DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on April 3rd, 2026. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-26 are pending, with claims 21-26 being new.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 12-15, 18-20, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recite “generating a residual curvature map based on the raw residual curvature map”. It is unclear what action this refers to. That is, it is unclear what actions are applied to the raw residual curvature map (also called the residual surface) to transform it into a (non-raw) residual curvature map.
As far as examiner can determine, no step of transforming a raw residual curvature map into a “residual curvature map” is disclosed. Certainly, the application does disclose steps that can be applied to the raw residual curvature map to obtain other types of residual curvature maps, such as blurring and filtering to form blurred and filtered residual curvature maps, respectively. However, these steps are separately claimed in later limitations, so whatever process transforms the raw residual curvature map into a (non-raw) residual curvature map is clearly different from either filtering or blurring. For the purposes of comparison to the prior art, the “raw residual curvature map” and the “residual curvature map” will be treated as being the same map. Therefore, the step of “generating a residual curvature map …” will be assumed to be fulfilled if the step of “generating a raw residual curvature map ...” is fulfilled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0067403 (the ‘403 publication) in view of US 2018/0232410 (the ‘410 publication).
Regarding claim 1, the ‘403 publication discloses a method, comprising:
generating a residual curvature map for a substrate, the residual curvature map being based upon a measurement of the substrate (‘In some embodiments, first order bow can be corrected with a blanket counter stress film. Second order bow can be corrected with a complex or differential counter image or overlay correction pattern transferred in a blanket stress film.’ P 76);
generating a dose map based upon the residual curvature map, the dose map being for processing the substrate using a patterning energy source (‘An overlay correction pattern is generated that defines adjustments to internal stresses at specific locations on the substrate based on the bow measurement of the substrate.’ P 71); and
applying the dose map to process the substrate using the patterning energy source, wherein the dose map is applied by performing exposures of the substrate to the patterning energy source (‘For example, an ion implantation tool can implant particles into the working surface or backside surface to either increase or reduce tensile/compressive forces thereby changing bow of the substrate.’ P 45),
wherein the generating the residual curvature map comprises subtracting a global curvature map from an initial surface map of the substrate, to generate a raw residual curvature map (‘In some embodiments, first order bow can be corrected with a blanket counter stress film. Second order bow can be corrected with a complex or differential counter image or overlay correction pattern transferred in a blanket stress film.’ P 76, wherein it is understood that for second order bow to be corrected by the counter image, but not the first order bow, the first order or global bow must be subtracted from the initial measurements before the measurements can be used to determine a second order only correction pattern.)
The ‘403 publication does not disclose applying a blur kernel operation to the raw residual curvature map, accounting for size effects of an ion beam to apply the dose map. The ‘410 publication discloses a similar method that does include applying a blur kernel operation to the raw residual curvature map, accounting for size effects of an ion beam to apply the dose map (“In the coverage layout each pixel (e.g., 6 mm) is subdivided into smaller pixels (e.g., 200 um) which have a pattern chosen from the coverage library 630. … These subpixels also allow use to blur the boundaries between subpixels and pixel to get a more continuous change in stress between the pixels.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of the ‘403 publication to include the blurring step of the ‘410 publication so that the pixel sizes would be on par with the finite size of the beam.
The ‘403 publication does not disclose applying a filter to the blurred residual curvature map to filter out positive curvature from the blurred residual curvature map. Filters to remove either positive or negative curvature and leave the other are well known. The ‘403 publication discloses that positive and negative curvatures require opposing changes to the stress compensation film (“Added layers or films can selectively add tensile or compressive stress to a substrate. For example, FIG. 10 illustrates a graph of tensile silicon nitride being added to a substrate. As a thickness of deposited SiN increases, so does a positive bow (z-height deviation) on the substrate. As the thickness of the SiN is reduced, the positive bowing deviation is also reduce. A similar but mirrored result happens when depositing films with a compressive stress. As a thickness of a compressive film increases, a negative bow increases. Likewise, removing such a compressive film at locations reduces negative bowing at those locations.”) and that the type of change will depend on both the type of film and the particle being implanted (“For example, an ion implantation tool can implant particles into the working surface or backside surface to either increase or reduce tensile/compressive forces thereby changing bow of the substrate. Such selective increase or reduction can depend on type of surface material being treated as well as type of particles being implanted.” P 45).
In the case that the blanket film adds a tensile stress and the dose map is for ion implantation of a particle that further increases the tensile stress, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to filter out the positive deviations because they cannot be corrected by increasing tensile stress. The positive curvature, in such a case could be corrected with a separate procedure or not corrected. In the same vein, if the blanket film adds compressive stress and the dose map is for the creation of a relief pattern to selectively relax the stress, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to filter out the positive deviations because they cannot be corrected by decreasing compressive stress. In such a case much of the positive curvature would have been corrected by the blanket processing.
Finally, the ‘403 publication does not specify whether multiple exposures at a plurality of twist angles are used. However, ion implantation and commonly involves multiple exposures at a plurality of different angles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to apply the dose map in multiple exposures at a plurality of different twist angle so that the ions could be implanted at more locations with better spacing than possible with a single exposure or multiple exposures at different twist angles.
Regarding claim 4, the ‘403 publication in view of the ‘410 publication discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a substrate curvature represented by the global curvature map is removed by a blanket processing operation to form a blanket film on a back side of the substrate (‘In some embodiments, first order bow can be corrected with a blanket counter stress film.’ P 76).
Regarding claim 5, the ‘403 publication in view of the ‘410 publication discloses the method of claim 1, the patterning energy source comprising an ion beam, electron beam or a laser beam (‘For example, an ion implantation tool can implant particles into the working surface or backside surface to either increase or reduce tensile/compressive forces thereby changing bow of the substrate.’ P 45).
Regarding claim 6, the ‘403 publication in view of the ‘410 publication discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the patterning energy source is scanned along a first direction within a main plane of a substrate platen supporting the substrate, during the plurality of exposures (relative scanning is inherent in ion implanting the multiple locations, without scanning only one location could be implanted, either the energy source of the substrate platen must be scanned, and the choice of scanning the energy source as opposed to the platen is a matter of design choice), and wherein the substrate is rotated through a twist angle about an axis extending perpendicularly to the main plane of the substrate platen between successive exposures of the plurality of exposures (relative rotation is already claimed in parent claim, choice of rotating substrate as opposed to energy source is obvious because it is simpler).
Regarding claim 7, the ‘403 publication in view of the ‘410 publication discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the applying the dose map comprises: exposing a stress compensation layer on a backside of the substrate to the patterning energy source, and scanning the patterning energy source over the stress compensation layer in a pattern in order to transfer the dose map into the substrate, without using a mask (‘For example, an ion implantation tool can implant particles into the working surface or backside surface to either increase or reduce tensile/compressive forces thereby changing bow of the substrate.’ P 45).
Regarding claim 8, the ‘403 publication discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a substrate surface map of a substrate, comprising a map of out-of-plane distortion of the substrate (‘Bow of the substrate is measured to produce a bow measurement that maps z-height deviations on the substrate relative to one or more reference z-height values.’ P 70);
modeling a global curvature map from the substrate surface map (equations in paragraphs 67-68);
generating a raw residual curvature map after subtracting the global curvature map from the substrate surface map (‘In some embodiments, first order bow can be corrected with a blanket counter stress film. Second order bow can be corrected with a complex or differential counter image or overlay correction pattern transferred in a blanket stress film.’ P 76 wherein it is understood that for second order bow to be corrected by the counter image, but *not* the first order bow, the first order or global bow must be subtracted from the initial measurements before the measurements can be used to determine a second order only correction pattern.),
generating a residual curvature map based on the raw residual curvature map (see 112(b) rejection, this step cannot mapped to any step and will be assumed to be fulfilled by the one above);
generating a dose map based upon the residual curvature map, the dose map being for processing the substrate using a patterning energy source (‘An overlay correction pattern is generated that defines adjustments to internal stresses at specific locations on the substrate based on the bow measurement of the substrate.’ P 71); and
applying the dose map to process the substrate using the patterning energy source, wherein the dose map is applied by performing exposures of the substrate (‘For example, an ion implantation tool can implant particles into the working surface or backside surface to either increase or reduce tensile/compressive forces thereby changing bow of the substrate.’ P 45).
The ‘403 publication does not disclose applying a blur kernel operation to the raw residual curvature map, accounting for size effects of an ion beam to apply the dose map. The ‘410 publication discloses a similar method that does include applying a blur kernel operation to the raw residual curvature map, accounting for size effects of an ion beam to apply the dose map (“In the coverage layout each pixel (e.g., 6 mm) is subdivided into smaller pixels (e.g., 200 um) which have a pattern chosen from the coverage library 630. … These subpixels also allow use to blur the boundaries between subpixels and pixel to get a more continuous change in stress between the pixels.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of the ‘403 publication to include the blurring step of the ‘410 publication so that the pixel sizes would be on par with the finite size of the beam.
The ‘403 publication does not disclose applying a filter to the blurred residual curvature map to filter out positive curvature from the blurred residual curvature map. Filters to remove either positive or negative curvature and leave the other are well known. The ‘403 publication discloses that positive and negative curvatures require opposing changes to the stress compensation film (“Added layers or films can selectively add tensile or compressive stress to a substrate. For example, FIG. 10 illustrates a graph of tensile silicon nitride being added to a substrate. As a thickness of deposited SiN increases, so does a positive bow (z-height deviation) on the substrate. As the thickness of the SiN is reduced, the positive bowing deviation is also reduce. A similar but mirrored result happens when depositing films with a compressive stress. As a thickness of a compressive film increases, a negative bow increases. Likewise, removing such a compressive film at locations reduces negative bowing at those locations.”) and that the type of change will depend on both the type of film and the particle being implanted (“For example, an ion implantation tool can implant particles into the working surface or backside surface to either increase or reduce tensile/compressive forces thereby changing bow of the substrate. Such selective increase or reduction can depend on type of surface material being treated as well as type of particles being implanted.” P 45).
In the case that the blanket film adds a tensile stress and the dose map is for ion implantation of a particle that further increases the tensile stress, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to filter out the positive deviations because they cannot be corrected by increasing tensile stress. The positive curvature, in such a case could be corrected with a separate procedure or not corrected. In the same vein, if the blanket film adds compressive stress and the dose map is for the creation of a relief pattern to selectively relax the stress, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to filter out the positive deviations because they cannot be corrected by decreasing compressive stress. In such a case much of the positive curvature would have been corrected by the blanket processing.
Finally, the ‘403 publication does not specify whether multiple exposures at a plurality of twist angles are used. However, ion implantation commonly involves multiple exposures at a plurality of different angles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to apply the dose map in multiple exposures at a plurality of different twist angle so that the ions could be implanted at more locations with better spacing than possible with a single exposure or multiple exposures at different twist angles.
Regarding claim 11, the ‘403 publication in view of the ‘410 publication discloses the method of claim 8, wherein a substrate curvature represented by the global curvature map is removed by a blanket processing operation to form a blanket film on the back side of the substrate (‘In some embodiments, first order bow can be corrected with a blanket counter stress film.’ P 76).
Regarding claim 12, the ‘403 publication in view of the ‘410 publication discloses the method of claim 8, the patterning energy source comprising an ion beam, electron beam or a laser beam (‘For example, an ion implantation tool can implant particles into the working surface or backside surface to either increase or reduce tensile/compressive forces thereby changing bow of the substrate.’ P 45).
Regarding claim 13, the ‘403 publication in view of the ‘410 publication discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the patterning energy source is scanned along a first direction within a main plane of a substrate platen supporting the substrate, during the plurality of exposures (relative scanning is inherent in ion implanting the multiple locations, without scanning only one location could be implanted, either the energy source of the substrate platen must be scanned, and the choice of scanning the energy source as opposed to the platen is a matter of design choice), and wherein the substrate is rotated through a twist angle about an axis extending perpendicularly to the main plane of the substrate platen between successive exposures of the plurality of exposures (relative rotation is already claimed in parent claim, choice of rotating substrate as opposed to energy source is obvious because it is simpler).
Regarding claim 14, the ‘403 publication in view of the ‘410 publication discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the applying the dose map comprises: exposing a stress compensation layer on a backside of the substrate to the patterning energy source, and scanning the patterning energy source over the stress compensation layer in a pattern in order to transfer the dose map into the substrate, without using a mask (‘For example, an ion implantation tool can implant particles into the working surface or backside surface to either increase or reduce tensile/compressive forces thereby changing bow of the substrate.’ P 45).
Regarding claim 15, the ‘403 publication discloses method, comprising:
receiving a substrate surface map of a substrate, comprising a map of out-of-plane distortion (OPD) of the substrate based upon a set of measured OPD (‘Bow of the substrate is measured to produce a bow measurement that maps z-height deviations on the substrate relative to one or more reference z-height values.’ P 70);
generating a global curvature map from the substrate surface map using a model (equations in paragraphs 67-68);
generating a residual surface based upon subtracting the global curvature map from the substrate surface map (‘In some embodiments, first order bow can be corrected with a blanket counter stress film. Second order bow can be corrected with a complex or differential counter image or overlay correction pattern transferred in a blanket stress film.’ P 76 wherein it is understood that for second order bow to be corrected by the counter image, but not the first order bow, the first order or global bow must be subtracted from the initial measurements before the measurements can be used to determine a second order only correction pattern.);
generating a residual curvature map based upon the raw residual curvature map (see 112(b) rejection, this step cannot mapped to any step and will be assumed to be fulfilled by the one above);
generating a dose map based upon the residual curvature map (‘An overlay correction pattern is generated that defines adjustments to internal stresses at specific locations on the substrate based on the bow measurement of the substrate.’ P 71); and
applying the dose map to process the substrate using a patterning energy source, wherein the dose map is applied by performing a exposures of the substrate to the patterning energy source (‘For example, an ion implantation tool can implant particles into the working surface or backside surface to either increase or reduce tensile/compressive forces thereby changing bow of the substrate.’ P 45).
The ‘403 publication does not disclose applying a blur kernel operation to the raw residual curvature map, accounting for size effects of an ion beam to apply the dose map. The ‘410 publication discloses a similar method that does include applying a blur kernel operation to the raw residual curvature map, accounting for size effects of an ion beam to apply the dose map (“In the coverage layout each pixel (e.g., 6 mm) is subdivided into smaller pixels (e.g., 200 um) which have a pattern chosen from the coverage library 630. … These subpixels also allow use to blur the boundaries between subpixels and pixel to get a more continuous change in stress between the pixels.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method of the ‘403 publication to include the blurring step of the ‘410 publication so that the pixel sizes would be on par with the finite size of the beam.
The ‘403 publication does not disclose applying a filter to the blurred residual curvature map to filter out positive curvature from the blurred residual curvature map. Filters to remove either positive or negative curvature and leave the other are well known. The ‘403 publication discloses that positive and negative curvatures require opposing changes to the stress compensation film (“Added layers or films can selectively add tensile or compressive stress to a substrate. For example, FIG. 10 illustrates a graph of tensile silicon nitride being added to a substrate. As a thickness of deposited SiN increases, so does a positive bow (z-height deviation) on the substrate. As the thickness of the SiN is reduced, the positive bowing deviation is also reduce. A similar but mirrored result happens when depositing films with a compressive stress. As a thickness of a compressive film increases, a negative bow increases. Likewise, removing such a compressive film at locations reduces negative bowing at those locations.”) and that the type of change will depend on both the type of film and the particle being implanted (“For example, an ion implantation tool can implant particles into the working surface or backside surface to either increase or reduce tensile/compressive forces thereby changing bow of the substrate. Such selective increase or reduction can depend on type of surface material being treated as well as type of particles being implanted.” P 45).
In the case that the blanket film adds a tensile stress and the dose map is for ion implantation of a particle that further increases the tensile stress, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to filter out the positive deviations because they cannot be corrected by increasing tensile stress. The positive curvature, in such a case, could be corrected with a separate procedure or not corrected. In the same vein, if the blanket film adds compressive stress and the dose map is for the creation of a relief pattern to selectively relax the stress, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to filter out the positive deviations because they cannot be corrected by decreasing compressive stress. In such a case much of the positive curvature would have been corrected by the blanket processing.
Finally, the ‘403 publication does not specify whether multiple exposures at a plurality of twist angles are used. However, ion implantation commonly involves multiple exposures at a plurality of different angles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to apply the dose map in multiple exposures at a plurality of different twist angle so that the ions could be implanted at more locations with better spacing than possible with a single exposure or multiple exposures at different twist angles.
Regarding claim 18, the ‘403 publication in view of the ‘410 publication discloses the method of claim 15, the patterning energy source comprising an ion beam, electron beam or a laser beam (‘For example, an ion implantation tool can implant particles into the working surface or backside surface to either increase or reduce tensile/compressive forces thereby changing bow of the substrate.’ P 45).
Regarding claim 19, the ‘403 publication in view of the ‘410 publication discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the patterning energy source is scanned along a first direction within a main plane of a substrate platen supporting the substrate, during the plurality of exposures (relative scanning is inherent in ion implanting the multiple locations, without scanning only one location could be implanted, either the energy source of the substrate platen must be scanned, and the choice of scanning the energy source as opposed to the platen is a matter of design choice), and wherein the substrate is rotated through a twist angle about an axis extending perpendicularly to the main plane of the substrate platen between successive exposures of the plurality of exposures (relative rotation is already claimed in parent claim, choice of rotating substrate as opposed to energy source is obvious because it is simpler).
Regarding claim 20, the ‘403 publication in view of the ‘410 publication discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the applying the dose map comprises: exposing a stress compensation layer on a backside of the substrate to the patterning energy source, and scanning the patterning energy source over the stress compensation layer in a pattern in order to transfer the dose map into the substrate, without using a mask (‘For example, an ion implantation tool can implant particles into the working surface or backside surface to either increase or reduce tensile/compressive forces thereby changing bow of the substrate.’ P 45).
Regarding claims 21, 23, and 25, the ‘403 publication in view of the ‘410 publication discloses the method of claims 1, 8, and 15, wherein the global curvature is based upon a Gaussian curvature model (“Gaussian curvature” P 67-68).
Regarding claims 22, 24, and 26, the ‘403 publication in view of the ‘410 publication discloses the method of claims 1, 8, and 15, wherein the global curvature is based upon a Gaussian curvature model (“Mean curvature” P 66-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 3rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that they have amended claim 15 to overcome the 112(b) rejections, but fails to point out how the amendment addresses the issue. The amendment cleans up the language but does not make clear what action applicant is trying to claim.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify the method of the ‘403 publication to filter out the positive curvature when generating a curvature map and resulting dose map because “nowhere in paragraph 33 of the ‘403 publication does it teach or suggest that the positive curvature needs to be filtered out”. The fact that the ‘403 publication does not teach or suggest this merely shows that a 103 analysis is required, rather than a 102 analysis. The absence of the teaching is not relevant to whether it would have been obvious to modify the reference.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify the method of the ‘403 publication to filter out the positive curvature when generating a curvature map and resulting dose map because “The '403 publication selects to add either films with a compressive stress or films with a tensile stress based on whether the bow deviation is a positive bow deviation or a negative bow deviation.” This is precisely why it would have been obvious to filter out the positive deviation when generating a dose map for a procedure that adds tensile stress or relaxes compressive stress – the positive and negative curvatures are addressed using separate procedures resulting in different types of stresses, and the curvature maps used in planning each procedure will only need to model the type of curvature that is being corrected. If generating a dose map to add tensile stress or reduce compressive stress, only the negative curvature needs to modeled. Conversely, if generating a dose map to reduce tensile stress or add compressive stress, only the positive curvature needs to be modeled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights