DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-44 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claims 1-44, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-22 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 23-44 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-44 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 23 recite the abstract idea determining a cleaning process for a EUV system, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "simulate a plurality of irradiance distributions at a plane of the EUV optical sub-system based on the design data and one or more parameters;” covers mental processes including evaluating a dataset and judging what irradiance distributions should be. Additionally, the limitation of “aggregate the plurality of irradiance distributions to generate an aggregated irradiance distribution;” covers mental processes including making a judgement on how to aggregate the data. Additionally, the limitation of “determine a predicted contaminate distribution based on both the aggregated irradiance distribution and a contaminate growth rate, wherein the contaminate distribution is indicative of a predicted amount of contaminate deposited on the one or more optical elements; and”, covers mental processes including evaluating a distribution to make a judgement about an amount of contaminate. Additionally, the limitation of “determine a cleaning recipe for the one or more optical elements based on the predicted contaminate distribution, wherein the cleaning recipe comprises one or more cleaning processes” covers mental processes including evaluating a distribution to make a judgement about how to clean the contaminate. As well as, in claim 23, the limitation of “receiving design data of one or more samples;” covers mental processes including observing one or more sets of sample data. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-22 and 24-44 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 1, the additional element of “a controller”, and “one or more processors” (also recited in claim 21), merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “receive design data of one or more samples” in claim 1, as well as reciting “direct a system to perform a cleaning of the one or more optical elements based on the cleaning recipe” in claim 21, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The limitations of “an EUV optical sub-system comprising: an illumination source configured to generate an illumination beam; and one or more optical elements configured to reflect a measurement beam, wherein the one or more optical elements are located in a collection pathway of the EUV optical sub-system; and” in claims 1 and 23, “wherein the plane of the EUV optical subsystem comprises a pupil plane” in claims 2 and 24, “wherein the plane of the EUV optical subsystem comprises a field plane” in claims 3 and 25, “wherein the contaminate deposited on the one or more optical elements comprises carbon” in claims 4 and 26, “wherein the cleaning recipe comprises an ultraviolet radiation ozone (UVO) cleaning recipe configured to direct UV illumination to the one or more optical elements in presence of ozone molecules” in claims 5 and 27, “wherein each cleaning process utilizes a respective modulator of one or more modulators, wherein each respective modulator is configured to selectively direct a respective portion of a cleaning illumination to a respective optical element area of the one or more optical elements” in claims 6 and 28, “wherein the one or more modulators comprises a diffractive optical element (DOE) configured to produce a far-field diffraction pattern” in claims 7 and 29, “wherein the one or more modulators comprise a modulator based on one or more Zernike polynomials” in claims 9 and 31, “wherein the cleaning recipe comprises two or more cleaning processes utilizing two or more modulators” in claims 10 and 32, “wherein a first modulator of the two or more modulators is configured to selectively direct a first portion of the cleaning illumination to an inner region of the one or more optical elements according to an inner cleaning process, and a second modulator of the two or more modulators is configured to selectively direct a second portion of the cleaning illumination to an outer region of the one or more optical elements according to an outer cleaning process” in claims 11 and 33, “wherein the inner region comprises a circular region” in claims 12 and 34, “wherein the outer region comprises an annular region” in claims 13 and 35, “wherein the EUV optical system is configured to operate in an extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) spectral range of light” in claims 19 and 41, “wherein the EUV optical system includes an EUV lithography system” in claims 22 and 44, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-22 and 24-44 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 23 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 1, the additional element of “a controller”, and “one or more processors” (also recited in claim 21), merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitations of “receive design data of one or more samples” in claim 1, as well as reciting “direct a system to perform a cleaning of the one or more optical elements based on the cleaning recipe” in claim 21, are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) The limitations of “an EUV optical sub-system comprising: an illumination source configured to generate an illumination beam; and one or more optical elements configured to reflect a measurement beam, wherein the one or more optical elements are located in a collection pathway of the EUV optical sub-system; and” in claims 1 and 23, “wherein the plane of the EUV optical subsystem comprises a pupil plane” in claims 2 and 24, “wherein the plane of the EUV optical subsystem comprises a field plane” in claims 3 and 25, “wherein the contaminate deposited on the one or more optical elements comprises carbon” in claims 4 and 26, “wherein the cleaning recipe comprises an ultraviolet radiation ozone (UVO) cleaning recipe configured to direct UV illumination to the one or more optical elements in presence of ozone molecules” in claims 5 and 27, “wherein each cleaning process utilizes a respective modulator of one or more modulators, wherein each respective modulator is configured to selectively direct a respective portion of a cleaning illumination to a respective optical element area of the one or more optical elements” in claims 6 and 28, “wherein the one or more modulators comprises a diffractive optical element (DOE) configured to produce a far-field diffraction pattern” in claims 7 and 29, “wherein the one or more modulators comprise a modulator based on one or more Zernike polynomials” in claims 9 and 31, “wherein the cleaning recipe comprises two or more cleaning processes utilizing two or more modulators” in claims 10 and 32, “wherein a first modulator of the two or more modulators is configured to selectively direct a first portion of the cleaning illumination to an inner region of the one or more optical elements according to an inner cleaning process, and a second modulator of the two or more modulators is configured to selectively direct a second portion of the cleaning illumination to an outer region of the one or more optical elements according to an outer cleaning process” in claims 11 and 33, “wherein the inner region comprises a circular region” in claims 12 and 34, “wherein the outer region comprises an annular region” in claims 13 and 35, “wherein the EUV optical system is configured to operate in an extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) spectral range of light” in claims 19 and 41, “wherein the EUV optical system includes an EUV lithography system” in claims 22 and 44, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 8 and 30 are directed to further defining a light pattern, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 14 and 36 are directed to further defining the type of sand detection model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 15 and 37 are directed to further defining the determination of the aggregated irradiance distribution using a simulated scan, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 16 and 38 are directed to further defining the incident angles, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 17 and 39 are directed to further defining illumination spectrum of light parameters, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 18 and 40 are directed to further defining illumination spectrum of light parameters, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 20 and 42 are directed to further defining what the type of samples are, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
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 (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 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 1-4, 15-26 and 37-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAWARAYAMA USPPN 2011/0285975 (hereinafter TAW), in view of HSU et al USPPN 2018/0120709.
Regarding claim 1, Taw teaches an EUV optical sub-system comprising: an illumination source configured to generate an illumination beam; and (Figure 6, [0038]-[0040] the EUV system has an illumination source)
one or more optical elements configured to reflect a measurement beam, (Figure 6, [0038]-[0042], mirrors reflect the measurement beam)
wherein the one or more optical elements are located in a collection pathway of the EUV optical sub-system; and (Figure 6, [0038]-[0042], the optical elements are located in a collection pathway)
a controller communicatively coupled to the EUV optical sub-system, the controller including one or more processors configured to execute program instructions causing the one or more processors to: (Figure 8, a computer is used to control the EUV system)
determine a predicted contaminate distribution based on … a contaminate growth rate, wherein the contaminate distribution is indicative of a predicted amount of contaminate deposited on the one or more optical elements; and (Figures 7 and 10, [0048], [0054], [0068], a rate of contaminate growth is plotted by the change in contaminate growth)
determine a cleaning recipe for the one or more optical elements based on the predicted contaminate distribution, wherein the cleaning recipe comprises one or more cleaning processes. (Figures 7 and 10, [0054]-[0056], [0068], the system is appropriately cleaned when there is too much contaminate)
Taw does not explicitly disclose receive design data of one or more samples; simulate a plurality of irradiance distributions at a plane of the EUV optical sub-system based on the design data and one or more parameters; aggregate the plurality of irradiance distributions to generate an aggregated irradiance distribution; determine a predicted contaminate distribution based on both the aggregated irradiance distribution …
Hsu teaches receive design data of one or more samples; (Figures 2, 3A and 8, [0053], [0057], [0125], layout and design are received by the computer, including interferences)
simulate a plurality of irradiance distributions at a plane of the EUV optical sub-system based on the design data and one or more parameters; (Figures 8 and 9, [0057], [0066], [0081]-[0087], a plurality of light distributions with interferences are simulated on a plane of the EUV system)
aggregate the plurality of irradiance distributions to generate an aggregated irradiance distribution; (Figures 8 and 9 [0066], [0085], [0087], the plurality of distributions are summed)
determine a predicted contaminate distribution based on both the aggregated irradiance distribution … (Figures 8 and 9, [0057], [0066], [0085], [0087], interference and aggregated irradiance calculates the contaminate distribution)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Taw with Hsu as the references deal with EUV optical systems, in order to implement a system that simulates irradiance distributions based on received data, and aggregates the irradiance distributions to form a predicted contaminate distribution. Hsu would modify Taw by simulating irradiance distributions based on received data, and aggregating the irradiance distributions to form a predicted contaminate distribution. The benefit of doing so is the system can be optimized to improve the overall lithography fidelity. (Hsu [0059)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 1. Hsu also teaches wherein the plane of the EUV optical subsystem comprises a pupil plane. (Figure 3A, [0066], [0085], the optical system has a pupil plane) See also Taw Figure 6
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 1. Hsu also teaches wherein the plane of the EUV optical subsystem comprises a field plane. (Figure 3A, [0066], [0085], the optical system has a field plane) See also Taw Figure 6
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 1. Taw also teaches wherein the contaminate deposited on the one or more optical elements comprises carbon. ([0044]-[0048], [0068], hydrocarbons are deposited on the optical elements)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 1. Hsu also teaches wherein the aggregated irradiance distribution comprises an aggregated extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) irradiance distribution corresponding to a simulated scan across the one or more samples. (Figures 8 and 9, [0085]-[0088], the system scans across the samples)
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 1. Hsu also teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprise multiple incidence angles of an optical axis of the EUV optical system. (Figures 1 and 3A, [0053], the system has multiple incidence angles)
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 1. Hsu also teaches wherein the one or more parameters comprise illumination spectrum parameters based on a spectral range of light of the illumination beam. (Figures 1 and 3A, [0053], [0066]-[0075] the system has a spectral range of light is used)
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 17. Hsu also teaches wherein the illumination spectrum parameters are further based on a vacuum-ultraviolet/ultraviolet (VUV/UV) measurement acquired from the EUV optical system. (Figure 3A, [0028], [0035] a CCD sensor (VUV/UV) takes a measurement of the optical system)
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 1. Taw also teaches wherein the EUV optical system is configured to operate in an extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV) spectral range of light. (Figure 6, [0012], [0037]-[0047] an EUV system is used)
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 17. Hsu also teaches wherein the one or more samples comprise one or more photomasks. ([0053], [0085], [0087] The sample is a photo mask)
See motivation of claim 1
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 1. Taw also teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the one or more processors to: direct a system to perform a cleaning of the one or more optical elements based on the cleaning recipe. (Figures 7 and 9, [0056], [0058], [0064]-[0068] the computer tells the system to perform a cleaning process)
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 1. Taw also teaches wherein the EUV optical system includes an EUV lithography system. ([0002] an EUV lithography system is used)
In regards to claim 23, it is the method embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 24, it is the method embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
In regards to claim 25, it is the method embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
In regards to claim 26, it is the method embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
In regards to claim 37, it is the method embodiment of claim 15 with similar limitations to claim 15, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 15.
In regards to claim 38, it is the method embodiment of claim 16 with similar limitations to claim 16, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 16.
In regards to claim 39, it is the method embodiment of claim 17 with similar limitations to claim 17, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 17.
In regards to claim 40, it is the method embodiment of claim 18 with similar limitations to claim 18, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 18.
In regards to claim 41, it is the method embodiment of claim 19 with similar limitations to claim 19, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 19.
In regards to claim 42, it is the method embodiment of claim 20 with similar limitations to claim 20, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 20.
In regards to claim 43, it is the method embodiment of claim 21 with similar limitations to claim 21, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 21.
In regards to claim 44, it is the method embodiment of claim 22 with similar limitations to claim 22, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 22.
Claims 5-7 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taw, in view of HSU, and in further view of Morishima et al. USPPN 2008/0267815 (hereinafter Mor).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Taw and Hsu does not explicitly teach wherein the cleaning recipe comprises an ultraviolet radiation ozone (UVO) cleaning recipe configured to direct UV illumination to the one or more optical elements in presence of ozone molecules.
Mor teaches wherein the cleaning recipe comprises an ultraviolet radiation ozone (UVO) cleaning recipe configured to direct UV illumination to the one or more optical elements in presence of ozone molecules. (Figure 1, [0004], [0039], while the system is pressurized with ozone, the cleaned spot is illuminated with UV light)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Taw and Hsu with Mor as the references deal with optical systems, in order to implement a system that pressurizes a system with ozone while a cleaning UV light is modulated across the surface and uses a specific diffraction pattern. Mor would modify Taw and Hsu by pressurizing a system with ozone while a cleaning UV light is modulated across the surface and uses a specific diffraction pattern. The benefit of doing so is the system use the cumulative light amount distribution of the cleaning light calculated by the cleaning-light-amount analyzing part, to determine exactly how to clean the system with an appropriate pressure. (Mor [0039)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Taw and Hsu does not explicitly teach wherein each cleaning process utilizes a respective modulator of one or more modulators, wherein each respective modulator is configured to selectively direct a respective portion of a cleaning illumination to a respective optical element area of the one or more optical elements.
Mor teaches wherein each cleaning process utilizes a respective modulator of one or more modulators, wherein each respective modulator is configured to selectively direct a respective portion of a cleaning illumination to a respective optical element area of the one or more optical elements. ([0039] a fiber actuator scans the cleaning illumination across an optical area)
See motivation of claim 5
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 6. The combination of Taw and Hsu does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more modulators comprises a diffractive optical element (DOE) configured to produce a far-field diffraction pattern.
Mor teaches wherein the one or more modulators comprises a diffractive optical element (DOE) configured to produce a far-field diffraction pattern. (Figures 1, 5 and 7, [0055], the systems produces a far-field diffraction)
See motivation of claim 5
In regards to claim 27, it is the method embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
In regards to claim 28, it is the method embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
In regards to claim 29, it is the method embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
Claims 8-13 and 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taw, in view of HSU, in further view of Mor, and in further view of MATSUYAMA et al. USPPN 2012/0133915.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Taw, Hsu and Mor teach the limitations of claim 7. The combination of Taw, Hsu and Mor does not explicitly teach wherein the far-field diffraction pattern is based on one or more Zernike polynomials.
Mat teaches wherein the far-field diffraction pattern is based on one or more Zernike polynomials. ([0130], [0150]-[0152], the diffraction pattern is based on Zernike Polynomials)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Taw, Hsu and Mor with Mat as the references deal with optical systems, in order to implement a system that uses multiple modulators that are based on Zernike polynomials. Mat would modify Taw, Hsu and Mor by using multiple modulators that are based on Zernike polynomials. The benefit of doing so is the system can modulate the light source to meet the user’s needs. (Mor [0152])
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Taw, Hsu and Mor teach the limitations of claim 6. The combination of Taw, Hsu and Mor does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more modulators comprise a modulator based on one or more Zernike polynomials.
Mat teaches wherein the one or more modulators comprise a modulator based on one or more Zernike polynomials. ([0123], [0130], [0150]-[0152], the modulator is based on Zernike Polynomials)
See motivation of claim 8
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Taw, Hsu and Mor teach the limitations of claim 6. The combination of Taw, Hsu does not explicitly teach wherein the cleaning recipe comprises two or more cleaning processes
Mor teaches wherein the cleaning recipe comprises two or more cleaning processes ([0039], [0056], a multi-step cleaning process, that is multiple processes, is used)
See motivation of claim 5
The combination of Taw, Hsu and Mor does not explicitly teach utilizing two or more modulators.
Mat teaches utilizing two or more modulators. (Figure 2, [0150], two modulators are used)
See motivation of claim 8
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Taw, Hsu, Mor and Mat teach the limitations of claim 10. Taw teaches cleaning Figures 7 and 10, [0054]-[0056], [0068], the system is appropriately cleaned when there is too much contaminate
The combination of Taw, Hsu and Mor does not explicitly teach wherein a first modulator of the two or more modulators is configured to selectively direct a first portion of the cleaning illumination to an inner region of the one or more optical elements according to an inner cleaning process, and a second modulator of the two or more modulators is configured to selectively direct a second portion of the cleaning illumination to an outer region of the one or more optical elements according to an outer cleaning process.
Mat teaches wherein a first modulator of the two or more modulators is configured to selectively direct a first portion of the cleaning illumination to an inner region of the one or more optical elements according to an inner … process, and a second modulator of the two or more modulators is configured to selectively direct a second portion of the cleaning illumination to an outer region of the one or more optical elements according to an outer … process. (Figure 2, [0150], inner and outer regions are illuminated with different modulators according to different processes)
See motivation of claim 8
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Taw, Hsu, Mor and Mat teach the limitations of claim 11. Taw teaches wherein the inner region comprises a circular region. (Figure 6 a region with a circular section is shown)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Taw, Hsu, Mor and Mat teach the limitations of claim 11. Taw teaches wherein the outer region comprises a annular region. (Figure 6 a region with a annular section is shown)
In regards to claim 30, it is the method embodiment of claim 8 with similar limitations to claim 8, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 8.
In regards to claim 31, it is the method embodiment of claim 9 with similar limitations to claim 9, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 9.
In regards to claim 32, it is the method embodiment of claim 10 with similar limitations to claim 10, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 10.
In regards to claim 33, it is the method embodiment of claim 11 with similar limitations to claim 11, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 11.
In regards to claim 34, it is the method embodiment of claim 12 with similar limitations to claim 12, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 12.
In regards to claim 35, it is the method embodiment of claim 13 with similar limitations to claim 13, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 13.
Claims 14 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taw, in view of HSU, in further view of McClinton “Mask Roughness Induced Line-Edge Roughness in Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography.”
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Taw and Hsu teach the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Taw and Hsu does not explicitly teach wherein the determining the cleaning recipe comprises decomposing the contaminate distribution into one or more Zernike polynomial-based distributions.
McClinton teaches wherein the determining the cleaning recipe comprises decomposing the contaminate distribution into one or more Zernike polynomial-based distributions. (Page 2 3rd Paragraph, Chapter 7, the contaminate distribution is Zernike polynomial based)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Taw and Hsu with McClinton as the references deal with optical systems, in order to implement a system that decomposes the contaminate into a Zernike polynomial. McClinton would modify Taw and Hsu by decomposing the contaminate into a Zernike polynomial. The benefit of doing so is the system can determine the overall acceptable level of aberrations, and determine Zernikes that are problematic at each specific node. (McClinton Page 2 3rd Paragraph)
In regards to claim 36, it is the method embodiment of claim 14 with similar limitations to claim 14, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tseng USPPN 2017/0052455: Also teaches the use of Zernikes to obtain the best image in a EUV system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188