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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "630" and "640" have both been used to designate "Predicted alignment offset" in Figure 6. Reference 640 should read "Measured alignment offset" based on paragraph [0054]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 12-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20060285112A1 by Reich et al. (hereinafter "Reich").
Regarding claim 1, Reich teaches An inspection method (at least Fig. 1, 4 and 6), comprising:
placing an specimen (wafer 14; [0042]) on a stage (chuck 20; [0042]), wherein the stage comprises a first alignment mark ([0061] a fiduciary may be positioned in location 64 on chuck 20 between edge 62 and the outer edge of specimen 14);
capturing a first image of the first alignment mark ([0069] a detector that is configured to generate signals responsive to illumination of the fiduciary; wherein signals are equivalent to an image);
determining a position drift between a current position of the stage and a reference position of the stage based on the first image ([0072] drift in the position of the light beam in the x and/or y directions can be determined with respect to a predetermined position on the chuck);
compensating for the position drift between the current position of the stage and the reference position of the stage ([0097] altering the position of the light beam with respect to the chuck based on the drift); and
performing an inspection operation on the specimen in response to the position drift ([0096] determining positions of defects detected on the specimen during the inspection based on the drift).
Although Reich does not explicitly teach wherein the stage comprises a plurality of first alignment marks in this embodiment, Reich does teach that a plurality of alignment marks may be coupled to the stage in other embodiments ([0059] each of the fiduciaries may be coupled directly to the chuck). Further, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. Therefore, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reich to include a plurality of first alignment marks in order to provide more data to improve the measurement.
Further, Reich does not explicitly teach performing an inspection operation on the specimen in response to the position drift being less than a first tolerance, Reich teaches that one method for increasing the accuracy of defect detection and defect position determination is to accurately calibrate the inspection system prior to inspection of a wafer ([0008]). Additionally, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to only perform the inspection when the position drift is less than a first tolerance in order to perform an accurate measurement.
Regarding claim 12, Reich teaches an inspection method (at least Fig. 1, 4 and 6), comprising:
placing a specimen (wafer 14; [0042]) on a stage (chuck 20; [0042]), wherein the stage comprises a first alignment mark ([0061] a fiduciary may be positioned in location 64 on chuck 20 between edge 62 and the outer edge of specimen 14);
capturing an image of first alignment mark ([0069] a detector that is configured to generate signals responsive to illumination of the fiduciary; wherein signals are equivalent to an image);
determining whether the stage has a position drift based on the image ([0072] drift in the position of the light beam in the x and/or y directions can be determined with respect to a predetermined position on the chuck);
moving the stage in response to the stage having the position drift); and
performing an inspection on the specimen in response to the position drift ([0096] determining positions of defects detected on the specimen during the inspection based on the drift) being less than a tolerance.
Although Reich does not explicitly teach wherein the stage comprises a plurality of first alignment marks in this embodiment, Reich does teach that a plurality of alignment marks may be coupled to the stage ([0059] each of the fiduciaries may be coupled directly to the chuck). Further, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. Therefore, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reich to include a plurality of first alignment marks in order to provide more data to improve the measurement.
Further, Reich does not explicitly teach performing an inspection operation on the specimen in response to the position drift being less than a tolerance, Reich teaches that one method for increasing the accuracy of defect detection and defect position determination is to accurately calibrate the inspection system prior to inspection of a wafer ([0008]). Additionally, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. It would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to only perform the inspection when the position drift is less than a tolerance in order to perform an accurate measurement.
Regarding claim 13, Reich as modified above teaches the method of claim 12, and Reich further teaches wherein the determination of whether the stage has the position drift based on the image comprises:
comparing the image with a reference image ([0098] comparison of the later measurements and the calibration measurements; and
identifying the position drift between the image and the reference image ([0098] beam position drift measurements may be determined ).
Regarding claim 17, Reich as modified above teaches the method of claim 12, and Reich further teaches wherein one of the plurality of first alignment marks comprises a second pattern for identifying a focus error (Fig. 2; [0049] fiduciary 42 includes at least one patterned feature 44; compare to applicants 114 in [0036]).
Although Reich does not teach wherein one of the first alignment marks comprises a first pattern for identifying a mapping error of the stage in a horizontal plane, Reich teaches the fiduciary may include more than one patterned feature to determine and correct drift in the x and y directions and/or to provide better accuracy in the drift measurements (e.g., through averaging) ([0049]). Correcting for drift in the x and y directions is identifying a mapping error of the stage in a horizontal plane. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include wherein one of the first alignment marks comprises a first pattern for identifying a mapping error of the stage in a horizontal plane in order to provide better accuracy in the drift measurements ([0049]).
Regarding claim 18, Reich teaches an inspection system (at least Fig. 1, 4 and 6), comprising:
a stage (chuck 20; [0042]) having an alignment marks ([0061] a fiduciary may be positioned in location 64 on chuck 20 between edge 62 and the outer edge of specimen 14);
a detector over the stage ([0069] a detector that is configured to generate signals responsive to illumination of the fiduciary );
an illumination source configured to generate a radiation ([0018] an illumination subsystem configured to illuminate a fiduciary with the light beam);
a processor coupled to the stage and the detector ([0018] a processor); and
a lens assembly configured to direct the radiation from the illumination source to the stage ([0039] illumination subsystem may include a number of optical components including lenses) and to direct radiation reflected by the alignment mark to the detector ([0044] detection subsystem includes lens collector 22),
wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the stage has a position drift based on an image of the alignment mark captured by the detector ([0018] a processor configured to use the signals to determine the drift in the position of the light beam with respect to the chuck; [0069] wherein signals are equivalent to an image.
Although Reich does not explicitly teach wherein the stage comprises a plurality of alignment marks in this embodiment, Reich does teach that a plurality of alignment marks may be coupled to the stage ([0059] each of the fiduciaries may be coupled directly to the chuck). Further, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. Therefore, it would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reich to include a plurality of alignment marks in order to provide more data to improve the measurement.
Claims 2-3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reich as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US20190019280A1 by Rao et al. (hereinafter "Rao").
Regarding claim 2, Reich as modified above teaches the method of claim 1, but Reich is silent as to determining a health status of the stage based on the position drift between the current position of the stage and the reference position of the stage.
However, Rao does address this limitation. Rao and Reich are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of semiconductors.
Rao teaches a control limit impact (CLI) module configured to send an alert if a CLI of the parametric data and the defect attributes data is above a specification ([0016] wherein data above a specification is equivalent to a health status; [0059] Parametric data refers to any data that is related tool hardware that provides information on a state of the tool).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor the health of tools during semiconductor processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include determining a health status of the stage based on the position drift between the current position of the stage and the reference position of the stage as suggested by Rao in order to reduce the time for the tool maintenance by monitoring tool health ([0058]).
Regarding claim 3, Reich modified by Rao teaches the method of claim 2, but Reich is silent as to issuing an alarm signal in response to the stage being determined to be unhealthy.
However, Rao does address this limitation.
Rao teaches the control limit impact (CLI) module configured to send an alert if a CLI of the parametric data and the defect attributes data is above a specification ([0016]; [0101]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an alert indicating tool health. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include issuing an alarm signal in response to the stage being determined to be unhealthy as suggested by Rao in order to identify the tool drifts earlier and fix them in a timelier manner ([0058]).
Regarding claim 15, Reich as modified above teaches the method of claim 13, but Reich is silent as to further comprising: determining a condition of the stage; and issuing an alarm signal when the stage is unhealthy.
However, Rao does address this limitation. Rao and Reich are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of semiconductors.
Rao teaches the control limit impact (CLI) module configured to send an alert if a CLI of the parametric data and the defect attributes data is above a specification ([0016]; [0101]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an alert indicating tool health. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include determining a condition of the stage; and issuing an alarm signal when the stage is unhealthy as suggested by Rao in order to identify the tool drifts earlier and fix them in a timelier manner ([0058]).
Regarding claim 16, Reich modified by Rao teaches the method of claim 15, but Reich is silent as to wherein the stage is determined to be unhealthy in response to the position drift being greater than a threshold.
However, Rao does address this limitation.
Rao teaches a control limit impact (CLI) module configured to send an alert if a CLI of the parametric data and the defect attributes data is above a specification ([0016] wherein data above a specification is equivalent to a health status; [0059] Parametric data refers to any data that is related tool hardware that provides information on a state of the tool).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor the health of tools during semiconductor processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include wherein the stage is determined to be unhealthy in response to the position drift being greater than a threshold as suggested by Rao in order to reduce the time for the tool maintenance by monitoring tool health ([0058]).
Claims 4-5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reich as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of CN 113379692 A by Gan et al. (hereinafter "Gan"; translation provided).
Regarding claim 4, Reich as modified above teaches the method of claim 1, and Reich further teaches wherein one of the first alignment marks comprises a line-and-space pattern (Fig. 2; [0049] fiduciary 42 includes at least one patterned feature 44).
Although Reich does not teach wherein another of the first alignment marks comprises a cross-shaped pattern, Reich teaches the fiduciary may include more than one patterned feature to determine and correct drift in the x and y directions and/or to provide better accuracy in the drift measurements (e.g., through averaging) ([0049]).
Further, Gan does address this limitation. Gan and Reich are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of alignment.
Gan teaches cross-shaped alignment marks on a stage (Fig. 2, 3; [0067] cross-shaped pattern).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use cross-shaped marks for alignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include wherein another of the first alignment marks comprises a cross-shaped pattern as suggested by Gan in order make a robust alignment in two directions (Gan [0067]; Reich [0049]).
Regarding claim 5, Reich as modified above teaches the method of claim 1, and Reich is silent as to wherein the first alignment marks are diagonally disposed with respect to each other from a top-view perspective. However, Reich does teach it is to be understood that the fiduciary may have any location with respect to the chuck.
Further, Gan does address this limitation. Gan and Reich are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of alignment.
Gan teaches wherein the first alignment marks are diagonally disposed with respect to each other from a top-view perspective ([0069] four standard plates are fixed at the four corners of the workbench; Fig. 3).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the alignment marks at the corners of the stage. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include wherein the first alignment marks are diagonally disposed with respect to each other from a top-view perspective as suggested by Gan in order to perform the measurement over a larger area.
Regarding claim 19, Reich as modified above teaches the inspection system of claim 18, but Reich is silent as to wherein the alignment marks are diagonally disposed with respect to each other from a top-view perspective. However, Reich does teach it is to be understood that the fiduciary may have any location with respect to the chuck.
Further, Gan does address this limitation. Gan and Reich are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of alignment.
Gan teaches wherein the alignment marks are diagonally disposed with respect to each other from a top-view perspective ([0069] four standard plates are fixed at the four corners of the workbench; Fig. 3).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the alignment marks at the corners of the stage. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. See MPEP 2144.04 Sec. V. C. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include wherein the alignment marks are diagonally disposed with respect to each other from a top-view perspective as suggested by Gan in order to perform the measurement over a larger area.
Regarding claim 20, Reich as modified above teaches the inspection system of claim 18, and Reich further teaches wherein one of the alignment marks comprises a line-and-space pattern (Fig. 2; [0049] fiduciary 42 includes at least one patterned feature 44).
Although Reich does not teach wherein another of the alignment marks comprises a cross-shaped pattern, Reich teaches the fiduciary may include more than one patterned feature to determine and correct drift in the x and y directions and/or to provide better accuracy in the drift measurements (e.g., through averaging) ([0049]).
Further, Gan does address this limitation. Gan and Reich are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of alignment.
Gan teaches cross-shaped alignment marks on a stage (Fig. 2, 3; [0067] cross-shaped pattern).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use cross-shaped marks for alignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include wherein another of the alignment marks comprises a cross-shaped pattern as suggested by Gan in order make a robust alignment in two directions (Gan [0067]; Reich [0049]).
Claims 6-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reich as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of CN118519322A by Zhang et al. (hereinafter "Zang"; translation provided).
Regarding claim 6, Reich as modified above teaches the method of claim 1, and although Reich teaches that some inspection system may use patterns or alignment marks formed on the specimens themselves to determine positional information about the data acquired during inspection with respect to the patterns or alignment marks ([0083], Reich is silent as to further comprising, prior to the inspection operation on the specimen, performing an alignment operation on the specimen.
However, Zhang does address this limitation. Zhang and Reich are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of wafer alignment.
Zhang teaches prior to the inspection operation on the specimen, performing an alignment operation on the specimen ([0005]-[0006] alignment is a key step in photolithography, for example each time the mask plate is replaced, it needs to be aligned with the silicon wafer to prepare the chip)
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to align the specimen before inspection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include prior to the inspection operation on the specimen, performing an alignment operation on the specimen in order to improve the accuracy of the inspection ([0006]).
Regarding claim 7, Reich modified by Zhang teaches the method of claim 6, but Reich is silent as to wherein the alignment operation comprises: performing a coarse alignment operation to identify a second alignment mark on the specimen ; and performing a fine alignment operation to compensate for a final alignment offset between a current position of the second alignment mark and a target position of the second alignment mark, wherein the inspection operation on the specimen is performed in response the final alignment offset being less than a second tolerance different from the first tolerance.
However, Zhang does address this limitation.
Zhang teaches performing a coarse alignment operation to identify a second alignment mark on the specimen ([0036] acquiring a second image of the silicon wafer which includes the fine alignment mark, determining the position of the fine alignment mark in the silicon wafer workbench coordinate system according to the second image); and performing a fine alignment operation to compensate for a final alignment offset between a current position of the second alignment mark and a target position of the second alignment mark ([036] determining second position offset information of the silicon wafer after the movement relative to the mask according to the position of the fine alignment mark in the silicon wafer workbench coordinate system and the theoretical position of the fine alignment mark, and moving the silicon wafer according to the second position offset information).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a two-step process to align the specimen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include wherein the alignment operation comprises: performing a coarse alignment operation to identify a second alignment mark on the specimen ; and performing a fine alignment operation to compensate for a final alignment offset between a current position of the second alignment mark and a target position of the second alignment mark as suggested by Zhang in order to improve alignment accuracy ([0037]).
Further, although Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the inspection operation on the specimen is performed in response the final alignment offset being less than a second tolerance different from the first tolerance, Zhang teaches that the silicon wafer is moved according to the position offset information to ensure that the pattern on the mask plate is aligned to the corresponding position of the silicon wafer, thereby improving the alignment accuracy ([0037]). Additionally, as the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (1955). See MPEP 2144.05 Sec. II A. Therefore, would have been well known and obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reich such that the inspection operation on the specimen is performed in response the final alignment offset being less than a second tolerance different from the first tolerance in order to perform an accurate measurement.
Regarding claim 8, Reich modified by Zhang teaches the method of claim 7, but Reich is silent as to wherein the coarse alignment operation is completed when an image of the second alignment mark on the specimen is in focus.
However, Zhang does address this limitation.
Zhang teaches wherein the coarse alignment operation is completed when an image of the second alignment mark on the specimen is in focus ([0036] acquiring a second image of the silicon wafer after the movement acquired by a high-magnification CMOS camera, wherein the second image includes at least one second photolithography area, and the second photolithography area includes at least one fine alignment mark; the image includes the second alignment mark; [0073] high-quality image data source ).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the second alignment mark would be in focus in order to determine the position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include wherein the coarse alignment operation is completed when an image of the second alignment mark on the specimen is in focus in order to perform alignment using a high quality image source which reduces noise ([0073]).
Regarding claim 9, Reich modified by Zhang teaches the method of claim 7, but Reich is silent as to wherein the performing of the fine alignment operation to compensate for the final alignment offset between the current position of the second alignment mark and the target position of the second alignment mark comprises: determining a predicted alignment offset associated with the specimen based on a prediction model.
However, Zhang does address this limitation.
Zhang teaches wherein the performing of the fine alignment operation to compensate for the final alignment offset between the current position of the second alignment mark and the target position of the second alignment mark comprises: determining a predicted alignment offset associated with the specimen based on a prediction model ([0036] the theoretical position of the fine alignment mark; [0037] position offset information of the silicon wafer is determined according to the model).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a prediction model for alignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include wherein the performing of the fine alignment operation to compensate for the final alignment offset between the current position of the second alignment mark and the target position of the second alignment mark comprises: determining a predicted alignment offset associated with the specimen based on a prediction model as suggested by Zhang in order to perform a simple and accurate method ([0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Reich modified by Zhang teaches the method of claim 9, but Reich is silent as to wherein the performing of the fine alignment operation to compensate for the final alignment offset between the current position of the second alignment mark and the target position of the second alignment mark further comprises: capturing a second image of the second alignment mark on the specimen; determining a measured alignment offset between the current position of the second alignment mark and the target position of the second alignment mark based on the second image; and generating the final alignment offset based on the measured alignment offset and the predicted alignment offset.
However, Zhang does address this limitation.
Zhang teaches wherein the performing of the fine alignment operation to compensate for the final alignment offset between the current position of the second alignment mark and the target position of the second alignment mark further comprises:
capturing a second image of the second alignment mark on the specimen ([0036] determining the position of the fine alignment mark in the silicon wafer workbench coordinate system according to the second image);
determining a measured alignment offset between the current position of the second alignment mark and the target position of the second alignment mark based on the second image ([0036] determining second position offset information of the silicon wafer after the movement relative to the mask according to the position of the fine alignment mark in the silicon wafer workbench coordinate system and the theoretical position of the fine alignment mark); and
generating the final alignment offset based on the measured alignment offset and the predicted alignment offset ([0036] second position offset information is the final alignment offset from the position of the alignment mark and the theoretical or predicted offset).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate offset data based on measured and predicted data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include wherein the performing of the fine alignment operation to compensate for the final alignment offset between the current position of the second alignment mark and the target position of the second alignment mark further comprises: capturing a second image of the second alignment mark on the specimen; determining a measured alignment offset between the current position of the second alignment mark and the target position of the second alignment mark based on the second image; and generating the final alignment offset based on the measured alignment offset and the predicted alignment offset as suggested by Zhang in order to perform a simple and accurate method for wafer alignment ([0037]).
Regarding claim 11, Reich modified by Zhang teaches the method of claim 9, but Reich is silent as to further comprising performing a training on the prediction model using historical data including at least one of a specimen type, a pattern type, an exposure condition, an inspection history and calibration data of used specimens.
However, Zhang does address this limitation.
Zhang teaches performing a training on the prediction model using historical data including at least one of a specimen type, a pattern type, an exposure condition, an inspection history and calibration data of used specimens ([0037] a model is established through the positions of the coarse alignment mark and the fine alignment mark in the silicon wafer workbench coordinate system, thus an inspection history; [0104] independent variables of the regression model, use experimental data to estimate the values to construct the weight matrix).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to train the model on historical data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include performing a training on the prediction model using historical data including at least one of a specimen type, a pattern type, an exposure condition, an inspection history and calibration data of used specimens as suggested by Zhang in order to establish an efficient model.
Regarding claim 14, Reich as modified above teaches the method of claim 12, and although Reich teaches that some inspection system may use patterns or alignment marks formed on the specimens themselves to determine positional information about the data acquired during inspection with respect to the patterns or alignment marks ([0083], Reich is silent as to further comprising, prior to the inspection operation on the specimen, performing an alignment operation on the specimen to position the specimen by determining a position of a second alignment mark on the specimen.
However, Zhang does address this limitation. Zhang and Reich are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of wafer alignment.
Zhang teaches prior to the inspection operation on the specimen ([0005]-[0006] alignment is a key step in photolithography, for example each time the mask plate is replaced, it needs to be aligned with the silicon wafer to prepare the chip), performing an alignment operation on the specimen to position the specimen by determining a position of a second alignment mark on the specimen ([0036] acquiring a second image of the silicon wafer which includes the fine alignment mark, determining the position of the fine alignment mark in the silicon wafer workbench coordinate system according to the second image).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to align the specimen before inspection using a second alignment mark. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Reich to include prior to the inspection operation on the specimen, performing an alignment operation on the specimen to position the specimen by determining a position of a second alignment mark on the specimen as suggested by Zhang in order to improve alignment accuracy ([0037]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20130321811A1 by Maeda et al. teaches a method for measuring a relative position of a first mark and a second mark by using a detection optical system that irradiates a mark formed on the substrate to detect an image of the mark.
US20220100107A1 by Van De Groes et al. teaches a method of aligning a substrate within an apparatus which include coarse and fine alignment steps ([0059]).
US20220291590A1 by Su teaches a method for determining a model to predict overlay data associated with a current substrate being patterned.
US 20150179584 A1 by Woerz teaches an alignment mark arrangement may include a plurality of alignment marks and teaches cross-shaped alignment marks ([0045]).
WO2024235558A1 by Mernier et al. teaches a method of determining a performance drift model relating to an exposure apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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 at 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 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights