DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. This Office action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed under 37 CFR §1.53(d) for the instant application on May 18, 2026. Applicants have properly set forth the RCE, which has been entered into the application, and an examination on the merits follows herewith.
Claims 1-12 and 16-23 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on May 18, 2026, which has been entered in the above identified application.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. On [lines 10-14] of claim 1, Examiner suggests renumbering the roman numerals “(iv),” “(v),” and “(vi)” to --(i)--, --(ii)--, and --(iii)—respectively.
b. On [lines 2-4] of claim 2, Examiner suggests renumbering the roman numerals “(vii),” “(viii),” and “(ix)” to --(iv)--, --(v)--, and --(vi)—respectively.
c. On [lines 3-8] of claim 4, Examiner suggests renumbering the roman numerals “(vii),” “(viii),” “(ix),” “(x),” “(xi),” and “(xii)” to --(iv)--, --(v)--, --(vi)--, --(vii)--, --(viii)--, and --(ix)--respectively.
d. On [lines 1-3] of claim 5, Examiner suggests renumbering the roman numerals “(vii),” “(viii),” and “(ix)” to --(iv)--, --(v)--, and --(vi)-- respectively.
e. On [lines 2-3] of claim 6, Examiner suggests renumbering the roman numerals “(vii),” “(viii),” and “(ix),” to --(iv)--, --(v)--, and --(vi)-- respectively.
f. On [lines 1-3] of claim 8, Examiner suggests renumbering the roman numerals “(vii),” “(viii),” and “(ix),” to --(iv)--, --(v)--, and --(vi)-- respectively.
g. On [lines 13-17] of claim 16, Examiner suggests renumbering the roman numerals “(iv),” “(v),” and “(vi)” to --(i)--, --(ii)--, and --(iii)—respectively.
h. On [lines 2-4] of claim 17, Examiner suggests renumbering the roman numerals “(vii),” “(viii),” and “(ix)” to --(iv)--, --(v)--, and --(vi)—respectively.
i. On [lines 4-9] of claim 19, Examiner suggests renumbering the roman numerals “(vii),” “(viii),” “(ix),” “(x),” “(xi),” and “(xii)” to --(iv)--, --(v)--, --(vi)--, --(vii)--, --(viii)--, and --(ix)--respectively.
j. On [lines 2-4] of claim 20, Examiner suggests renumbering the roman numerals “(vii),” “(viii),” and “(ix),” to --(iv)--, --(v)--, and --(vi)-- respectively.
k. On [lines 2-4] of claim 23, Examiner suggests renumbering the roman numerals “(vii),” “(viii),” and “(ix)” to --(iv)--, --(v)--, and --(vi)-- respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-12 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
5-1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “determining a sensitivity metric describing sensitivity of a correction to metrology data used to determine the correction or to the layout of the pattern” in [lines 4-7] of the claim. It is unclear what is meant by “determine… to the layout of the pattern.”
5-2. Independent claim 16 recites a similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandel (Pub. No. US 2013/0035888) in view of Cekli et al (WO 2016/146217).
7-1. Regarding claims 1 and 16, Kandel teaches the claim comprising: obtaining metrology data for use in determining an intra-field correction for exposing a pattern on an exposure field of a substrate, by disclosing a metrology system configured to perform overlay metrology at identified locations of a semiconductor wafer to generate quality metrics [paragraph 76] and use the generated quality metrics to generate one or more sets of process tool correctables that are fed back to a process tool, such as a scanner tool or lithography tool [paragraphs 58, 82].
Kandel teaches determining a sensitivity metric describing sensitivity of a correction to metrology data used to determine the correction or to the layout of the pattern, by disclosing generating a quality metric for each overlay metrology target that provides a quantitative evaluation of the accuracy of an associated overlay result for a given metrology target [paragraphs 77-78]. Metrology targets having large quality metric values, and hence large overlay inaccuracies, are disregarded for the purposes of subsequent process tool correctable calculation [paragraph 80, lines 1-9]. This puts larger weight in the correctable calculation on those targets having a larger degree of accuracy, thereby improving the correctable calculation [paragraph 80, lines 9-13]. A modified overlay value is determined for each metrology target utilizing an acquired overlay metrology result and associated quality metric result for each metrology target [paragraphs 109-111], and correctables are calculated using those modified overlay values that will be transmitted to one or more process tools [paragraphs 112-115]. Since the calculated correctable depends on the metrology data and its assessed quality via the quality metric, the quality metric is akin to a sensitivity metric describing sensitivity of a correction to metrology data used to determine the correction.
Kandel teaches determining the intra-field correction based at least partially on the sensitivity metric, by disclosing calculating correctables using the modified overlay values that will be transmitted to one or more process tools [paragraphs 112-115].
Although Kandel discloses that the correctable is used to correct the alignment of a lithography tool or scanner tool to improve the control of subsequent lithographic patterning with respect to overlay performance [Kandel, paragraph 58], Kandel does not expressly teach (iv) controlling a lithographic apparatus configured to expose the pattern to have an actuator of the lithographic apparatus at least partially implement the intra-field correction, or (v) controlling the lithographic apparatus and another manufacturing tool to each make a correction that collectively implement the intra-field correction. Cekli discloses acquiring measurement data relating to a particular field on a substrate, and using such measurement data to obtain correction information which is used to determine and make adjustments to one or more actuators of a lithographic apparatus to control the exposure of a substrate [paragraph 71, figures 9]. This would reduce overlay errors during a lithographic process on a substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the correctables of Kandel to make adjustments to one or more actuators of a lithographic apparatus, as taught by Cekli. This would reduce overlay errors during a lithographic process on a substrate.
7-2. Regarding claims 2 and 17, Kandel-Cekli teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 16 respectively, wherein controlling the lithographic apparatus comprises controlling (vii) a stage of the lithographic apparatus, or (viii) a projection lens manipulator of the lithographic apparatus, or (ix) both (vii) and (viii), by disclosing that the overlay errors to correct include illumination setting differences, which are caused by the settings of the illumination system, such as the shape of the aperture, lens actuator positioning, etc. [Cekli, paragraphs 55-56].
7-3. Regarding claims 3 and 18, Kandel-Cekli teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 16 respectively,
wherein the intra-field correction is targeted to control a sub-field of the exposure field, by disclosing defining individual sub-fields [Cekli, paragraphs 64-66; figure 7]. This would help reduce overlay error without having to use a higher-order correction model [Cekli, paragraph 58]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a correction model to a specific portion of a particular field, as taught by Cekli. This would help reduce overlay error without having to use a higher-order correction model.
8. Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandel et al (Pub. No. US 2013/0035888), in view of Cekli et al (WO 2016/146217), and further in view of Wildenberg et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,106,141).
8-1. Regarding claims 4 and 19, Kandel-Cekli teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 16 respectively. Kandel-Cekli do not expressly teach wherein the determining the intra-field correction comprises: (vii) co-optimizing a first control profile for the lithographic apparatus and a second control profile for a reticle write process; or (viii) optimizing (x) time filtering constants, or (xi) weighting constants, or (xii) both (x) and (xi) used in a control loop for controlling the lithographic apparatus, wherein the control loop uses the metrology data; or (ix) both (vii) and (viii). Wildenberg discloses optimizing a sequence of processes for manufacturing semiconductor device wafers by lithographic techniques [column 1, lines 19-24]. A critical distance uniformity (CDU) optimization application evaluates a deposition fingerprint and an exposure fingerprint to determine a predicted fingerprint of a wafer associated with a sequence of previous and subsequent processes, and combines the predicted fingerprint with a dose sensitivity to calculate scanner dose corrections [column 9, lines 17-37, 48-63]. This would help improve the overall process yield in the manufacture of semiconductor device wafers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to co-optimize two control profiles, as taught by Wildenberg. This would help improve the overall process yield in the manufacture of semiconductor device wafers.
9. Claims 5 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandel et al (Pub. No. US 2013/0035888), in view of Cekli et al (WO 2016/146217), and further in view of Sullivan et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,402,367).
9-1. Regarding claims 5 and 23, Kandel-Cekli teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 16 respectively. Kandel-Cekli do not expressly teach the claim further comprising using (vii) an accuracy metric indicating a lower accuracy where the metrology data is not reliable, or (viii) the sensitivity metric, or (ix) both (vii) and (viii), to select a control strategy from a library of control strategies and wherein the intra-field correction is at least partially based on the selected control strategy. Sullivan discloses that it was well known to provide controls strategies in a library for selection, where the control strategy output include prediction equations to define the expected value of the strategy output, observation equations to define how to derive the actual value of the strategy output and is a function of the measurements, constraint values, and target values [column 6, lines 31-40, 54-67; column 8, lines 11-13]. This would allow faster switching between control strategies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a library to control strategies, as taught by Sullivan. This would allow faster switching between control strategies.
10. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandel et al (Pub. No. US 2013/0035888), in view of Cekli et al (WO 2016/146217), in view of Sullivan et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,402,367) and further in view of Ten Berge (EP 3321737)
10-1. Regarding claim 6, Kandel-Cekli-Sullivan teach all the limitations of claim 5. Kandel-Cekli-Sullivan do not expressly teach wherein the control strategy comprises a measurement strategy for (vii) a metrology apparatus, or (viii) the lithographic apparatus, or (ix) both (vii) and (viii). Ten Berge discloses the inclusion of stress pattern related intra-field fingerprints [paragraph 37] and a step of determining a sampling scheme [paragraphs 44-48; figure 3]. This would help compensate for stress generated fingerprints and optimize the site map for measurements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stress pattern related intra-field fingerprints and a sampling scheme, as taught by Ten Berge. This would help compensate for stress generated fingerprints and optimize the site map for measurements.
11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandel et al (Pub. No. US 2013/0035888), in view of Cekli et al (WO 2016/146217), in view of Sullivan et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,402,367) in view of Ten Berge (EP 3321737), and further in view of Mos et al (WO 2018/077651)
11-1. Regarding claim 7, Kandel-Cekli-Sullivan-Ten Berge teach all the limitations of claim 6. Kandel-Cekli-Sullivan-Ten Berge do not expressly teach wherein a density of measurement associated with the measurement strategy corresponding to the selected control strategy depends on the accuracy metric. Mos discloses including a step of selecting a measurement strategy based on the accuracy metric [paragraph 41]. This would increase the process stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of selecting a measurement strategy based on the accuracy metric, as taught by Mos. This would increase the process stability.
12. Claims 8-10 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandel et al (Pub. No. US 2013/0035888), in view of Cekli et al (WO 2016/146217), and further in view of Theeuwes et al (EP 3279735).
12-1. Regarding claims 8 and 20, Kandel-Cekli teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 16 respectively. Kandel-Cekli do not expressly teach the claim further comprising using (vii) an accuracy metric indicating a lower accuracy where the metrology data is not reliable, or (viii) the sensitivity metric, or (ix) both (vii) and (viii) to select a control strategy using a trained solver, based on lithographic apparatus metrology data. Theeuwes discloses the inclusion of a step of determining a metrology strategy using a trainer [paragraphs 56-60; figure 7]. This would reduce the required time for metrology steps and increase process stability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the step of determining a metrology strategy using a trainer, as taught by Theeuwes. This would reduce the required time for metrology steps and increase process stability.
12-2. Regarding claims 9 and 21, Kandel-Cekli-Theeuwes teach all the limitations of claims 8 and 20 respectively, further comprising: obtaining training data comprising non-lithographic apparatus metrology data and corresponding lithographic apparatus metrology data from a plurality of substrates; and training the solver to link the non-lithographic apparatus metrology data to the lithographic apparatus metrology data, by disclosing that the training set comprises non-lithographic metrology data [Theeuwes, paragraphs 57-58; figure 7].
12-3. Regarding claims 10 and 22, Kandel-Cekli-Theeuwes teaches all the limitations of claims 8 and 21 respectively, wherein the lithographic apparatus metrology data comprises leveling data, by disclosing leveling data [Theeuwes, paragraph 63].
13. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandel et al (Pub. No. US 2013/0035888), in view of Cekli et al (WO 2016/146217), in view of Theeuwes et al (EP 3279735), and further in view of Ten Berge (EP 3321737).
13-1. Regarding claim 11, Kandel-Cekli-Theeuwes teach all the limitations of claim 10. Kandel-Cekli-Theeuwes do not expressly teach the claim further comprising: determining an estimate for intra-die stress from the levelling data; and determining the intra-field correction based on the estimated intra-die stress. Ten Berge discloses the inclusion of stress pattern related intra-field fingerprints [paragraph 37] and a step of determining a sampling scheme [paragraphs 44-48; figure 3]. This would help compensate for stress generated fingerprints and optimize the site map for measurements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use stress pattern related intra-field fingerprints and a sampling scheme, as taught by Ten Berge. This would help compensate for stress generated fingerprints and optimize the site map for measurements.
13-2. Regarding claim 12, Kandel-Cekli-Theeuwes-Ten Berge teach all the limitations of claim 11, wherein the determining an estimate and the determining the intra-field correction are performed for each die, by disclosing that the intra-field correction is performed for each die [Theeuwes, paragraphs 22, 51].
Response to Arguments
14. Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant alleges that Amit et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,329,033) fails to disclose or teach a method comprising determining a sensitivity metric describing sensitivity of a correction to metrology data used to determine the correction or to the layout of the pattern. Examiner has rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandel (Pub. No. US 2013/0035888) in view of Cekli et al (WO 2016/146217). Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Similar arguments have been presented for independent claim 16 and thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons.
Applicant states that dependent claims 2-12 and 17-23 recite all the limitations of the independent claims, and thus, are allowable in view of the remarks set forth regarding independent claims 1 and 16. However, as discussed above, Kandel in view of Cekli are considered to teach claims 1 and 16, and consequently, claims 2-12 and 17-23 are rejected.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights