Patent Application
20240346200
This application claims priority of EP application Ser. No. 21/195,360.9 which was filed on Sep. 7, 2021 and EP application Ser. No. 21/211,785.7 which was filed on Dec. 1, 2021 which are incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.
The present invention relates to a metrology apparatus and methods usable, for example, to perform metrology in the manufacture of devices by lithographic techniques. The invention further relates to such methods for monitoring edge placement error or a related metric in a lithographic process.
A lithographic apparatus is a machine that applies a desired pattern onto a substrate, usually onto a target portion of the substrate. A lithographic apparatus can be used, for example, in the manufacture of integrated circuits (ICs). In that instance, a patterning device, which is alternatively referred to as a mask or a reticle, may be used to generate a circuit pattern to be formed on an individual layer of the IC. This pattern can be transferred onto a target portion (e.g., including part of, one, or several dies) on a substrate (e.g., a silicon wafer). Transfer of the pattern is typically via imaging onto a layer of radiation-sensitive material (resist) provided on the substrate. In general, a single substrate will contain a network of adjacent target portions that are successively patterned.
In lithographic processes, it is desirable frequently to make measurements of the structures created, e.g., for process control and verification. Various tools for making such measurements are known, including scanning electron microscopes, which are often used to measure critical dimension (CD), and specialized tools to measure overlay, the accuracy of alignment of two layers in a device. Recently, various forms of scatterometers have been developed for use in the lithographic field. These devices direct a beam of radiation onto a target and measure one or more properties of the scattered radiation—e.g., intensity at a single angle of reflection as a function of wavelength; intensity at one or more wavelengths as a function of reflected angle; or polarization as a function of reflected angle—to obtain a diffraction “spectrum” from which a property of interest of the target can be determined.
Examples of known scatterometers include angle-resolved scatterometers of the type described in US2006033921A1 and US2010201963A1. The targets used by such scatterometers are relatively large, e.g., 40 μm by 40 μm, gratings and the measurement beam generates a spot that is smaller than the grating (i.e., the grating is underfilled). Examples of dark field imaging metrology can be found in international patent applications US20100328655A1 and US2011069292A1 which documents are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety. Further developments of the technique have been described in published patent publications US20110027704A, US20110043791A, US2011102753A1, US20120044470A, US20120123581A, US20130258310A, US20130271740A and WO2013178422A1. These targets can be smaller than the illumination spot and may be surrounded by product structures on a wafer. Multiple gratings can be measured in one image, using a composite grating target. The contents of all these applications are also incorporated herein by reference.
Monitoring of patterning performance has been based on separate monitoring of process metrics such as inter alia overlay and CD. However, more recently, a preferred patterning performance metric is edge placement error (EPE). The position of the edge of a feature is determined by the feature's lateral position (Overlay) and the size of the feature (CD). Part of this is very local and stochastic in nature; e.g., dependent on local overlay (LOVL) and local CD uniformity (LCDU). Also, Line Edge Roughness (LER) and line width roughness (LWR) may result in very local CD variations. All of these may be important contributors to the EPE performance.
EPE may be measured directly via scanning electron microscope (SEM) inspection, examples of which include e-beam metrology or e-beam inspection. However, this can only be done after the die is completed. Additionally, decapping may be required prior to SEM measurement, which is destructive and wasteful and therefore comes at high cost. Because of this, EPE may be reconstructed from other metrics.
It would be desirable to provide an improved method for reconstructing EPE.
The invention in a first aspect provides a computer program for determining a placement metric relating to placement of one or more features on a substrate in a lithographic process, the computer program comprising computer readable instructions configured to: obtain setup data comprising placement error contributor data relating to a plurality of placement error contributor parameters and yield data representative of yield; define a statistical model for predicting a yield metric, said statistical model being based on a placement metric, said placement metric being a function of said placement error contributor parameters, and associated model coefficients; fit said model coefficients based on said setup data; and determine said placement metric from said fitted model coefficients.
Further features and advantages of the invention, as well as the structure and operation of various embodiments of the invention, are described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. It is noted that the invention is not limited to the specific embodiments described herein. Such embodiments are presented herein for illustrative purposes only. Additional embodiments will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant art(s) based on the teachings contained herein.
Embodiments of the invention will now be described, by way of example only, with reference to the accompanying schematic drawings in which corresponding reference symbols indicate corresponding parts, and in which:
Before describing embodiments of the invention in detail, it is instructive to present an example environment in which embodiments of the present invention may be implemented.
The illumination system may include various types of optical components, such as refractive, reflective, magnetic, electromagnetic, electrostatic or other types of optical components, or any combination thereof, for directing, shaping, or controlling radiation.
The patterning device support holds the patterning device in a manner that depends on the orientation of the patterning device, the design of the lithographic apparatus, and other conditions, such as for example whether or not the patterning device is held in a vacuum environment. The patterning device support can take many forms; the patterning device support may ensure that the patterning device is at a desired position, for example with respect to the projection system.
The term “patterning device” used herein should be broadly interpreted as referring to any device that can be used to impart a radiation beam with a pattern in its cross-section such as to create a pattern in a target portion of the substrate. It should be noted that the pattern imparted to the radiation beam may not exactly correspond to the desired pattern in the target portion of the substrate, for example if the pattern includes phase-shifting features or so called assist features. Generally, the pattern imparted to the radiation beam will correspond to a particular functional layer in a device being created in the target portion, such as an integrated circuit.
As here depicted, the apparatus is of a transmissive type (e.g., employing a transmissive patterning device). Alternatively, the apparatus may be of a reflective type (e.g., employing a programmable mirror array of a type as referred to above, or employing a reflective mask). Examples of patterning devices include masks, programmable mirror arrays, and programmable LCD panels. Any use of the terms “reticle” or “mask” herein may be considered synonymous with the more general term “patterning device.” The term “patterning device” can also be interpreted as referring to a device storing in digital form pattern information for use in controlling such a programmable patterning device.
The term “projection system” used herein should be broadly interpreted as encompassing any type of projection system, including refractive, reflective, catadioptric, magnetic, electromagnetic and electrostatic optical systems, or any combination thereof, as appropriate for the exposure radiation being used, or for other factors such as the use of an immersion liquid or the use of a vacuum. Any use of the term “projection lens” herein may be considered as synonymous with the more general term “projection system”.
The lithographic apparatus may also be of a type wherein at least a portion of the substrate may be covered by a liquid having a relatively high refractive index, e.g., water, so as to fill a space between the projection system and the substrate. An immersion liquid may also be applied to other spaces in the lithographic apparatus, for example, between the mask and the projection system. Immersion techniques are well known in the art for increasing the numerical aperture of projection systems.
In operation, the illuminator IL receives a radiation beam from a radiation source SO. The source and the lithographic apparatus may be separate entities, for example when the source is an excimer laser. In such cases, the source is not considered to form part of the lithographic apparatus and the radiation beam is passed from the source SO to the illuminator IL with the aid of a beam delivery system BD including, for example, suitable directing mirrors and/or a beam expander. In other cases the source may be an integral part of the lithographic apparatus, for example when the source is a mercury lamp. The source SO and the illuminator IL, together with the beam delivery system BD if required, may be referred to as a radiation system.
The illuminator IL may for example include an adjuster AD for adjusting the angular intensity distribution of the radiation beam, an integrator IN and a condenser CO. The illuminator may be used to condition the radiation beam, to have a desired uniformity and intensity distribution in its cross section.
The radiation beam B is incident on the patterning device MA, which is held on the patterning device support MT, and is patterned by the patterning device. Having traversed the patterning device (e.g., mask) MA, the radiation beam B passes through the projection system PS, which focuses the beam onto a target portion C of the substrate W. With the aid of the second positioner PW and position sensor IF (e.g., an interferometric device, linear encoder, 2-D encoder or capacitive sensor), the substrate table WTa or WTb can be moved accurately, e.g., so as to position different target portions C in the path of the radiation beam B. Similarly, the first positioner PM and another position sensor (which is not explicitly depicted in
Patterning device (e.g., reticle/mask) MA and substrate W may be aligned using mask alignment marks M1, M2 and substrate alignment marks P1, P2. Although the substrate alignment marks as illustrated occupy dedicated target portions, they may be located in spaces between target portions (these are known as scribe-lane alignment marks). Similarly, in situations in which more than one die is provided on the patterning device (e.g., mask) MA, the mask alignment marks may be located between the dies. Small alignment mark may also be included within dies, in amongst the device features, in which case it is desirable that the markers be as small as possible and not require any different imaging or process conditions than adjacent features. The alignment system, which detects the alignment markers is described further below.
The depicted apparatus could be used in a variety of modes. In a scan mode, the patterning device support (e.g., mask table) MT and the substrate table WT are scanned synchronously while a pattern imparted to the radiation beam is projected onto a target portion C (i.e., a single dynamic exposure). The speed and direction of the substrate table WT relative to the patterning device support (e.g., mask table) MT may be determined by the (de-)magnification and image reversal characteristics of the projection system PS. In scan mode, the maximum size of the exposure field limits the width (in the non-scanning direction) of the target portion in a single dynamic exposure, whereas the length of the scanning motion determines the height (in the scanning direction) of the target portion. Other types of lithographic apparatus and modes of operation are possible, as is well-known in the art. For example, a step mode is known. In so-called “maskless” lithography, a programmable patterning device is held stationary but with a changing pattern, and the substrate table WT is moved or scanned.
Combinations and/or variations on the above described modes of use or entirely different modes of use may also be employed.
Lithographic apparatus LA is of a so-called dual stage type which has two substrate tables WTa, WTb and two stations—an exposure station EXP and a measurement station MEA—between which the substrate tables can be exchanged. While one substrate on one substrate table is being exposed at the exposure station, another substrate can be loaded onto the other substrate table at the measurement station and various preparatory steps carried out. This enables a substantial increase in the throughput of the apparatus. The preparatory steps may include mapping the surface height contours of the substrate using a level sensor LS and measuring the position of alignment markers on the substrate using an alignment sensor AS. If the position sensor IF is not capable of measuring the position of the substrate table while it is at the measurement station as well as at the exposure station, a second position sensor may be provided to enable the positions of the substrate table to be tracked at both stations, relative to reference frame RF. Other arrangements are known and usable instead of the dual-stage arrangement shown. For example, other lithographic apparatuses are known in which a substrate table and a measurement table are provided. These are docked together when performing preparatory measurements, and then undocked while the substrate table undergoes exposure.
As shown in
In order that the substrates that are exposed by the lithographic apparatus are exposed correctly and consistently, it is desirable to inspect exposed substrates to measure properties such as overlay errors between subsequent layers, line thicknesses, critical dimensions (CD), etc. Accordingly a manufacturing facility in which lithocell LC is located also includes metrology system MET which receives some or all of the substrates W that have been processed in the lithocell. Metrology results are provided directly or indirectly to the supervisory control system SCS. If errors are detected, adjustments may be made to exposures of subsequent substrates, especially if the inspection can be done soon and fast enough that other substrates of the same batch are still to be exposed. Also, already exposed substrates may be stripped and reworked to improve yield, or discarded, thereby avoiding performing further processing on substrates that are known to be faulty. In a case where only some target portions of a substrate are faulty, further exposures can be performed only on those target portions which are good.
Within metrology system MET, an inspection apparatus is used to determine the properties of the substrates, and in particular, how the properties of different substrates or different layers of the same substrate vary from layer to layer. The inspection apparatus may be integrated into the lithographic apparatus LA or the lithocell LC or may be a stand-alone device. To enable most rapid measurements, it is desirable that the inspection apparatus measure properties in the exposed resist layer immediately after the exposure. However, the latent image in the resist has a very low contrast—there is only a very small difference in refractive index between the parts of the resist which have been exposed to radiation and those which have not—and not all inspection apparatus have sufficient sensitivity to make useful measurements of the latent image. Therefore measurements may be taken after the post-exposure bake step (PEB) which is customarily the first step carried out on exposed substrates and increases the contrast between exposed and unexposed parts of the resist. At this stage, the image in the resist may be referred to as semi-latent. It is also possible to make measurements of the developed resist image—at which point either the exposed or unexposed parts of the resist have been removed—or after a pattern transfer step such as etching. The latter possibility limits the possibilities for rework of faulty substrates but may still provide useful information.
A metrology apparatus suitable for use in embodiments of the invention is shown in
As shown in
At least the 0 and +1 orders diffracted by the target structure T on substrate W are collected by objective lens 16 and directed back through beam splitter 15. Returning to
A second beam splitter 17 divides the diffracted beams into two measurement branches. In a first measurement branch, optical system 18 forms a diffraction spectrum (pupil plane image) of the target structure on first sensor 19 (e.g. a CCD or CMOS sensor) using the zeroth and first order diffractive beams. Each diffraction order hits a different point on the sensor, so that image processing can compare and contrast orders. The pupil plane image captured by sensor 19 can be used for focusing the metrology apparatus and/or normalizing intensity measurements of the first order beam. The pupil plane image can also be used for many measurement purposes such as reconstruction.
In the second measurement branch, optical system 20, 22 forms an image of the target structure T on sensor 23 (e.g. a CCD or CMOS sensor). In the second measurement branch, an aperture stop 21 is provided in a plane that is conjugate to the pupil-plane. Aperture stop 21 functions to block the zeroth order diffracted beam so that the image of the target formed on sensor 23 is formed only from the −1 or +1 first order beam. The images captured by sensors 19 and 23 are output to processor PU which processes the image, the function of which will depend on the particular type of measurements being performed. Note that the term ‘image’ is used here in a broad sense. An image of the grating lines as such will not be formed, if only one of the −1 and +1 orders is present.
Position errors may occur due to an overlay error (often referred to as “overlay”). The overlay is the error in placing a first feature during a first exposure relative to a second feature during a second exposure. The lithographic apparatus minimizes the overlay errors by aligning each substrate accurately to a reference prior to patterning. This is done by measuring positions of alignment marks on the substrate using an alignment sensor. More information on the alignment procedure can be found in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2010-0214550, which is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference. Pattern dimensioning (e.g., CD) errors may, for example, occur when the substrate is not positioned correctly with respect to a focal plane of the lithographic apparatus. These focal position errors may be associated with un-flatness of a substrate surface. The lithographic apparatus aims to minimize these focal positon errors by measuring the substrate surface topography prior to patterning using a level sensor. Substrate height corrections are applied during subsequent patterning to help assure correct imaging (focusing) of the patterning device onto the substrate. More information on the level sensor system can be found in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2007-0085991, which is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.
Besides the lithographic apparatus LA and the metrology apparatus MT, one or more other processing apparatuses may be used during device production as well. An etching station (not shown) processes the substrates after exposure of the pattern into the resist. The etch station transfers the pattern from the resist into one or more layers underlying the resist layer. Typically etching is based on application of a plasma medium. One or more local etching characteristics may e.g. be controlled using temperature control of the substrate or directing the plasma medium using a voltage controlled ring. More information on etching control can be found in PCT Patent Application Publication No. WO 2011-081645 and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006-016561, which are incorporated herein in their entireties by reference.
During the manufacturing of devices, it is desired that the process conditions for processing substrates using one or more processing apparatuses such as the lithographic apparatus or etching station remain stable such that properties of the features remain within certain control limits. Stability of the process is of particular significance for features of the functional parts of an electric device such as an IC, also referred to as product features. To help ensure stable processing, process control capabilities should be in place. Process control involves monitoring of processing data and implementation of means for process correction, e.g. control a processing apparatus based on one or more characteristics of the processing data. Process control may be based on periodic measurement by the metrology apparatus MT, often referred to as “Advanced Process Control” (further also referenced to as APC). More information on APC can be found in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012-008127, which is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference. A typical APC implementation involves periodic measurements on metrology features on the substrates to monitor and correct drifts associated with one or more processing apparatuses. The metrology features reflect the response to process variations of the product features. The sensitivity of the metrology features to process variations may be different compared to the sensitivity to the product features. In that case, a so-called “Metrology To Device” offset (also referenced to as MTD) may be determined. One reason for this is MTD offset is that the actual product structures are often much (orders of magnitude) smaller than the size of the target structures which are required for scatterometry or imaging measurements, and this difference in size can result in different parameter behavior (e.g., pattern placement and resulting overlay for metrology targets may differ from pattern placement and resulting overlay of actual structures). To mimic the behavior of product features, features within the metrology targets may be made smaller (e.g., of comparable size to the product structures, which can be referred to as at-resolution overlay ARO), incorporate segmented features, assist features or features with a particular geometry and/or dimension. A carefully designed metrology target ideally should respond in a similar fashion to process variations as do the product features. More information on metrology target design can be found in PCT Patent Application Publication No. WO 2015-101458 which is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.
In another approach, metrology may be performed directly on the product structure. This can be done using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) or an e-beam metrology apparatus for example. However, these devices are typically too slow for process control in a commercial (high-volume manufacturing HVM) environment. Another alternative, referred to as in-device metrology IDM, may comprise using a scatterometer based metrology apparatus to measure the product structure (e.g., which has sufficient regularization) directly. Such product structure may have sufficient regularization such that it can act as an effective diffraction grating. Modern scatterometry tools such as illustrated in
Edge placement error (EPE) may be defined as the tolerance of the relative placement of two edges. An EPE which exceeds or is less than the designed EPE margin may cause the local device feature to fail, e.g., by not providing the correct electrical connection or insulation between two layers and/or features; the larger the magnitude of any deviation from designed EPE margin, the greater the probability of failure. EPE variation (e.g., in a single machine/chuck/reticle scenario) may be caused by variation in a number of contributory process parameters which may include, for example: overlay, CD-uniformity (CDU) of the two layers and Line-Width-Roughness (LWR) of the two layers.
Both global parameters and local parameters contribute to the EPE budget. Global parameters may include, for example, one or more of: global overlay, global critical dimension (CD), global tilt and global contact area (CA)/global EPE between structures in successive layers, critical dimension uniformity (CDU), line width roughness (LWR), or line edge roughness (LER). Local parameters may include one or more of: local CD, local overlay (LOVL), local CA/local EPE, local tilt, local side wall angle (SWA), local line placement. The local parameters in particular manifest at spatial scales which are too small to measure using some relatively fast metrology tools such as scatterometers; e.g., those which typically integrate signals across an area (spot size) larger than said spatial scale of variation, and are therefore presently monitored using SEMs (e.g., e-beam tools) or similar tools.
For critical patterning layers, it is desirable to monitor, control and setup a lithographic process based on a placement metric such as an EPE metric, as opposed to using separate overlay and CD metrics, as has been typically the case in the past. Such a combined metric approach provides an improved accuracy.
EPE can be measured directly using for example an SEM (e-beam) metrology tool. However; such direct measurement can only be performed after all the patterning steps of all relevant layers are completed. Additionally, such metrology may be destructive (requiring decapping of the device), rendering the measured device as scrap. It is expected that an EPE metric will correlate highly to local device electrical test measurements, such as Voltage Contrast (VC), etc., and therefore will be indicative of yield.
Because of this, the EPE metric may be reconstructed from measured contributor parameter values such as overlay and CD (e.g., CD stochastic metrology) in monitoring and control applications. Existing EPE reconstruction methods are geometry based; e.g., they use the geometry of the pattern of the relevant two layers to define a formula for reconstructed EPE based on the local statistics of its contributors in a field-of-view (FOV) of an e-beam or other SEM metrology device. Such a geometry based reconstruction method can be summarized in the following steps:
There are some significant limitations in such a geometric approach. One such limitation is that it is not possible to include multiple quantile value statistics in the geometric formula. There can be loss of critical information due to the use of certain quantile value statistics. The underlying assumption in the geometric model is that the contributors are independent. However, in practice there can be cross-correlation between contributors due to imperfections in the metrology process and common variation root-causes. Additionally, there is no flexibility in the EPE contributors included. As already stated, EPE may be dependent on parameters other than overlay and CD (e.g., LWR), and therefore improved performance may be obtained by including other EPE contributors in the model. The lack of such relevant contributors may introduce a bias and therefore, ideally, the model should be corrected for any biases introduced by missing contributors that correlate with included contributors.
To address the shortcomings of using geometry-driven only approach, a data-driven placement metric or EPE reconstruction method will now be described.
At step 400, setup data is obtained. The setup data may comprise the same overlay, CD and VC data as that described for the geometry based approach discussed above (and as such, step 1 of that method may be applicable to this step). More generally, the VC data may be any yield data or failure analysis data indicative of whether a particular feature or combination of features will function (whether obtained from voltage contrast metrology methods, or otherwise). The CD distribution data for each layer may comprise any suitable distribution measure, such as any suitable CD average, standard deviation of CD or 99 percentile of CD. Also, as will be explained, the model used in this embodiment is flexible and may include one or more EPE contributor variables additional to overlay and CD.
At step 410, a statistical model is defined which provides a prediction indicative of yield or a yield proxy metric. Such a yield proxy may be, for example, the number of successful VC bits in a sample (e.g., within the FOV of a metrology tool) based on measurements of a number of EPE contributors associated with the FOV. The model may be based on generalized linear model (GLM) technique and may support the following structural properties:
An alternative metric scale constraint may comprise constraining the magnitude of the rate of change of the metric m to be two times the magnitude of the rate of change of the reference CD measurement of either (or any) layer:
These metric scale constraints are based on the definition of EPE; for example, EPE is, by definition, on the same scale as overlay.
A further constraint may comprise a metric bias constraint where the probability of success is constrained to be half (p=½) when metric m is equal to the designed EPE margin. Again this is based on the definition of EPE.
At step 420 the coefficients of the function f (i.e., EPE metric m) and parameters {σ, μ} are fitted. This fitting step may use the setup data based on, for example, a maximum-likelihood estimation using a binomial probability density function (PDF) as the likelihood function. While a linear mapping is described, a higher order model may be used. If ϕ and function f is not normal-linear and/or the yield parameter is not derived by binomial distribution, then conventional model selection strategies based on cross-validation may be used to find the best combination of ϕ and function f and likelihood function of the yield parameters.
At step 430 the reconstructed EPE metric m is used for monitoring and/or control of the lithographic process. For example, the EPE metric may be translated to a yield probability value which can be used to monitor the process. Such a yield probability value may be used to make rework or guided inspection decisions for example. For a control example, it is possible to observe which parameters result in poor yield as it will be clear from the fitted values which parameters (e.g., CDL1, CDL2, overlay) should be improved to bring yield into scope from the trained coefficients/model. Corrections for an applicable process can then be determined and applied to improve the yield and bring it into scope.
In the above description, the EPE metric is described in terms of EPE for two layers. However, this does not need to be the case. The EPE metric may describe EPE for more than two layers, and as such may be a function of two or more overlay parameters (e.g., between layer 1 and 2, layer 1 and 3 etc.) and CD (and/or other parameter such as LWR, scanner settings etc.) for all relevant layers. The EPE metric may alternatively relate to a single layer, e.g., whether relating to two process steps in a single layer (for example in a double-patterning process) or a single processing step with some measurements (such as “overlay”) compared to an expected position value (i.e., a placement error with respect to an expected position). Of course, the setup data (e.g., obtained at step 400) will depend on the parameters of the model at step 410 as will be clear to the skilled person.
Further embodiments of the invention are disclosed in the following list of numbered clauses:
The terms “radiation” and “beam” used herein encompass all types of electromagnetic radiation, including ultraviolet (UV) radiation (e.g., having a wavelength of or about 365, 355, 248, 193, 157 or 126 nm) and extreme ultra-violet (EUV) radiation (e.g., having a wavelength in the range of 5-20 nm), as well as particle beams, such as ion beams or electron beams.
The term “lens”, where the context allows, may refer to any one or combination of various types of optical components, including refractive, reflective, magnetic, electromagnetic and electrostatic optical components.
The term target should not be construed to mean only dedicated targets formed for the specific purpose of metrology. The term target should be understood to encompass other structures, including product structures, which have properties suitable for metrology applications.
The foregoing description of the specific embodiments will so fully reveal the general nature of the invention that others can, by applying knowledge within the skill of the art, readily modify and/or adapt for various applications such specific embodiments, without undue experimentation, without departing from the general concept of the present invention. Therefore, such adaptations and modifications are intended to be within the meaning and range of equivalents of the disclosed embodiments, based on the teaching and guidance presented herein. It is to be understood that the phraseology or terminology herein is for the purpose of description by example, and not of limitation, such that the terminology or phraseology of the present specification is to be interpreted by the skilled artisan in light of the teachings and guidance.
The breadth and scope of the present invention should not be limited by any of the above-described exemplary embodiments, but should be defined only in accordance with the following claims and their equivalents.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21195360.9 | Sep 2021 | EP | regional |
| 21211785.7 | Dec 2021 | EP | regional |
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/EP2022/071985 | 8/4/2022 | WO |
