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 .
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 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.
Claim 1, and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20040225488A1 (Wang) in view of US20070037066A1 (Hsiao) and further in view of US20070061772A1 (Ye).
In regards to claim 1, (Wang) shows a photomask design correction method, comprising:
providing a layer information data; Wang [0022] teaches providing layer information data and performing an OPC process on this data. The layer information data serves as the foundation for generating the initial photomask design by applying OPC corrections. This step is critical for ensuring the photomask aligns with the desired design.
performing an optical proximity correction (OPC) process on the layer information data to obtain a first photomask data; Wang [0022] also teaches performing an OPC process to transform the layer information data into first photomask data. This process involves applying corrections to the design to account for distortions that may occur during the photolithography process, producing data suitable for photomask fabrication.
fabricating a photomask based on the first photomask data; Wang [0021] and [0025] teaches the fabrication of photomasks based on first photomask data. Wang [0021] provides an overview of the fabrication process, emphasizing the role of OPC models in determining mask quality. Wang [0025] describes the actual mask-making process, where selected OPC models are applied to generate physical masks. Together, these citations show how the first photomask data is used in the mask fabrication process.
obtaining a pattern information data of the photomask after the photomask is fabricated; Wang [0025] teaches obtaining pattern information data after fabrication. This is achieved by capturing graphical images of the fabricated photomasks using tools like critical dimension scanning electron microscopes. These images are then converted into simulation-required digital files for further analysis. This step aligns with obtaining pattern information data post-fabrication for quality assessment.
analyzing the difference between the pattern information data and a database of the OPC process; Wang [0024] teaches analyzing discrepancies by comparing pattern information data from the fabricated photomask with ideal database simulations. This comparison identifies differences between the actual mask and the database, enabling further refinement of the OPC process.
Wang differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose correcting an OPC model of the OPC process based on the difference between the pattern information data of the photomask fabricated and the database of the OPC process to obtain a corrected OPC model; and performing the OPC process using the corrected OPC model on the layer information data to obtain a second photomask data.
Hsiao teaches and performing the OPC process using the corrected OPC model on the layer information data to obtain a second photomask data. Hsiao [0013] teaches the corrected data is then applied to write patterns onto an optical mask, effectively performing the OPC process using the corrected OPC model. This step ensures the resulting optical mask aligns closely with the intended design, achieving improved fidelity and generating updated photomask data.
Hsiao differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose correcting an OPC model of the OPC process based on the difference between the pattern information data of the photomask fabricated and the database of the OPC process to obtain a corrected OPC model;
Ye teaches correcting an OPC model of the OPC process based on the difference between the pattern information data of the photomask fabricated and the database of the OPC process to obtain a corrected OPC model; Ye [0036] teaches each manufactured mask is measured by an inspection tool to obtain mask inspection data. Ye [0036] teaches the differences between the extracted physical mask data from the mask inspection data and the post-OPC mask layout data are designated as systematic mask error data, where the post-OPC mask layout data represents the database of the OPC process. Ye [0422] teaches a data fitting routine determines optimal values of systematic mask error parameters by fitting the systematic mask error data to input variables of the mask error model based on the differences between the extracted physical mask data and the post-OPC mask layout data. Ye [0036] teaches an individual mask error model is created by applying the systematic mask error parameters to the mask error model.
The motivation to combine Wang, Hsiao, and Ye at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve photomask manufacturing accuracy and OPC model reliability. Wang provides the foundational OPC process and mask fabrication workflow, while Hsiao teaches applying corrected OPC models to generate improved photomask data. Ye complements this by teaching how to correct OPC models using actual fabricated mask measurements compared against OPC databases, addressing the critical feedback loop needed to continuously improve OPC accuracy based on real manufacturing results rather than theoretical predictions. The combination provides a complete closed-loop system for OPC optimization that uses actual fabrication data to refine models, resulting in higher quality photomasks with improved pattern fidelity.
In regards to claim 2, (Wang) shows the photomask design correction method of claim 1:
wherein the pattern information data comprises a pattern critical dimension data, a pattern image data, a pattern profile data or a combination thereof; Wang [0022] teaches conducting simulations of a physical mask under photolithography conditions to produce wafer resist profiles, referred to as "real mask simulation results". These simulations are notoriously known to involve evaluating critical dimensions, pattern images, and profiles to identify discrepancies and refine the OPC model. Wang [0023] expands on this by comparing real mask simulation results with ideal mask simulations derived from a database. The discrepancies guide iterative refinements of the OPC model, aligning with analyzing critical dimension data, pattern image data, and pattern profile data to improve model accuracy.
Claim 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20040225488A1 (Wang) in view of US20070037066A1 (Hsiao) and in view of US20070061772A1 (Ye) as applied in claim 1 above, respectively, and further in view of US20100013105A1 (Lin).
In regards to claim 3, (Wang modified by Hsiao and Ye) does not show a photomask design correction method of claim 1, further comprising: a detection process on the pattern information data of the photomask after the pattern information is obtained and before analyzing the difference between the pattern information data and the database of the OPC process.
Lin teaches a detection process on the pattern information data of the photomask after the pattern information is obtained and before analyzing the difference between the pattern information data and the database of the OPC process. Lin [0021] teaches performing a process rule check on the graphic data with OPC, where the process rule check includes lithography rule check and design rule check to predict whether the patterns can meet requirements, which constitutes a detection process on pattern information before analyzing differences with an OPC database.
The motivation to combine Wang, Hsiao, Ye, and Lin at the effective filing date of the invention is to enhance quality control and reduce manufacturing defects in the photomask production process. Lin's detection and repair processes provide essential pre-analysis quality checks that complement the fabrication feedback loop taught by Wang, Hsiao, and Ye. By incorporating Lin's systematic detection of pattern rule violations and targeted repair procedures before performing the difference analysis, the combined method can identify and correct potential fabrication issues early, preventing defective patterns from propagating through the OPC correction cycle and improving overall mask manufacturing efficiency.
In regards to claim 4, (Wang modified by Hsiao and Ye) does not show a photomask design correction method of claim 3, further comprising: a repair process on the pattern information data of the photomask after the detection process and before analyzing the difference between the pattern information data and the database of the OPC process.
Lin teaches a repair process on the pattern information data of the photomask after the detection process and before analyzing the difference between the pattern information data and the database of the OPC process. Lin [0023] teaches performing a repair procedure only to the patterns failing to pass the process rule check so that each failed pattern can pass the process rule check, where the repair procedure includes adjusting critical dimensions and/or positions of failed patterns based on graphic data of related layers.
The motivation to combine Wang, Hsiao, Ye, and Lin at the effective filing date of the invention is to enhance quality control and reduce manufacturing defects in the photomask production process. Lin's detection and repair processes provide essential pre-analysis quality checks that complement the fabrication feedback loop taught by Wang, Hsiao, and Ye. By incorporating Lin's systematic detection of pattern rule violations and targeted repair procedures before performing the difference analysis, the combined method can identify and correct potential fabrication issues early, preventing defective patterns from propagating through the OPC correction cycle and improving overall mask manufacturing efficiency.
Claim 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20040225488A1 (Wang) in view of US20070037066A1 (Hsiao) and in view of US20070061772A1 (Ye) as applied in claim 1 above, respectively, and further in view of US20210286255A1 (Lee).
In regards to claim 5, (Wang) shows the photomask design correction method of claim 1:
wherein the photomask is fabricated based on the first photomask data in a photomask house. Wang [0011] teaches the photomask fabrication process, including writing, developing, and etching. These steps inherently require a controlled environment typical of photomask houses.
Wang differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly state that these processes occur in a photomask house.
Lee Fig. 6 teaches that the photomask is fabricated in a photomask house.
Block 630 in Fig. 6 depicts the Mask House, where Mask Fabrication (Block 644) occurs following Data Preparation (Block 632). The figure shows the photomask fabrication process being performed in a dedicated facility, referred to as the Mask House, thereby aligning with the claim limitation that the photomask is fabricated based on the first photomask data in a photomask house.
The motivation to combine Wang, Hsiao, Ye, and Lee at the effective filing date of the invention is to clarify standard industry practices for photomask fabrication and quality control procedures. Lee explicitly teaches that photomask fabrication occurs in dedicated mask houses with controlled environments, which complements the fabrication and measurement processes taught by Wang, Hsiao, and Ye. The combination reflects the reality that high-precision photomask manufacturing requiring the measurement accuracy and OPC model correction capabilities disclosed in the prior art necessarily occurs in specialized facilities with appropriate environmental controls and inspection equipment, as would be understood by persons skilled in the art.
In regards to claim 6, (Wang) shows the photomask design correction method of claim 5:
wherein the pattern information data of the photomask is obtained in the photomask house. Wang (0011) teaches that pattern information data is analyzed during fabrication processes, including writing, developing, and etching. These inspections, conducted by mask vendors, are notoriously known to be performed in controlled facilities, commonly known as photomask houses.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed on September 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 4-5 of the remarks that the cited references do not teach "correcting an OPC model of the OPC process based on the difference between the pattern information data of the photomask fabricated and the database of the OPC process to obtain a corrected OPC model" as recited in amended claim 1. Specifically, applicant contends that Hsiao teaches comparing the OPC process database with "the data of the target pattern to be formed," not differences obtained by comparing the OPC process database with "the actual pattern formed." Applicant further argues that even combining Wang and Hsiao only provides technical insight for correcting OPC models based on theoretical target pattern data rather than actual fabricated pattern data.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's argument fails to consider the complete combination of references, particularly the newly cited Ye reference (US20070061772A1) which directly addresses applicant's distinction between theoretical and actual fabricated data.
As detailed in the rejection above, Ye [0036] explicitly teaches that "each manufactured mask is measured by an inspection tool or a metrology tool to obtain mask inspection data" and that "the differences between the extracted physical mask data from the mask inspection data and the post-OPC mask layout data are designated as the systematic mask error data." This teaching directly corresponds to obtaining actual pattern information data from fabricated photomasks and comparing it with the OPC database (represented by the post-OPC mask layout data), exactly as claimed in the amended limitation.
Ye [0422] further teaches that "a data fitting routine determines optimal values of systematic mask error parameters for an individual mask error model by fitting the systematic mask error data to input variables of the mask error model...where the systematic mask error data is based on the differences between the extracted physical mask data from the mask inspection data and the post-OPC mask layout data." This explicitly teaches correcting an OPC-related model based on differences between actual fabricated photomask measurements and the OPC database.
The combination of Wang, Hsiao, and Ye provides complete coverage of the amended claim limitation. Wang teaches the foundational OPC process and photomask fabrication workflow including obtaining pattern information data from fabricated photomasks. Hsiao teaches performing the OPC process using a corrected OPC model to obtain second photomask data. Ye teaches the critical missing element that applicant identified: correcting an OPC model based on the difference between actual fabricated photomask pattern data and the OPC database.
Applicant's semantic distinction between "target pattern data" and "actual pattern formed" is directly addressed by Ye's explicit teaching of measuring "manufactured mask" data (actual pattern formed) and comparing it with "post-OPC mask layout data" (the database of the OPC process) to create corrected mask error models. The Ye reference demonstrates that using actual fabricated photomask measurements to correct OPC-related models was known in the art as of the September 9, 2005 priority date.
Therefore, the combination of Wang, Hsiao, and Ye properly teaches all limitations of amended claim 1, including the specific limitation requiring correction based on actual fabricated photomask data rather than theoretical target data. The rejections are maintained..
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANWER AHMED ALAWDI whose telephone number is (703)756-1018. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Jack Chiang can be reached on (571)-272-7483. 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.
/ANWER AHMED ALAWDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851