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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/09/2026 is/are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Office Action Summary
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-11, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Sagatelyan (WO 2010/034017 A2).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1) and Sagatelyan (WO 2010/034017 A2), further in view of Zeng et al (Hybrid III-V/IV Nanowires: High-Quality Ge Shell Epitaxy on GaAs Cores).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Kohyama (US 2006/0231826 A1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Komiya et al (US 5,740,226).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Levinson et al (US 2021/0382394 A1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Bell et al (US 2017/0097515 A1).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Kajbafvala (US 2024/0204057 A1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Miller et al (US 2014/0084157 A1).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Kuznetsov et al (US 2017/0287751 A1).
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.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/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 claim 10, the limitation “determine pixel intensities across the plurality of alternating layers in the image” lacks proper antecedent basis for “the plurality of alternating layers”. Claim 10 previously recites only “receive an image of a portion of a wafer” and does not previously introduce or define any “plurality of alternating layers”. Accordingly, it is unclear which plurality of alternating layers is referenced by the limitation “the plurality of alternating layers”.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations “wherein the first material is silicon, and the second material is silicon germanium” lack proper antecedent basis for “the first material” and “the second material”. Neither claim 10 nor intervening claim 11 previously introduces or defines a first material or a second material. Accordingly, it is unclear which materials are referenced by “the first material” and “the second material”.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-16 depend on claim 10 and therefore incorporate the indefiniteness of claim 10. Claim(s) 13 and 14-16 additionally depend, directly or indirectly, on claim 10 while relying on subject matter associated with the undefined wafer/layer structure. Thus, claim(s) 10-16 is/are indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-11, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1).
Regarding 1, 10, and 17, Fatih teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computer system (Figure 10; and Paragraph [0065]), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving an image of a portion of a wafer, wherein the wafer includes a plurality of alternating layers of a first material and a second material (Figure 9; and Paragraph [0062]: “semiconductor fabrication equipment 910 can include one or many deposition chambers configured to deposit alternating layers, such as alternating layers of a first material and a second material different from the first material […] Samples of these layered structures may be provided to an imaging device 920 of system 900. Imaging device 920 may be an SEM, a TEM, a STEM […]”);
determining pixel intensities across the plurality of alternating layers in the image (Figure 5; and Paragraph [0049]: “the rough boundary lines are automatically identified by calculating the average image intensity along the image tilt direction (e.g., from left to right or vice versa) as determined by the previous image tilt detection process and locating the sharp intensity changes. As shown on the right side of FIG. 5, one approach that can be used to automatically identify the rough boundary lines is to measure the average intensity of pixels in the vertical direction (i.e., from top to bottom or vice versa), quadratic fit the data, and then identify rough boundaries where the quadratic fit crosses a smoothed plot of the average intensities”);
fitting the pixel intensities to a model that is descriptive of a trend in the pixel intensities (Figure 5; Paragraph [0047]: “When determining the midpoints, a quadratic fit may be performed on the average intensities measured in the vertical direction. Multiple vertical samples can be taken, and the rough boundary lines can be formed based on fitting lines to the samples […]”; and Paragraph [0049]: “one approach that can be used to automatically identify the rough boundary lines is to measure the average intensity of pixels in the vertical direction (i.e., from top to bottom or vice versa), quadratic fit the data, and then identify rough boundaries where the quadratic fit crosses a smoothed plot of the average intensities”).
Fatih fails to teach determining a thickness for a first layer of the wafer based on the model. However, Ohtsuka teaches determining a thickness for a first layer of the wafer based on the model (Figure 3; Figure 4; Paragraph [0052]: “The analysis unit 15 analyzes the film thickness of the first film 4 and the film thickness of the second film 5 by curve fitting using this trend. That is, the analysis unit 15 calculates the film thickness of the first film 4 and the film thickness of the second film 5 in the measurement object S on the basis of a degree of fitting between the wavelength distribution of reflectance (a measured reflectance) which is actually measured and a theoretical reflectance (theoretical reflectance) when the film thickness has a predetermined value. In the curve fitting, the film thickness of the first film 4 and the film thickness of the second film 5 vary as analysis parameters, film thicknesses in which a fitting residual (for example, a square sum of differences between the measured reflectance and the theoretical reflectance) is the smallest are searched for, and the searched film thicknesses are determined as the film thickness of the first film 4 and the film thickness of the second film 5”; and Paragraph [0054]: “comparison between the measured reflectance and the theoretical reflectance in the analysis unit 15 is performed on the basis of a super-lattice model in which it is assumed that the film thickness of the first film 4 and the film thickness of the second film 5 are the same in each layer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Fatih to determine the layer thickness based on a fitted model, as taught by Ohtsuka. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to rapidly and accurately perform measurement of film thicknesses on a measurement object with a multi-layered film structure (Ohtsuka, Paragraph [0009]). This motivation for the combination of Fatih and Ohtsuka is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim(s) 2, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the method of claim 1, where Fatih teaches wherein the pixel intensities are based on an average of pixel intensities along an axis perpendicular to the plurality of alternating layers (Figure 1A; Figure 5; Paragraph [0033]: “FIG. 1A illustrates a cross-section of an exemplary semiconductor structure 100 having a stack of alternating silicon dioxide layers 104 and silicon nitride layers 106 […] Semiconductor structure 100 includes a substrate 102, such as a silicon substrate, and a stack of alternating silicon dioxide layers 104 and silicon nitride layers 106 above substrate 102. Silicon dioxide layers 104 and silicon nitride layers 106 alternate in the vertical direction”; and Paragraph [0049]: “As shown on the right side of FIG. 5, one approach that can be used to automatically identify the rough boundary lines is to measure the average intensity of pixels in the vertical direction (i.e., from top to bottom or vice versa), quadratic fit the data, and then identify rough boundaries where the quadratic fit crosses a smoothed plot of the average intensities”).
Regarding claim(s) 9, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the method of claim 1, where Fatih teaches wherein the method does not require determining thickness of the first layer by counting pixels along the thickness of the first layer (Figure 5; Figures 6A-6C; Paragraph [0049]: “There is no need to identify the rough boundary lines on a pixel by pixel basis. Instead, based on the previously determined tilt, the average image intensity of a tilted left-to-right line can be determined for each tilted line of the image. Then sharp intensity changes can be located by comparing the average intensities of the tilted lines to one another”; Paragraph [0052]: “The intensity separator may initially be picked as a value corresponding to an intensity of a smoothed plot of the intensity data crossing the rough boundary line. The average intensity to each side of the first picked value can be determined. Then, a new value for boundary can be picked as corresponding to a midpoint between the two intensities”; and Paragraph [0054]: “Once two vertically consecutive boundary lines are accepted, the distance between those two boundaries can be identified as the layer thickness for a sample of the layer bounded by the two vertically consecutive boundary lines”).
Regarding claim(s) 11, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the system of claim 10, where Fatih teaches wherein fitting the pixel intensities to the model generates a model of a series of peaks and valleys (Figure 5; Paragraph [0049]: “one approach that can be used to automatically identify the rough boundary lines is to measure the average intensity of pixels in the vertical direction (i.e., from top to bottom or vice versa), quadratic fit the data, and then identify rough boundaries where the quadratic fit crosses a smoothed plot of the average intensities”; and Paragraph [0050]: “The right-side image's x-axis may be the same as the y-axis of the left-side image (i.e., pixels from the top), and the right-side image's y-axis may be an intensity value”).
Regarding claim(s) 16, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the system of claim 10, where Fatih teaches wherein the system does not require multiple images obtained by transmission electron microscopy (Figure 4; Figure 5; Figure 8; Paragraph [0044]: “As shown on the left side of FIG. 4, a raw TEM image without down-sampling may be taken at the cross-section of a stack of alternating silicon dioxide layers and silicon nitride layers”; Paragraph [0049]: “As shown in FIG. 5 at left, rough boundary lines (represented by the dark dots) may be automatically found at each boundary layer between a silicon dioxide layer and a silicon nitride layer in the stack on the TEM image”; and Paragraph [0060]: “As shown in FIG. 8, on the left side, the raw TEM image of the layers may be provided with thickness measurements at usable samples overlaid”).
Regarding claim(s) 18, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, where Fatih teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors (Figure 10; and Paragraph [0065]) to perform further operations comprising adjusting parameters of a deposition process based at least in part on the thickness for the first layer of the wafer (Figure 3; Figure 8; Figure 9; Paragraph [0060]: “The same data may be provided to another computing device or software module to take a control action. For example, with apparently good results as shown, a control output to accept the currently produced materials and maintain manufacturing configurations may be decided. Alternatively, if the thickness density distribution were considered to have too high a variance, for example, the control action may be to reject currently produced materials (in whole or in part), to take a modification action regarding the manufacturing process, and/or to alert a human user to a possible fault condition”; and Paragraph [0061]: “method 300 can also include performing a control action with respect to fabrication of the semiconductor structure based on the output results […] The control action can include any of the following: maintaining production or fabrication of the semiconductor structure with existing settings, changing the setting for the production or fabrication of the semiconductor structure, discarding the semiconductor structure, or the like”).
Regarding claim(s) 19, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, where Fatih teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions cause the one or more processors (Figure 10; and Paragraph [0065]) to perform further operations comprising determining a second thickness for a second layer of the wafer (Figure 6A; Figure 8; Paragraph [0055]: “FIG. 6A illustrates a pair of boundaries in a stack of layers in an image, according to certain embodiments of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 6A, the pixels in a top layer may have relatively low average intensity, pixels in the middle layer may have relatively high average intensity, and pixels in the middle layer may have relatively low average intensity”; Paragraph [0059]: “each validated pair of boundary lines can be displayed with a connector, and thickness values can be displayed corresponding to thereto. Additionally, statistics can be provided, such as the average thickness, variance of thickness, and the like”; and Paragraph [0060]: “the raw TEM image of the layers may be provided with thickness measurements at usable samples overlaid”).
Regarding claim(s) 20, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (Figure 10; and Paragraph [0065]) of claim 19, where Fatih teaches wherein the second layer is adjacent to the first layer (Figure 1A; Figure 6A; Paragraph [0033]: “Silicon dioxide layers 104 and silicon nitride layers 106 alternate in the vertical direction. In other words, except for the ones at the top or bottom of the stack, each silicon dioxide layer 104 is adjoined by two silicon nitride layers 106 on both sides, and each silicon nitride layer 106 is adjoined by two silicon dioxide layers 104 on both sides”; and Paragraph [0054]: “Once two vertically consecutive boundary lines are accepted, the distance between those two boundaries can be identified as the layer thickness for a sample of the layer bounded by the two vertically consecutive boundary lines”).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Sagatelyan (WO 2010/034017 A2).
Regarding claim(s) 3, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach further comprising normalizing the model by removing background that can be modeled linearly. However, Sagatelyan teaches further comprising normalizing the model by removing background that can be modeled linearly (Figure 8; Paragraph [0101]: “An example spectrum 230 is shown to include a measured peak 232 that sits or assumed to sit on a linear or approximately linear local background 234 […]”; Paragraph [0102]: “Based on the knowledge of two such points […] a linear line can be defined between the two points”; and Paragraph [0103]: “the area underneath the linear line 234 can be subtracted from the area underneath the measured peak 232 so as to yield an area that corresponds to the background-subtracted peak 236 […] the measured peak 232 can be fit with the linear background assumption to yield properties […] of the background-subtracted peak 236”).
Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka does not expressly teach normalizing the model by removing background that can be modeled linearly. However, Sagatelyan teaches characterizing a measured peak that is situated on a “linear or approximately linear local background,” defining the background as a linear line, and subtracting the linear background from the measured peak to obtain a background-subtracted peak. Sagatelyan further teaches that “the measured peak 232 can be fit with the linear background assumption to yield properties [...] of the background-subtracted peak 236” (Sagatelyan, Paragraph [00101] – Paragraph [00103]).
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 the fitted pixel-intensity model of Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka by applying Sagatelyan’s known linear-background modeling and subtraction technique, in order to remove background contributions from the fitted intensity data and thereby obtain a background adjusted model suitable for more accurate quantitative characterization of the intensity profile. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to remove background contributions from the fitted intensity data and thereby obtain a background adjusted model suitable for more accurate quantitative characterization of the intensity profile. This motivation for the combination of Fatih, Ohtsuka, and Sagatelyan is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1) and Sagatelyan (WO 2010/034017 A2), further in view of Zeng et al (Hybrid III-V/IV Nanowires: High-Quality Ge Shell Epitaxy on GaAs Cores).
Regarding claim(s) 4, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka and Sagatelyan teaches the method of claim 3, but do not specifically teach wherein determining the thickness for a first layer of the wafer is based on determining a difference between half height points of a peak in the model. However, Zeng teaches wherein determining the thickness for a first layer of the wafer is based on determining a difference between half height points of a peak in the model (Figure 2: “The yellow square indicates the region used to generate the integrated intensity profile in (c). (c) The smoothed integrated intensity profile of the GaAs/Ge interface marked by the yellow square in (b). (d) The derivative of the smoothed integrated intensity. The blue curve indicates the Gaussian fit used to obtain the FWHM value that has been used to compare the thickness of the interface”; and Page 4, 2nd Paragraph: “The average thickness of the interface, calculated by the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the derivative of the intensity line profile is around 2.7 nm for this sample (Figure 2d)”).
Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka and Sagatelyan fails teach determining the thickness of a first layer based on determining a difference between half-height points of a peak in the model in the context of semiconductor image-based thickness measurement. However, Zeng teaches determining a physical thickness from an intensity profile obtained from an ADF-STEM image of a semiconductor structure, wherein “the average thickness of the interface, calculated by the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the derivative of the intensity line profile is around 2.7 nm for this sample (Figure 2d).” Zeng further teaches that “the blue curve indicates the Gaussian fit used to obtain the FWHM value that has been used to compare the thickness of the interface”.
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 the thickness-determination technique of Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka and Sagatelyan to determine thickness based on the full width at half maximum of a fitted intensity-profile peak, as taught by Zeng, in order to quantitatively determine physical thickness from a semiconductor STEM intensity profile using a fitted peak-width measurement. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to quantitatively determine physical thickness from a semiconductor STEM intensity profile using a fitted full-width-at-half-maximum measurement, as taught by Zeng. This motivation for the combination of Fatih, Ohtsuka, Sagatelyan, and Zeng is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Kohyama (US 2006/0231826 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 5, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the thickness of the first material is between 60 and 70 nanometers. However, Kohyama teaches wherein the thickness of the first material is between 60 and 70 nanometers (Figure 19; and Paragraph [0034]: “Referring to FIG. 19, in situ Boron-doped SiGe is epitaxially grown on the recessed step regions 1401, 1701, resulting in a SiGe layer 1901 that is approximately 60-70 nm in thickness”).
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 the thickness of a material layer of Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka to be between 60 and 70 nanometers, as taught by Kohyama, because selecting a known suitable layer thickness would have been a predictable variation of the semiconductor structure to provide a layer having a desired physical dimension suitable for the particular semiconductor device. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to employ a known semiconductor layer thickness suitable for obtaining desired semiconductor device properties, because Kohyama teaches that the particular dimensions of the SiGe layer may depend upon the desired properties of the PFET. This motivation for the combination of Fatih, Ohtsuka, and Kohyama is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Komiya et al (US 5,740,226).
Regarding claim(s) 6, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein determining the thickness of the first layer has a maximum measurement error of 0.05 nanometers. However, Komiya teaches wherein determining the thickness of the first layer has a maximum measurement error of 0.05 nanometers (Col. 8, lines 65-67 – Col. 9, lines 1-2: “It was found that a film thickness can be measured with a measuring precision having an about 0.05 nm allowable error by the use of the film thickness measuring method according to the present embodiment”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the known high-precision film-thickness measurement teachings of Komiya in the thickness determination of Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka to improve the precision and reliability of the resulting film-thickness measurement. This motivation for the combination of Fatih, Ohtsuka, and Komiya is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Levinson et al (US 2021/0382394 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 7, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the model comprises a hyper-Gaussian model. However, Levinson teaches wherein the model comprises a hyper-Gaussian model (Paragraph [0055]: “the contributing kernel is represented by a Gaussian representation, a hyper/super Gaussian representation, a Lorentzian representation, a Voigt representation, etc.”).
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 the fitted intensity model of Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka to employ a hyper-Gaussian model, as taught by Levinson, because Levinson teaches the hyper/super Gaussian representation as a known alternative representation for modeling spatially varying signal contributions, thereby providing a known mathematical representation for characterizing the signal distribution. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to employ a known mathematical representation for characterizing spatially varying signal contributions, because Levinson teaches a hyper/super Gaussian representation as one of the alternative representations for the contributing kernel. This motivation for the combination of Fatih, Ohtsuka, and Levinson is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Bell et al (US 2017/0097515 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 8, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the method of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the model comprises a hyper-Lorentzian model. However, Bell teaches wherein the model comprises a hyper-Lorentzian model (Figure 9; and Paragraph [0059]: “FIG. 9 shows an intensity profile exhibiting a much improved super-Lorentzian behavior over the entire range of angles with p=40, and lens feature sizes ≤160 μm”).
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 the fitted intensity model of Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka to employ a hyper-Lorentzian model, in view of Bell's teaching of a super-Lorentzian representation for characterizing an intensity profile, as a known Lorentzian-type representation for characterizing the shape of an intensity profile. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to employ a known Lorentzian-type representation for characterizing an intensity profile, as Bell teaches an intensity profile exhibiting “super-Lorentzian characteristics” and “super-Lorentzian behavior”. This motivation for the combination of Fatih, Ohtsuka, and Bess is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Kajbafvala (US 2024/0204057 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 12, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the system of claim 10, but do not specifically teach wherein the first material is silicon, and the second material is silicon germanium. However, Kajbafvala teaches wherein the first material is silicon, and the second material is silicon germanium (Paragraph [0004]: “a semiconductor stacked structure composed of alternating layers of silicon germanium (SiGe layers) and silicon (Si layers) can be formed by sequentially depositing the SiGe layers and the Si layers on a surface of a substrate”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the thickness-measurement system of Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka to a known semiconductor stacked structure comprising alternating silicon and silicon germanium layers, as taught by Kajbafvala. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to facilitate thickness characterization of a semiconductor stacked structure having SiGe/Si bilayers with high quality, abrupt, sharp interface layers, as taught by Kajbafvala. This motivation for the combination of Fatih, Ohtsuka, and Kajbafvala is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim(s) 13, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the system of claim 10, but do not specifically teach wherein the thickness of the first material is between 8 and 10 nanometers. However, Kajbafvala teaches wherein the thickness of the first material is between 8 and 10 nanometers (Paragraph [0104]: “In some embodiments, the average layer thickness of the first layer comprising SiGe formed during sub-step 402 can be between greater than zero or 2 nm and 10 nm, between 2 nm and 20 nm, or between 2 nm and 100 nm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a thickness between 8 and 10 nanometers for the first material layer of Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka, as taught by Kajbafvala, because the claimed thickness range falls within the expressly disclosed range of 2 to 10 nanometers. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to provide a semiconductor stacked structure having SiGe/Si bilayers with high quality, abrupt, sharp interface layers, as taught by Kajbafvala. This motivation for the combination of Fatih, Ohtsuka, and Kajbafvala is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Miller et al (US 2014/0084157 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 14, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the system of claim 10, but do not specifically teach wherein the portion of the wafer is a lamella extracted from the wafer, and wherein the image is an image of an entirety of the lamella. However, Miller teaches wherein the portion of the wafer is a lamella extracted from the wafer, and wherein the image is an image of an entirety of the lamella (Paragraph [0006]: “In a TEM, a broad beam impacts the sample and electrons that are transmitted through the sample are focused to form an image of the sample”; Paragraph [0043]: “Preferred embodiments of the present invention provide for improved methods for lamella creation from wafers and use of the lamella in ex-situ processes. More specifically, preferred embodiments make lamellas in asymmetric shapes before they are extracted and placed on specified carbon grids containing a carbon film with sizeable holes”; and Paragraph [0044]: “Under the traditional methods of TEM analysis, a broad beam of electrons is projected and passes through lamella 27 and passes through carbon film 19. The electrons that are transmitted through the lamella 27 and the carbon film 19 and are then focused to form an image of the sample”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the image used in the system of Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka and Miller to encompass the entirety of the extracted lamella. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to facilitate recognition of the orientation of the lamella and identification of the region of interest during imaging, as taught by Miller. This motivation for the combination of Fatih, Ohtsuka, and Miller is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fatih (US 2021/0295496 A1) in view of Ohtsuka (US 2021/0080250 A1), further in view of Kuznetsov et al (US 2017/0287751 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 15, Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka teaches the system of claim 10, where Ohtsuka teaches wherein fitting the pixel intensities to the model includes determining a best model (Paragraph [0052]: “In the curve fitting, the film thickness of the first film 4 and the film thickness of the second film 5 vary as analysis parameters, film thicknesses in which a fitting residual (for example, a square sum of differences between the measured reflectance and the theoretical reflectance) is the smallest are searched for, and the searched film thicknesses are determined as the film thickness of the first film 4 and the film thickness of the second film 5”).
Fatih and Ohtsuka fails to teach wherein fitting the pixel intensities to the model includes determining a best model based on nonlinear regression.
However, Kuznetsov teaches wherein fitting the pixel intensities to the model includes determining a best model based on nonlinear regression (Paragraph [0057]: “In some embodiments, a metrology tool employs a physically based measurement model to estimate the values of structural parameters of interest from measurement data (e.g., measured spectra). Metrology techniques employing physical, model based measurements typically require a parameterized, geometric model of the patterned structure. Exemplary parameters include critical dimension, pitch walk, or other parameters of interest. In addition, an accurate electromagnetic model of the interaction between the optical system and the structure under measurement is required to simulate signals generated during measurement. Nonlinear regression of simulated signals against measured signals is applied to determine parameters of the modeled structure. This approach requires accurate modeling of the structure and the material properties”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the nonlinear regression technique taught by Kuznetsov in performing the model fitting of Fatih as modified by Ohtsuka to determine the model parameters providing the best fit between the measured data and the modeled data. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to determine the model parameters that provide a best fit between measured data and modeled data, thereby improving the accuracy of semiconductor metrology. This motivation for the combination of Fatih, Ohtsuks, and Kuznetsov is/are supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Kononchuk (US 2018/0347966 A1) are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Kononchuk discloses A method for measuring thickness variations in a first layer of a multilayer semiconductor structure, comprising: acquiring, with an image acquisition system, an image of at least one zone of the surface of the structure, the image being obtained by reflecting a quasi-monochromatic light flux on the zone of the surface of the structure, processing the acquired image so as to determine, from intensity variations of the light reflected by the zone of the surface, a map of the thickness variations of the first layer, the treatment comprising comparing the intensity of each pixel of the image with a predetermined calibration curve defining a relationship between the intensity of a pixel of the acquired image and a local thickness of the first layer, 5-the calibration curve being determined for a given thickness of a second layer of the structure different from the first layer, wherein the wavelength of the quasi-monochromatic light flux is selected so as to correspond to a minimum of the sensitivity of the reflectivity with respect to the second layer, the sensitivity of the reflectivity with respect to a layer being equal to the ratio between: (i) the difference between the reflectivities of two multilayer structures for which the considered layer has a given thickness difference, and (ii) the given thickness difference, the thicknesses of the other layers being identical in the two multilayer structures, measuring, in particular by ellipsometry, the thickness of the second layer in the at least one zone of the surface of the structure, if the measured thickness is different from the thickness of the second layer considered in the calibration curve, applying a correction curve to the map of the thickness variations, wherein the correction curve defines, for the measured thickness of the second layer, a relationship between a thickness of the first layer and a correction factor to apply to the map of the thickness variations of the first layer, so as to determine a corrected map of thickness variations of the first layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONGBONG NAH whose telephone number is (571) 272-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, ONEAL MISTRY can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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.
/JONGBONG NAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights