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. Claims 1-12 and 16-23 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on August 28, 2025, which has been entered in the above identified application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amit et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,329,033) in view of Cekli et al (WO 2016/146217).
4-1. Regarding claims 1 and 16, Amit 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 obtaining a plurality of metrology measurement signals 221 for each measurement location of a plurality of measurement locations distributed across a substrate [column 7, lines 25-31].
Amit teaches determining (i) an accuracy metric indicating a lower accuracy where the metrology data is not reliable, or (ii) a sensitivity metric describing sensitivity of a correction to metrology data used to determine the correction or to the layout of the pattern, or (iii) both (i) and (ii), by disclosing determining a measured metrology value 222 and one or more quality merits 223 for each measurement signal 221 [column 7, line 53 to column 8, line 4], and determining proportionality factors that correspond to each of the plurality of measurement conditions [column 8, lines 5-41]. An optimal measurement recipe may optionally be generated by comparing the inaccuracy estimations (based on the quality merits and proportionality factors) that correspond to each of the measurement conditions in order to determine which combination of measurement conditions produces an optimized measurement recipe [column 8, line 57 to column 9, line 2].
Amit teaches determining the intra-field correction based at least partially on (a) the accuracy metric, or (b) the sensitivity metric, or (c) both (a) and (b), by disclosing calibrating a metrology tool 106 to use the proportionality factor 224 that corresponds to the measurement condition used to measure subsequent targets when the metrology tool is generating subsequent metrology measurement values [column 8, lines 42-47]. The calibration may automatically adjust subsequent measured metrology values by removing the Inaccuracy portion since the measurement condition will be known and the proper proportionality factor may be applied [column 8, lines 47-56]. The optimized measurement recipe may also be utilized in subsequent metrology measurements to produce the least amount of inaccuracy increased measurement throughput or any desired balance between measurement performance (based on conventional TMU definition) and minimization of inaccuracy [column 9, lines 2-10].
Although Amit discloses that the metrology processes are used between lithography processing steps to monitor the accuracy of semiconductor fabrication [column 1, lines 44-56], Amit 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 measurement data from the calibrated metrology tool of Amit 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.
4-2. Regarding claims 2 and 17, Amit-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].
4-3. Regarding claims 3 and 18, Amit-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]. A weighting function is used that allows different site indexes to have different contributions to the regression [Amit, column 8, lines 25-38].
5. Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amit et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,329,033), in view of Cekli et al (WO 2016/146217), and further in view of Wildenberg et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,106,141).
5-1. Regarding claims 4 and 19, Amit-Cekli teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 16 respectively. Amit-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.
6. Claims 5 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amit et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,329,033), in view of Cekli et al (WO 2016/146217), and further in view of Sullivan et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,402,367).
6-1. Regarding claims 5 and 23, Amit-Cekli teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 16 respectively. Amit-Cekli do not expressly teach the claim further comprising using (vii) the accuracy metric, 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.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amit et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,329,033), 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)
7-1. Regarding claim 6, Amit-Cekli-Sullivan teach all the limitations of claim 5. Amit-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.
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amit et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,329,033), 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)
8-1. Regarding claim 7, Amit-Cekli-Sullivan-Ten Berge teach all the limitations of claim 6. Amit-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.
9. Claims 8-10 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amit et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,329,033), in view of Cekli et al (WO 2016/146217), and further in view of Theeuwes et al (EP 3279735).
9-1. Regarding claims 8 and 20, Amit-Cekli teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 16 respectively. Amit-Cekli do not expressly teach the claim further comprising using (vii) the accuracy metric, 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.
9-2. Regarding claims 9 and 21, Amit-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].
9-3. Regarding claims 10 and 22, Amit-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].
10. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amit et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,329,033), 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).
10-1. Regarding claim 11, Amit-Cekli-Theeuwes teach all the limitations of claim 10. Amit-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.
10-2. Regarding claim 12, Amit-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
11. Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant alleges that Amit et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,329,033) fails to disclose or teach, “determining (i) an accuracy metric indicating a lower accuracy where the metrology data is not reliable, or (ii) a sensitivity metric describing sensitivity of a correction to metrology data used to determine the correction or to the layout of the pattern, or (iii) both (i) and (ii)” because the Office action does not properly identify what in the cited portions of Amit specifically corresponds to the claimed accuracy metric or the claimed sensitivity metric.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner has provided the proper sections of Amit that read on the accuracy metric and sensitivity metric in the claim. Amit discloses determining a measured metrology value 222 and one or more quality merits 223 for each measurement signal 221 [column 7, line 53 to column 8, line 4], and determining proportionality factors that correspond to each of the plurality of measurement conditions [column 8, lines 5-41]. The measured metrology value 222 is the measured overlay error OVLmeas [column 7, lines 55-57], which is made up of an accurate measurement OVLacc and a measure of inaccuracy [column 4, lines 38-52]. The inaccuracy is a response function of the measurement method to the target and/or system imperfections, and is made up of a proportionality factor α and a quality merit Qmerit [column 4, lines 54-66]. Once the quality merits and proportionality factors have been determined, the metrology tool is calibrated to use the proportionality factor that corresponds to the measurement condition used to measure subsequent targets when the metrology tool is generating subsequent metrology measurement values [column 8, liens 42-47]. The calibration may automatically adjust subsequent measured metrology values by removing the Inaccuracy portion (Inacc. = α*Qmerit) since the measurement condition will be known and the proper proportionality factor may be applied [column 8, lines 47-51]. For example, if the proportionality factor for measurement with green light has been found, then in subsequent measurements that utilize green light, the measurement can be calibrated in order to remove the inaccurate portion of the measurement, thereby presenting only the accurate portion [column 8, lines 52-56]. Thus, the inaccuracy represents an accuracy metric indicating a lower accuracy where the metrology data is not reliable.
Further, an optimal measurement recipe may optionally be generated by comparing the inaccuracy estimations (based on the quality merits and proportionality factors) that correspond to each of the measurement conditions in order to determine which combination of measurement conditions produces an optimized measurement recipe [column 8, line 57 to column 9, line 2]. Such a comparison identifies the measurement conditions that have the smallest amount of inaccuracy, and that will be used in producing an optimized measurement recipe [column 8, lines 59-64]. Thus, the amount of correction that is needed for a measurement condition represents a sensitivity metric describing the degree to which such a measurement condition will have on the total amount of correction needed for a particular measurement recipe.
Applicant alleges that there is no reference in the prior art to the claimed aspect of “where the metrology data is not reliable” and no reference to the claimed “sensitivity” aspect, let alone “sensitivity of a correction to metrology data used to determine the correction or to the layout of the pattern.”
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, as discussed above, the inaccuracy in Amit represents an accuracy metric indicating a lower accuracy where the metrology data is not reliable, and the amount of correction that is needed for a measurement condition represents a sensitivity metric describing the degree to which such a measurement condition will have on the total amount of correction needed for a particular measurement recipe.
Applicant alleges that the Office Action has not established that the “quality merits,” “proportionality factors,” or “optimal measurement recipe” correspond to either the claimed accuracy metric or the claimed sensitivity metric.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, as discussed above, the inaccuracy in Amit represents an accuracy metric indicating a lower accuracy where the metrology data is not reliable, and the amount of correction that is needed for a measurement condition represents a sensitivity metric describing the degree to which such a measurement condition will have on the total amount of correction needed for a particular measurement recipe.
Applicant alleges that the Office action has not established that the “inaccuracy estimations” correspond to either the claimed accuracy metric or the claimed sensitivity metric because the Office Action has made no showing that the “inaccuracy estimation” relates to reliability of metrology data, let alone that it indicates a lower accuracy where the metrology data is not reliable.
Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, as discussed above, the calibration may automatically adjust subsequent measured metrology values by removing the Inaccuracy portion (Inacc. = α*Qmerit) since the measurement condition will be known and the proper proportionality factor may be applied [column 8, lines 47-51]. For example, if the proportionality factor for measurement with green light has been found, then in subsequent measurements that utilize green light, the measurement can be calibrated in order to remove the inaccurate portion of the measurement, thereby presenting only the accurate portion [column 8, lines 52-56]. Thus, the inaccuracy represents an accuracy metric indicating a lower accuracy where the metrology data is not reliable.
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, Amit in view of Cekli are considered to teach claims 1 and 16, and consequently, claims 2-12 and 17-23 are rejected.
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
13. 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