ASML Netherlands B.V.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.

17/418,741 06/25/2021 Ying LUO 14261.0185-00000 6599

148366 7590 06/03/2025 EXAMINER

Finnegan/ASML

901 New York Avenue NW

MCCORMACK, JASON L

Washington, DC 20001

ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER

2881

NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE

06/03/2025 ELECTRONIC

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es):

regional-desk@finnegan.com

PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

1

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte YING LUO, ZHONGHUA DONG, XUEHUI YIN, LONG DI,

NIANPEI DENG, WEI FANG, LINGLING PU, RUOCHONG FEI,

BOHANG ZHU, and YU LIU

Appeal 2024-003525

Application 17/418,741

Technology Center 2800

Before ERIC B. CHEN, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant¹appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-12, 14, and 15 of the pending claims. Final Act. 7-22.²We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

2

Appeal 2024-0033525 Application 17/418,741 We reverse.

II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

The Specification and claims are directed to "charged-particle beam systems" and more particularly to inspection systems for manufacturing integrated circuits "utilizing optical microscopes or charged particle (e.g., electron) beam microscopes, such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM)." Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3. The "charged-particle beam system comprises a stage configured to hold a sample and is movable in at least one of X-Y and Z axes." Id. ¶ 5. A position-sensing system determines lateral and vertical displacement of the stage and at least partly compensates for lateral and vertical displacement. Id. "The lateral displacement may correspond to a difference between a current position of the stage and a target position of the stage in the at least one of X-Y axes." Id.

Figure 3 is reproduced below.

Figure 3 is a schematic illustration of an exemplary charged-particle beam system.

2

Appeal 2024-0033525 Application 17/418,741 Spec. ¶ 41. As shown in Figure 3, the charged particle beam system 300 includes height sensor 340 and laser interferometer 350 to determine a lateral and a vertical displacement of the stage 201. Id. ¶¶ 66, 81. In response to determining the lateral displacement, a beam control module (such as beam control module 365 of Fig. 3) may apply a first high control-bandwidth signal to beam deflector (such as deflector array 320 of Fig. 3) to deflect a primary charged-particle beam incident on the wafer along a plane substantially perpendicular to the charged-particle beam. Id. The charged-particle beam system 300 includes a charged-particle beam column 310, a primary charged-particle beam 314 having an optical axis 312, a condenser lens 315 . . ., a deflector array 320 causing primary charged-particle beam 314 to deflect and form a deflected charged-particle beam 330 irradiating on wafer 203 disposed on stage 201, a height sensor 340, a laser interferometer 350, a system control module 360 comprising a stage control module 362 and a beam 25 control module 365, a beam deflection controller 367, a stage motion controller 370 comp1ising z-axis motion controllers 372, and an X-Y axes motion controller 374.

Id. ¶ 81.

The beam deflection controller 367 applies a first and second signal. Spec. ¶ 98. The first signal deflects primary charged-particle beam 314 incident on sample (e.g., wafer 203) "to at least partly compensate for the lateral displacement of stage 201." Id. The second signal is applied "to adjust a focus of deflected charged-particle beam 330 incident on wafer 203 to at least partly compensate for the vertical displacement of the stage." Id. The beam deflection controller 367 "may be configured to dynamically adjust at least one of the first signal and/or the second signal during scanning of primary charged-particle beam 314 on wafer 203," where dynamically

3

Appeal 2024-0033525 Application 17/418,741 adjusting means "continuously and iteratively adjusting the signal while the sample is being scanned or inspected." Id. ¶ 99.

For example, the position of stage 201 may be constantly monitored, measured, recorded and communicated to a controller such as beam deflection controller 367. Upon receiving updated position information including lateral displacement, vertical displacement, and/or pitch and roll error information, beam deflection controller 367 may adjust the signals to at least partly compensate for the displacement based on the information received.

Id.

The charged-particle system irradiates a sample to determine lateral displacement. Spec. ¶ 121. Lateral displacement is the difference between the current position and a target position of the stage in X-Y axes. Id. ¶ 123.

"[U]pon determining lateral displacement of the stage, the beam deflection controller of beam control module may apply a signal to a primary-beam deflector (e.g., deflector array 320 of Fig. 3)" and the "applied signal may cause the primary charged-particle beam to deflect in X or Y axis, or both, to compensate at least partly for lateral displacement of the stage." Id. ¶ 125. Vertical displacement is determined as "a difference between the current position and a target position of the stage in the Z-axis." Spec. ¶ 128.

[U]pon determining the vertical displacement of the stage, a beam deflection controller (e.g., beam deflection controller 367 of Fig. 3) may apply a signal to the stage to adjust a position of the focal plane of the primary charged-particle beam in the Z- axis by moving the stage along the Z-axis.

Id. ¶ 130.

4

Appeal 2024-0033525 Application 17/418,741 Claim 1 is reproduced below as illustrative, with disputed limitations in italics.

1. A charged-particle beam system comprising:

a stage configured to hold a sample and is movable in at least one of X-Y and Z axes;

a position sensing system configured to determine a lateral and vertical displacement of the stage; and a controller configured to:

apply a first signal to deflect a primary charged- particle beam incident on the sample to at least partly compensate for the lateral displacement of the stage; and apply a second signal to adjust a focus of a deflected charged-particle beam incident on the sample to at least partly compensate for the vertical displacement of the stage.

Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix 1).

III. REJECTIONS

1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al., US 2006/0060781 A1, published March 23, 2006 ("Watanabe"). Final Act. 6-11.

2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Sumi, US 4,063,103, issued December 13, 1977 ("Sumi"). Final Act. 11-13.

3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe. Final Act. 13.

4. Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Honjo et al., US 5,557,105 issued September 17, 1996 ("Honjo"). Final Act. 14-15.

5

Appeal 2024-0033525 Application 17/418,741

5. Claims 9, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Ono, US 5,780,943, issued July 14, 1998 ("Ono"). Final Act. 15-21.

6. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe, Honjo, and Muray et al., US 2015/0213995 A1, published July 30, 2015 ("Muray"). Final Act. 21-22.

IV. OPINION

Issue: Does Watanabe disclose "apply[ing] a first signal to deflect a primary charged-particle beam incident on the sample to at least partly compensate for the lateral displacement of the stage" (the "compensate for lateral displacement of the stage" limitation), as recited in claim 1? Appeal Br. 6-9.

The Examiner finds that the "compensate for lateral displacement of the stage" limitation is disclosed by Watanabe. Final Act. 7. The Examiner cites to Watanabe's disclosure of "stage scanning . . . performed by deflecting the beam of the charged particle beam optical system in the Y- axis direction and moving the stage in the X-axis direction to produce a two- dimensional image." Id. (quoting Watanabe ¶ 266). Watanabe further discloses, and the Examiner cites, a "scanning deflector 334 (102) [that] scans repeatedly electron beams in the X direction." See id. (citing Watanabe ¶ 303).

Appellant argues Watanabe does not "deflect" the beam to create the recited "lateral displacement of the stage." Appeal Br. 7. According toAppellant, "the only compensation that Watanabe contemplates is with respect to the surface height of the sample—not with respect to the lateral

6

Appeal 2024-0033525 Application 17/418,741 displacement." Id. Appellant reproduces paragraph 146 of Watanabe as follows:

A deflection control unit 47 supplies a deflection signal to the beam deflector 15 in accordance with a control command issued by the overall control unit 26. In this case, the deflection signal may be properly corrected so as to compensate for variations in magnification, which accompany variations in surface height of the sample 20 . . . .

Id. (quoting Watanabe ¶ 146). According to Appellant, the rejection does not "establish a prima facie case for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) based on Watanabe." Id. at 9 (citing Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal,, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). The Examiner finds that "at least partly compensate" is "interpreted to mean that the [beam] deflection has some dependence upon the stage displacement." Ans. 3-4. The Examiner further finds that "at least partly compensate" does not "imply any specific type of compensation, any particular variable which is compensated, nor does it require that the prior art may only anticipate such a limitation by specifically using the word 'compensate' in describing such a compensation." Id. at 4. The Examiner does not give credence to the Specification's disclosures relating to

"specific descriptions of the compensation" because they are not the broadest reasonable interpretation. Id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 64-65). Appellant argues "compensation must correspond to the displacement of the stage." Reply Br. 2. Appellant expands on this assertion to argue

"[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand that displacement of the stage would require that the stage be out of its usual or proper place." Id. We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree that

"compensation must correspond to the displacement of the stage." Reply

7

Appeal 2024-0033525 Application 17/418,741 Br. 2. The passages relied on by the Examiner from Watanabe do not disclose "lateral displacement" or compensation for such displacement. Watanabe discloses "compensat[ion] for variations in magnification, which accompany variations in surface height of the sample," i.e., in the vertical plane. The fact that Watanabe discloses vertical compensation does not support compensation for lateral displacement.

The Examiner contends that "synchronous" and "continuous"

movement between the beam and stage "implies a compensation." Ans. 4. The rejection appealed from is based on anticipation. The Examiner's conclusion that compensation is "implied" is unsupported by the evidence of record.

The Examiner relies on Watanabe's disclosure that "stage scanning is performed by deflecting the beam of the charged particle beam optical system in the Y-axis direction and moving the stage in the X-axis direction to produce a two-dimensional image." Watanabe ¶ 266. As Watanabe states, the result is to "produce a two-dimensional image." Id. Thus, not only does the intended purpose of Watanabe's beam deflection along a different axis than the stage movement differ from the claim's recitation of

"compensate for the lateral displacement of the stage," but we also understand it to produce a different result.

Claim 15 is an independent claim that Appellant argues is "of different scope" to claim 1 but "recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is therefore also patentable." Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner does not contend otherwise. We agree that claim 15's recitation of "apply a first signal to deflect the primary charged-particle beam incident on a sample on the stage to at least partly compensate for the lateral displacement

8

Appeal 2024-0033525 Application 17/418,741 determining a lateral displacement of a stage" is of similar scope to the

"compensate for lateral displacement of the stage" limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of independent claims 1 and 15.

V. CONCLUSION

We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 15. Claims 2-12 and 14 depend from claims 1 or 15, and the rejections to those claims are likewise not sustained.

In summary:

REVERSED

9