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 .
The response of the applicant has been read and given careful consideration. The response of the applicant has been read and given careful consideration. Rejection of the previous action not repeated blow are withdrawn based upon the arguments and amendment of the applicant. Response to the arguments are presented after the first rejection they are directed to.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-6,12-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagawa et al. 20220238303, in view of Tsai et al. TW-I229781, JP-6461753, Sudo JP H0425848, Hatzakis 3649393, Shiraishi JP 2006330545, Furuta et al. 20040173921, Sudo JP 07-094378 and Uema JP 55-080318.
Kagawa et al. 20220238303 illustrates in figure 2A a translucent substrate (61) substrate having a slope with a light shielding film (62) which makes it difficult to expose using a (flat) masks [0040]. Figure 5 and the associated text teaches acquiring the surface profile data for a substrate having flat and sloped portions [0049]
PNG
media_image1.png
174
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
323
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 is similar, but also collects the angle information for the slope [0052].
PNG
media_image3.png
408
379
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The correction of the exposure for deviation from the design value due to re-exposure by electron backscatter [0041]. Figures 16A-E illustrate the electron beam (EB) exposure of the resist coated upon the substrate with a slope.
PNG
media_image4.png
245
373
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
351
370
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tsai et al. TW-I229781 (machine translation attached) teaches with respect to figure 3, the determination of the sensitivity of the resist to electron beam writing. Preparing the (ideal) data for the mask pattern. The resist is coated on the photomask blank/substrate. The resist is exposed using the electron beam according to the sensitivity determination. Post baking and developing the resist. Measuring the size of the resist patterns and the etched patterns. Calculating the difference between the actual size of the resist patterns and the ideal size and the line width error. Dry etching the photomask blank. The photomask is evaluated and a new photomask blank is provided and the exposure conditions are changed to compensate for the differences between the size of the patterns and the ideal data.
JP-6461753 (machine translation attached) teaches in figures 2a-c, a semiconductor substrate with a level difference connected by a sloped surface. The differences in the levels of 2 micron which is larger than the depth of focus. Which results in the resist shape illustrated in figure 2b, rather than the desired (design) pattern of 2c (page 1/lower right-page 2/upper left).
PNG
media_image6.png
315
195
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
251
215
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The actual size of the resist pattern (solid lines) is shown in figure 3c with the desired dimensions (dashed lines). The difference in the dimensions of the pattern from the desired/design dimensions based due to the 2 microns step is 0.1 microns (page 3/upper columns)
Sudo JP H0425848 (machine translation attached) discloses that when the unevenness of the surface upon which the resist is formed is large, the thickness of the resist varies across the surface and the accuracy of the dimension/width of the resulting resist patterns is poor. Figure 1 shows the divergence in the size of projections or recesses formed in the resist based upon the height of the crevices of the surface. Figure 2 shows the variation in the exposure as a function of radius for projection or recesses formed in the resist (lower left, page 2). Figure 3 shows an example of a emitter prior to patterning, where the semiconductor layer (1) has a pattern of field oxide (2) areas and an aluminum wiring layer (6) and a resist layer (7) with a thickness (t) in the crevice areas and a second thickness (T) on the plateau/flat areas (lower right page 2 to upper right page 3).
PNG
media_image8.png
302
361
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
293
322
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
190
405
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
290
307
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
124
201
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
135
173
media_image13.png
Greyscale
In figure 5, conventional processing yielded a spacing (L-L in figure 4) of 0.8 +/- 0.1 microns, while compensating for the variation in resist thickness yielded a spacing (L-L) of 0.8 +/-0.02 microns.. In figure 6, the variance in the 2.0 micron pattern widths (L) was reduced from +/-0.18 microns to +/- 0.124 microns
Hatzakis 3649393 teaches the adjustment of the exposure of a resist coated on a substrate having different heights based upon their different thicknesses (figure 1 and text at 2/8-47)
Shiraishi JP 2006330545 (machine translation attached) describes a resist is applied on the light shielding layer 72 by a spin coat method or the like to form a resist layer 82 (see FIG. 3F), and patterning processing such as pattern drawing and development processing is performed by an electron beam drawing apparatus. Then, a resist pattern 82a is formed on the light shielding layer 72 (see FIG. 4G). In electron beam exposure, the position (focus) of the exposure surface can be adjusted relatively easily when pattern exposure is performed on resist layers formed in regions having different substrate thicknesses [0024].
Furuta et al. 20040173921 teaches with respect to figures 3a-g, a base material which is shaped using a diamond lathe to yield a mother optical surface (110a) [0172-0175]. The shape of the surface is then mapped with three dimensional coordinates using lasers [0178-0185]. This is then coated with a resist (L) having a uniform thickness and dried by heating to 170 degrees C for 20 minutes [0188-0189]. The thickness distribution of the resist is then measured and the error/difference between the actual height and the design height at the various coordinates is determined. An electron beam is then used to write the desired pattern where the dose has been adjusted on the basis for the shape of the surface (110a), the resist thickness and the error distribution data. The correction calculation data and correction calculation program is stored in the program memory (40) and accessed using the control unit (41). The resist is then developed and used to mask an etch of the mother optical surface (110a) of the mold material (110) [0192--0278]
PNG
media_image14.png
295
186
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
306
170
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
149
165
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Sudo JP 07-094378 (machine translation attached) describes the correction of the electron beam exposure including s design deletion technique. This problem is illustrated with respect to figure 3A-F, where a heavy metal (tungsten) patterned film (51) is formed on a substrate (50), overcoated with an upper film (52) and a negative resist film. The desired pattern is illustrated in figure 3C, while the conventional proximity correction technique yields the widened pattern (52a) in the area over the heavy metal [0008-0012]. To understand the correction of the invention, it is described with respect to figure 1, where the pattern in the resist is based upon pattern data created in advance (D,E,F). These design exposures are then corrected for the proximity effect due to the underlying layers and then performing the corrected exposure [0013-00014]. In the example, a resist film is applied to the surface of the aluminum layer and exposed according to pattern (g) where the region (w) is affected by the back scattering. The original pattern data is d,e and f and the compensated exposure data is A,B, C. the size change is 15-20% [0020-0029].
PNG
media_image17.png
455
561
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Uema JP 55-080318 (machine translation attached) teaches in figure 1(a) a substrate (1) with a groove (2) with a depth of 1 microns coated with a resist (3) to a thickness of 2 microns, when exposed using an electron beam without compensation for the change in thisness illustrated in figure 1(b), a negative resist yields a bulged pattern as illustrated in figure 1(c). If a positive resist is used, the thicker resist is a narrower (necking) pattern. (page 1/left column to page 2/upper left column). Similarly, when a protrusion (4) with a height of 1 micron is present as in figure 2a, the resist is thinner on the protrusion (4) and a negative resist yields a narrower pattern. A positive resist yields a bulging pattern (page 2/upper left to page
PNG
media_image18.png
159
259
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
132
263
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Kagawa et al. 20220238303 describes measuring the height of the surface so this may be included in the calculation to compensate for changes in the electron back scattering due to the changes in topography which are used to expose a resist coated upon a substrate having two flat portions connected to a sloping portion as illustrated in figures 16A-E, but does not describe exposing the resist using the electron beam according to the design data, developing the resist and measuring the resist pattern to determine the deviation of the resist pattern from the design data and then using this to correct the electron beam exposure data (exposure and/or focus) to product a resist image with dimensions matching the design data.
With respect to claims 1-6 and 12-18, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process of Kagawa et al. 20220238303 by validating the electron backscatter correction calculations by coating a resist on the photomask substrate and exposing it using the electron beam according to the design data, developing the resist and measuring the difference between the actual resist pattern dimensions and those of the design pattern as taught in Tsai et al. TW-I229781 and JP-6461753 and using these measurements to correct for the differences in the exposure due to the topography using changes in the exposure dosage and/or electron beam focus position as taught by Tsai et al. TW-I229781, Sudo JP H0425848, Hatzakis 3649393, Shiraishi JP 2006330545, Furuta et al. 20040173921 as it old and well known that the resist thickness, substrate topography and substrate composition affect the electron beams exposure as evidenced by Tsai et al. TW-I229781, Sudo JP H0425848, Hatzakis 3649393, Shiraishi JP 2006330545, Furuta et al. 20040173921, Sudo JP 07-094378 and Uema JP 55-080318 and it is old and well known to form a pattern according to the design data and then use this to form a corrected exposure as taught in Tsai et al. TW-I229781 and Sudo JP 07-094378 to accurately determine the magnitude and positions of the correction to the exposure dosage and focus which need to be made and using this information to correctly calculate the compensation for electron back scattering in Kagawa et al. 20220238303 and perform a corrected e-beam exposure with a reasonable expectation of forming a corrected pattern matching the design pattern.
With respect to claims 1-6, 12-18 and 21-23, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process of Kagawa et al. 20220238303 by validating the electron backscatter correction calculations by coating a resist on the photomask substrate and exposing it using the electron beam according to the design data, developing the resist and measuring the difference between the actual resist pattern dimensions and those of the design pattern as taught in Tsai et al. TW-I229781 and JP-6461753 and using these measurements to correct for the differences in the exposure due to the topography using changes in the exposure dosage and/or electron beam focus position as taught by Tsai et al. TW-I229781, Sudo JP H0425848, Hatzakis 3649393, Shiraishi JP 2006330545, Furuta et al. 20040173921 as it old and well known that the resist thickness, substrate topography and substrate composition affect the electron beams exposure as evidenced by Tsai et al. TW-I229781, Sudo JP H0425848, Hatzakis 3649393, Shiraishi JP 2006330545, Furuta et al. 20040173921, Sudo JP 07-094378 and Uema JP 55-080318 and it is old and well known to form a pattern according to the design data and then use this to form a corrected exposure as taught in Tsai et al. TW-I229781 and Sudo JP 07-094378 where the measurements of the dimensions of the features are measured outside the e-beam exposure apparatus, the calculation of the correction is preformed outside of the exposure apparatus in memory and the corrected exposure data is used control the e-beam exposure as taught in Furuta et al. 20040173921 to accurately determine the magnitude and positions of the correction to the exposure dosage and focus which need to be made and using this information to correctly calculate the compensation for electron back scattering in Kagawa et al. 20220238303 and perform a corrected e-beam exposure with a reasonable expectation of forming a corrected pattern matching the design pattern.
In the response of 8/14/2026, the applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the formation of a resist or etched pattern using exposure with (uncorrected) design data, the measurement of these patterns, the determination of the differences between the design dimensions and the patterns produced. The examiner points to Tsai et al. TW-I229781 and JP-6461753, which clearly describe using forming the resist pattern, the etched pattern, measuring these and comparing the dimensions to the design pattern dimensions and using the information to correct the original design data as taught by Tsai et al. TW-I229781 and the correction of exposures to compensate for differences in resist thickness and topography in the cited art. The examiner is aware of the number of references. These clearly establish the differences in the resist thickness due to topography and that it is old and well known to compensate for these using modifications in exposure dosage and focusing of the electron beam. The examiner points out that the calculations of Kagawa et al. 20220238303 have to be based upon a previously formed resist pattern to accurately account for the electron backscatter.
Claims 1-7, 10-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudo JP H0425848, in view of JP 60113424 Tsai et al. TW-I229781, JP-6461753, Hatzakis 3649393, Shiraishi JP 2006330545, Furuta et al. 20040173921, Sudo JP 07-094378 and Uema JP 55-080318.
JP 60113424 (machine translation attached) describes reducing the variation in the width of the resist pattern formed in a single layer resist using an electron beam exposure. Drawing 1 illustrates a resist pattern (6) for forming a wiring layer on a MOS transistor. Drawing 2 shows the line width of the resist pattern is larger than the design width on portion 7a of the resist pattern (6).
PNG
media_image20.png
223
174
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
512
295
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Drawing 3, is similar and shows a silicon wafer (31) with an oxidized portion (32) with a thickness of 4000 angstroms, which creates an unevenness for the 1 micron thick resist (33). The differences in the dimensions of the upper and lower dimensions are 1.38 microns. The wiring is formed by etching using the resist as a mask.
Sudo JP H0425848 teaches determining the resist thickness and correcting the electron beam exposure for the differences in resist thickness over a substrate having gradual changes in topography, but does not explicitly collect data on the height of the substrate in the various positions or describe the problems with original pattern and the correction of these problems or clearly illustrate a resist pattern which overlayers a flat region, a sloped region and a flat regions
With respect to claims 1-6 and 10-18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Sudo JP H0425848 by applying it to a resist pattern where the design pattern is form wiring extends over flat positions connected by the sloping surface as in figures 1 and 3 of JP 60113424 and using design data to expose the resist, developing the resist, measuring the difference between the actual resist pattern dimensions and those of the design pattern as taught in Tsai et al. TW-I229781 and JP-6461753 and determining the height of the surface upon which the resist is coated in XYZ coordinates as taught by Furuta et al. 20040173921 to facilitate focus correction of the electron beam as taught in Shiraishi JP 2006330545, noting that the association of substrate height and resist coating thickness is known in the art as evidenced in Hatzakis 364939 and printing out an uncorrected/original design pattern as in Sudo JP 07-094378 and Uema JP 55-080318 to accurately determine the magnitude and positions of the correction to the exposure dosage and focus which need to be made and using this information to perform a corrected e-beam exposure with a reasonable expectation of forming a corrected pattern.
With respect to claims 1-7,10-18 and 21-23, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Sudo JP H0425848 by applying it to a resist pattern where the design pattern extends over flat positions connected by the sloping surface as in figures 1 and 3 of JP 60113424 and using design data to expose the resist, developing the resist, measuring the difference between the actual resist pattern dimensions and those of the design pattern as taught in Tsai et al. TW-I229781 and JP-6461753 and determining the height of the surface upon which the resist is coated in XYZ coordinates as taught by Furuta et al. 20040173921 to facilitate focus correction of the electron beam as taught in Shiraishi JP 2006330545, noting that the association of substrate height and resist coating thickness is known in the art as evidenced in Hatzakis 364939 and printing out an uncorrected/original design pattern as in Sudo JP 07-094378 and Uema JP 55-080318where the measurements of the dimensions of the features are measured outside the e-beam exposure apparatus, the calculation of the correction is preformed outside of the exposure apparatus in memory and the corrected exposure data is used control the e-beam exposure as taught in Furuta et al. 20040173921 to accurately determine the magnitude and positions of the correction to the exposure dosage and focus which need to be made and using this information to perform a corrected e-beam exposure with a reasonable expectation of forming a corrected pattern matching the design pattern
The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the formation of a resist or etched pattern using exposure with (uncorrected) design data, the measurement of these patterns, the determination of the differences between the design dimensions and the patterns produced. The examiner points to Tsai et al. TW-I229781 and JP-6461753, which clearly describe using forming the resist pattern, measuring it and comparing the dimensions to the design pattern dimensions and using the information to correct the original design data as taught by Tsai et al. TW-I229781 and the correction of exposures to compensate for differences in resist thickness and topography in the cited art.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kanayama JP 2005037255 (machine translation attached) describes exposing a resist to an electron beam according to a design pattern, developing it and measuring the resulting pattern size, the resist pattern is then used as a mask to etch the underlying film and then the dimensions of the film pattern are measured. The dimension shift/changes are determined and then a correction unit determined the corrected size of the (design) resist pattern dimensions and the corrected irradiation time (dosage). Figure 4 shows the correlation between shrinkage relative to the design pattern and the electron beam exposure time (dosage).
PNG
media_image22.png
264
334
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
461
353
media_image23.png
Greyscale
First, as shown in FIG. 2A, a resist pattern 1 composed of a chemically amplified resist is formed. Next, as shown in FIG. 2B, after the electron beam is irradiated for a predetermined time equal to or longer than the time Tth, the dimension a of the resist pattern 1 is measured in the area 3 irradiated with the electron beam. Next, using the shrinked resist pattern 1 as a mask, the underlying work film such as a polysilicon film is etched to remove the resist pattern 1. Then, the etching process film pattern dimension c is measured by irradiating an electron beam at the same location as in the case of FIG. 2C. Here, when the electron beam is irradiated for a predetermined time longer than the time Tth, the shrink amount e (negative value) of the resist pattern 1 is constant, and the shrink amount does not change even when the irradiation time varies beyond Tth. . And the value of shrink amount can be seen from the graph shown in FIG C. Therefore, the true pattern dimension d of the film to be processed can be calculated from the dimension c-shrink amount e. Further, the true resist dimension b is determined by dimension a-shrink amount e. [0029-0044].
Osawa et al. JP 2004111798 (machine translation attached) in supplementary note 5 teaches a process of removing the dimensional change due to the proximity effect. This uses an exposure of an object based upon the exposure (design) data and developing to form a resist pattern. Measuring the width of the resist pattern to determine the difference with respect to the design width (W). determining the size correction to the exposure based upon the relationship between the spacing between resist patterns and the width (W) of the resist pattern [0159]. The intensity of the exposure is represented by the formula
PNG
media_image24.png
75
400
media_image24.png
Greyscale
where Bf: forward scattering radius, βb: Backscatter radius, η: Backscatter coefficient. These values depend on the energy of the electron beam, the thickness of the resist film, the material of the substrate, and the like, and are determined by experiments. The higher the acceleration voltage of the electron beam, the more Bf becomes smaller and βb will grow [0008].
Han et al. KR 100263900 (machine translation attached) teaches with respect to figure 9-12, the formation of a photomask pattern on a substrate (15) with a step and a light shielding layer (18) using a single resist layer (page 15-4 to page 15-5).
PNG
media_image25.png
281
268
media_image25.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image26.png
435
251
media_image26.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image27.png
247
312
media_image27.png
Greyscale
Figure 15 teaches a photomask substrate (15) with a sloped transition, rather than a step (page 15-5)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 pm EST.
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, Ching-Yu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 October 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights