Thus, only the wavelength of the first light will dictate the transmission of the first light through the film.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tsuai’s inspection apparatus with a first light of a desired wavelength to transmit through the film for the purpose of fully characterizing the film.
Claim 2: Tsuai further discloses wherein the determination unit (24) determines that the defect is the defect above the first surface in a case in which the defect is detected both in the observation result in the first optical system and the observation result in the second optical system (“The two responses (the response signals from the dark field and the bright field are representative) are detected separately by a photoelectric method” [0016]).
Tsuai does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination unit determines that the defect is the defect below the first surface surface.
However, since the second light from the second optical system does not transmit through the film, the observation result of the second optical system will inherently not detect a defect below the first surface.
Therefore, it is evident that Tsuai’s determination unit determines that the defect is the defect below the first surface in a case in which the defect is detected in the observation result in the first optical system (since the first light is transmitted through the film) and in which the defect is not detected in the observation result in the second optical system.
Claims 3,18: Tsuai discloses an inspection apparatus (Fig. 9), and corresponding method, comprising:
a first optical system (with light source 10) configured to illuminate a film (wafer 14) with first light and receive first observation light from a first surface side of the film (14) [0024];
a second optical system (with light source 12) configured to illuminate the film (14) from the first surface side with second light being reflected from the first surface of the film (14) and receive second observation light from the first surface side [0024]; and
a determination unit (24) configured to determine a defect of the film (wafer 14) based on a combination of an observation result of bright-field observation in the first optical system and an observation result of dark-field observation in the second optical system [0016-0017]; and
wherein the determination unit (24)
determines that the defect is the defect due to a foreign matter on the first surface in a case in which the defect is detected both in the observation result in the first optical system and the observation result in the second optical system (“The two responses (the response signals from the dark field and the bright field are representative) are detected separately by a photoelectric method” [0016]).
Tsuai is silent with respect to determining whether a position of the defect of the film is above a first surface of the film or below the first surface of the film.
Yasui, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical film inspection, discloses an inspection apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a determination unit (4) configured to determine whether a position of a defect (15/18) of the film (10), when the first surface (11) side in a thickness direction of the film (10) is located above and a second surface (12) side on an opposite side of the first surface (11) is located below, is the defect (15) above the first surface (11) of the film (10) (as in Fig. 7) or the defect (18) below the first surface (11) (as in Fig. 8) [0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tsuai’s determination unit by configuring it to determine whether a position of a defect of a film is above or below the film for the purpose of assessing which films may still be used for lithographic purposes, since defects above the film may be ok, but defects below the film indicate that the semiconductor membrane is compromised (Yasui [0006]).
Tsuai does not explicitly disclose wherein the first light is transmitted through the film.
However, the Examiner takes Official notice that the transmission of light through a material is dependent on factors such as the wavelength, index of refraction, and incidence angle. Since Tsuai’s first light has normal incidence on the film, Snell’s Law dictates that the index of refraction and the incidence angle do not apply. Thus, only the wavelength of the first light will dictate the transmission of the first light through the film.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tsuai’s inspection apparatus with a first light of a desired wavelength to transmit through the film for the purpose of fully characterizing the film.
Tsuai does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination unit determines that the defect is the defect due to a foreign matter on the second surface.
However, since the second light from the second optical system does not transmit through the film, the observation result of the second optical system will inherently not detect a defect on the second surface.
Therefore, it is evident that Tsuai’s determination unit determines that the defect is the defect due to a foreign matter on the second surface in a case in which the defect is detected in the observation result in the first optical system (since the first light is transmitted through the film) and in which the defect is not detected in the observation result in the second optical system.
Claim 4: Tsuai further discloses wherein
the first optical system (10) makes an optical axis of the first light perpendicular to the first surface (evident from Fig. 9),
the second optical system (12) uses off-axis illumination in which an optical axis of the second light is inclined with respect to the first surface (evident from Fig. 9), and
an objective lens (60) configured to receive the second observation light in the second optical system (12) is common to the objective lens (60) configured to receive the first observation light in the first optical system (10) (evident from Fig. 9).
Claim 5: Tsuai further discloses wherein
the first optical system (10) illuminates the film (14) from the first surface side with the first light (“the wafer 14 is illuminated with an illumination system having a suitable bright field 10 or dark field light source 12” [0019]), and
the objective lens (60) focuses the first light in the first optical system on the film (14) (evident from Fig. 9).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuai, in view of Yasui as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Terasawa et al. (US 2016/0116837), hereinafter Terasawa.
Claim 14: Tsuai further discloses wherein
the second optical system (12) uses off-axis illumination in which an optical axis of the second light is inclined with respect to the first surface in a plurality of directions (evident from Fig. 9),
the determination unit (24) determines a classification of the defect based on the observation result of the dark-field observation in the second optical system (12) [0063],
but is silent with respect to the classification of the defect including a pin hole.
Terasawa, however, in the same field of endeavor of optical defect detection, discloses that a pin hole “is a typical defect caused in deposition of the optical film of the photomask blank” [0011].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tsuai’s determination unit to comprise classification of the defect including a pin hole for the purpose of identifying a common defect and thus maintaining the integrity of wafers found to be acceptable.
Claim 15: Tsuai further discloses wherein the second optical system (12) performs off-axis illumination along a plurality of optical paths provided at a plurality of positions annularly surrounding a periphery of an objective lens (60) configured to receive the second observation light (evident from Fig. 9) [0038].
Claim 16: Tsuai is silent with respect to determining a size of the pin hole.
Terasawa, however, further discloses wherein the determination unit determines a size of the pin hole [0110].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tsuai’s determination unit to a size of the pin hole for the purpose of accurately characterizing this common defect and thus maintaining the integrity of wafers found to be acceptable.
In Tsuai’s modified apparatus, the determination unit determines this pin hole size based on the observation result of the bright-field observation in the first optical system and the observation result of the dark-field observation in the second optical system [0016-0017].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 17 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:
Claim 7: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit
determines a shape including a size of the defect based on the observation result in the first optical system, and
determines a position of the defect in the thickness direction of the film in a case in which the shape of the defect is a predetermined shape.
Claim 8: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the second optical system performs changed dark-field observation in which at least any of polarized state changing of changing a polarized state of the second light to a polarized state in which an amount of light transmitted through the film increases, wavelength changing of changing a wavelength of the second light to a wavelength at which the amount of light transmitted through the film increases, and angle-of-incidence changing of changing an angle of incidence of the second light to an angle of incidence at which the amount of light transmitted through the film increases is performed, and
the determination unit acquires height information about the defect from a result of the changed dark-field observation and classifies the defect.
Claim 17: None of the prior art, alone or in combination, teaches or discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the determination unit
in a case in which the classification of the defect is a foreign matter, determines a size of the foreign matter based on the observation result of the bright-field observation in the first optical system, and
in a case in which the classification of the defect is the pin hole, determines the size of the pin hole based on the observation result of the bright- field observation in the first optical system and the observation result of the dark-field observation in the second optical system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to HINA F AYUB whose telephone number is (571)270-3171. The Examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm ET Mon-Fri.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on 571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hina F Ayub/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights