DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 2, “the mask” should be changed to --a mask-- to correct antecedence.
Claim 9, line 5, “the wafer” should be changed to --a wafer-- to correct antecedence.
Appropriate correction is required to place claims in better form.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
In claim 1, “generating the mask comprising a pattern of rows of the chip sections, each alternating row comprising half-fields mirrored with respect to corresponding half-fields of an adjacent row” in lines 3-5 is not shown in the drawings.
In claim 9, “the mask comprising a pattern of rows of chip sections, each alternating row comprising half-fields mirrored with respect to corresponding half-fields of an adjacent row” in lines 2-4 is not shown in the drawings.
In claim 14, “generating the mask comprising a pattern of rows and columns of the chip sections, each alternating row and column comprising partial-fields mirrored with respect to corresponding partial-fields of an adjacent row and column” in lines 3-5 is not shown in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 802, 804 in Figure 8. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification refers to “half-fields A” and “half-fields reversed A” in para. [0038] and “partial-fields A,” “partial-fields -A,” “partial-fields reversed A,” and “partial-fields reversed -A” in para. [0043], but “F” appears in Figs. 4-6 and 9 rather than “A.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-20 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.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations “exposing remaining rows and columns of the partial-fields with the pattern and the wafer in the next relative orientation” in lines 11-12 is vague and indefinite. The claim language recites “re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation” in lines 9-10, and the language “the next relative orientation” does not have proper antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear if the language “exposing remaining rows and columns of the partial-fields with the pattern and the wafer in the next relative orientation” is meant to require another re-orienting step that occurs after the pattern and the wafer are re-oriented to have the second relative orientation, or if the claim is intended to mean the remaining rows and columns are exposed with the pattern and the wafer in the second relative orientation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning exposing remaining rows and columns of the partial-fields with the pattern and the wafer in the second relative orientation. Claim 14 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loopstra et al. (US PGPub 2007/0013890, Loopstra hereinafter) in view of De Boeij et al. (US PGPub 2007/0263190, De Boeij hereinafter) in view of Pici (US PGPub 2009/0226677).
Regarding claim 1, Loopstra discloses a photographic lithography method for printing chip sections of a mask to a wafer (Figs. 1-6, paras. [0062]-[0078], [0090], [0113]-[0115], the lithographic apparatus exposes a pattern on the mask MA onto the wafer W), the method comprising:
generating the mask comprising a pattern (Figs. 1-6, paras. [0064], [0066], [0077]-[0078], the patterning device MA includes patterns);
exposing every other row of fields with the pattern and the wafer in a first relative orientation (Figs. 1-6, paras. [0114]-[0115], every other row of fields on the wafer is exposed with the pattern);
exposing remaining rows of the fields with the pattern (Figs. 1-6, paras. [0114]-[0115], every other remaining row of fields on the wafer is exposed with the pattern). Loopstra does not appear to explicitly describe the mask comprising a pattern of rows of the chip sections, each alternating row comprising half-fields mirrored with respect to corresponding half-fields of an adjacent row; exposing the half-fields with the pattern based on mirroring of the half-fields and the corresponding half-fields; re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation, and exposing remaining rows of the half-fields with the pattern and the wafer in the second relative orientation.
De Boeij discloses generating the mask comprising a pattern of rows of the chip sections (Figs. 1-2, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, paras. [0009], [0031]-[0033], [0074], the mask MA includes multiple dies 100), each alternating row comprising half-fields mirrored with respect to corresponding half-fields of an adjacent row (Fig. 14, paras. [0033], [0074], the mask includes half-die areas D1, D2 mirrored in adjacent rows),
exposing the half-fields with the pattern and the wafer in a first relative orientation based on mirroring of the half-fields and the corresponding half-fields (Figs. 1, 11, 14, paras. [0033], [0038], [0074], the mirrored half-die areas D1, D2 are imaged on the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included generating the mask comprising a pattern of rows of the chip sections, each alternating row comprising half-fields mirrored with respect to corresponding half-fields of an adjacent row, exposing the half-fields with the pattern and the wafer in a first relative orientation based on mirroring of the half-fields and the corresponding half-fields as taught by De Boeij in the lithography method exposing every other row and exposing remaining rows as taught by Loopstra since including generating the mask comprising a pattern of rows of the chip sections, each alternating row comprising half-fields mirrored with respect to corresponding half-fields of an adjacent row, exposing the half-fields with the pattern and the wafer in a first relative orientation based on mirroring of the half-fields and the corresponding half-fields is commonly used to reduce field dependent aberrations (De Boeij, paras. [0011], [0074]).
Loopstra as modified by De Boeij does not appear to explicitly describe re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation, and exposing remaining rows of the half-fields with the pattern and the wafer in the second relative orientation.
Pici discloses re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation (Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0052]-[0059], the wafer W and patterning device MA are rotated to have an opposite orientation (see para. [0056], 180° degree rotation)), and exposing the wafer in the second relative orientation (Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0052]-[0059], the pattern is exposed to the wafer W in the rotated orientation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation, and exposing remaining rows of the half-fields with the pattern and the wafer in the second relative orientation as taught by Pici in the lithography method exposing every other row of half-fields and exposing remaining rows of the half-fields as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij since including re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation, and exposing the wafer in the second relative orientation is commonly used to reduce or eliminate overlay error owing to the fingerprint of the lithographic apparatus (Pici, paras. [0046]-[0047], [0052], [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici discloses further comprising: processing the wafer in accordance with the exposing (Loopstra, Figs. 1-6, paras. [0114]-[0115], [0191], the wafer is exposed in an exposure sequence and further processed and developed); and
exposing a full field map of the wafer in association with the first relative orientation (Loopstra, Figs. 1-6, paras. [0114]-[0115], [0191], the dies of the full map of the wafer are exposed in a first orientation, and as modified by Pici, Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0056]-[0059], the substrate and pattern are rotated between full application of overlaid patterns).
Regarding claim 5, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici discloses wherein the re-orienting comprising rotating the wafer (Pici, Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0052]-[0059], the wafer W is rotated).
Regarding claim 6, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici discloses wherein the re-orienting comprises rotating the pattern (Pici, Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0052]-[0059], the patterning device MA, and thus the pattern, is rotated).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Loopstra discloses a photographic lithography method for printing chip sections of a mask to a wafer (Figs. 1-6, paras. [0062]-[0078], [0090], [0113]-[0115], the lithographic apparatus exposes a pattern on the mask MA onto the wafer W), the method comprising:
generating the mask comprising a pattern (Figs. 1-6, paras. [0064], [0066], [0077]-[0078], the patterning device MA includes patterns);
exposing every other row and column of fields with the pattern and the wafer in a first relative orientation (Figs. 1-6, paras. [0114]-[0115], every other row of fields on the wafer is exposed with the pattern); and
exposing remaining rows and columns of the partial-fields with the pattern and the wafer (Figs. 1-6, paras. [0114]-[0115], every other remaining row of fields on the wafer is exposed with the pattern). Loopstra does not appear to explicitly describe the mask comprising a pattern of rows and columns of the chip sections, each alternating row and column comprising partial fields mirrored with respect to corresponding partial-fields of an adjacent row and column, exposing the partial fields based on mirroring of the partial-fields and the corresponding partial fields, re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation, and exposing the wafer in the next relative orientation.
De Boeij discloses generating the mask comprising a pattern of rows and columns of the chip sections (Figs. 1-2, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, paras. [0009], [0031]-[0033], [0074], the mask MA includes multiple dies 100), each alternating row and column comprising partial fields mirrored with respect to corresponding partial-fields of an adjacent row and column (Fig. 14, paras. [0033], [0074], the mask includes half-die areas D1, D2 mirrored in adjacent rows and columns),
exposing the partial fields based on mirroring of the partial-fields and the corresponding partial fields (Figs. 1, 11, 14, paras. [0033], [0038], [0074], the mirrored half-die areas D1, D2 are imaged on the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included generating the mask comprising a pattern of rows and columns of the chip sections, each alternating row and column comprising partial fields mirrored with respect to corresponding partial-fields of an adjacent row and column, and exposing the partial fields based on mirroring of the partial-fields and the corresponding partial fields as taught by De Boeij in the lithography method exposing every other row and exposing the remaining rows and columns as taught by Loopstra since including generating the mask comprising a pattern of rows and columns of the chip sections, each alternating row and column comprising partial fields mirrored with respect to corresponding partial-fields of an adjacent row and column, and exposing the partial fields based on mirroring of the partial-fields and the corresponding partial fields is commonly used to reduce field dependent aberrations (De Boeij, paras. [0011], [0074]).
Loopstra as modified by De Boeij does not appear to explicitly describe re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation, and exposing the wafer in the next relative orientation.
Pici discloses re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation (Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0052]-[0059], the wafer W and patterning device MA are rotated to have an opposite orientation (see para. [0056], 180° degree rotation)), and exposing the wafer in the next relative orientation (Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0052]-[0059], the pattern is exposed to the wafer W in the rotated orientation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation, and exposing the wafer in the next relative orientation as taught by Pici with the partial-fields of the mask in the method as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij since including re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation, and exposing the wafer in the next relative orientation is commonly used to reduce or eliminate overlay error owing to the fingerprint of the lithographic apparatus (Pici, paras. [0046]-[0047], [0052], [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 15, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici discloses further comprising: processing the wafer in accordance with the exposing (Loopstra, Figs. 1-6, paras. [0114]-[0115], [0191], the wafer is exposed in an exposure sequence and further processed and developed); and
exposing a full field map of the wafer in association with the first relative orientation (Loopstra, Figs. 1-6, paras. [0114]-[0115], [0191], the dies of the full map of the wafer are exposed in a first orientation, and as modified by Pici, Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0056]-[0059], the substrate and pattern are rotated between full application of overlaid patterns).
Regarding claim 17, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici discloses wherein the re-orienting comprising rotating the wafer (Pici, Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0052]-[0059], the wafer W is rotated).
Regarding claim 18, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici discloses wherein the re-orienting comprises rotating the pattern (Pici, Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0052]-[0059], the patterning device MA, and thus the pattern, is rotated).
Claims 3, 7-8, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici as applied to claims 1, 2, 14, and 17 above, and further in view of Mulder et al. (US PGPub 2005/0134820, Mulder hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici does not appear to explicitly describe repeating the photographic lithography method for a next lithographic elevation and using chip layout alignment marks in the full field map for alignment.
Mulder discloses repeating the photographic lithography method for a next lithographic elevation and using chip layout alignment marks in the full field map for alignment (Figs. 1, 3, 4, paras. [0046], [0058], [0061], alignment marks P1, P2 are formed on the substrate for substrate alignment, and the lithography exposure is repeated for forming layers on the exposed wafer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included repeating the photographic lithography method for a next lithographic elevation and using chip layout alignment marks in the full field map for alignment as taught by Mulder in the lithography method as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici since including repeating the photographic lithography method for a next lithographic elevation and using chip layout alignment marks in the full field map for alignment is commonly used to produce multiple layers to manufacture a functional integrated circuit (see Mulder, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 7, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the re-orienting comprises: generating a second mask with a mirrored pattern, which is mirrored relative to the pattern; and replacing the mask with the second mask.
Mulder discloses re-orienting comprises: generating a second mask with a mirrored pattern, which is mirrored relative to the pattern (Fig. 4, para. [0063], mask 41b is generated with a mirrored pattern relative to mask 41a); and replacing the mask with the second mask (Fig. 4, para. [0063], the wafer is exposed with mask 41b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the re-orienting comprises: generating a second mask with a mirrored pattern, which is mirrored relative to the pattern; and replacing the mask with the second mask as taught by Mulder in the re-orienting in the method as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici since including wherein the re-orienting comprises: generating a second mask with a mirrored pattern, which is mirrored relative to the pattern; and replacing the mask with the second mask is commonly used to optimize imaging to expose features in the desired direction on the wafer even in the presence of a preferred polarization direction of the lithographic apparatus (Mulder, abstract, paras. [0006], [0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the re-orienting comprises optically rotating the pattern.
Mulder discloses wherein the re-orienting comprises optically rotating the pattern (Figs. 1, 2, 5, paras. [0064]-[0065], the integrator IN is rotated to form a rotated pupil shape as an optimal shape for imaging the rotated pattern, and the projection lens is adjusted corresponding to the rotated integrator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the re-orienting comprises optically rotating the pattern as taught by Mulder as the re-orienting in the method as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici since including wherein the re-orienting comprises optically rotating the pattern is commonly used to optimally image features with an angled orientation (Mulder, paras. [0006], [0064]).
Regarding claim 16, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici does not appear to explicitly describe repeating the photographic lithography method for a next lithographic elevation and using chip layout alignment marks in the full field map for alignment.
Mulder discloses repeating the photographic lithography method for a next lithographic elevation and using chip layout alignment marks in the full field map for alignment (Figs. 1, 3, 4, paras. [0046], [0058], [0061], alignment marks P1, P2 are formed on the substrate for substrate alignment, and the lithography exposure is repeated for forming layers on the exposed wafer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included repeating the photographic lithography method for a next lithographic elevation and using chip layout alignment marks in the full field map for alignment as taught by Mulder in the lithography method as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici since including repeating the photographic lithography method for a next lithographic elevation and using chip layout alignment marks in the full field map for alignment is commonly used to produce multiple layers to manufacture a functional integrated circuit (see Mulder, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 19, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the re-orienting comprises: generating a second mask with a mirrored pattern; and replacing the mask with the second mask.
Mulder discloses re-orienting comprises: generating a second mask with a mirrored pattern, which is mirrored relative to the pattern (Fig. 4, para. [0063], mask 41b is generated with a mirrored pattern relative to mask 41a); and replacing the mask with the second mask (Fig. 4, para. [0063], the wafer is exposed with mask 41b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the re-orienting comprises: generating a second mask with a mirrored pattern, which is mirrored relative to the pattern; and replacing the mask with the second mask as taught by Mulder in the re-orienting in the method as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici since including wherein the re-orienting comprises: generating a second mask with a mirrored pattern, which is mirrored relative to the pattern; and replacing the mask with the second mask is commonly used to optimize imaging to expose features in the desired direction on the wafer even in the presence of a preferred polarization direction of the lithographic apparatus (Mulder, abstract, paras. [0006], [0063]).
Regarding claim 20, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the re-orienting comprises optically rotating the pattern.
Mulder discloses wherein the re-orienting comprises optically rotating the pattern (Figs. 1, 2, 5, paras. [0064]-[0065], the integrator IN is rotated to form a rotated pupil shape as an optimal shape for imaging the rotated pattern, and the projection lens is adjusted corresponding to the rotated integrator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the re-orienting comprises optically rotating the pattern as taught by Mulder as the re-orienting in the method as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici since including wherein the re-orienting comprises optically rotating the pattern is commonly used to optimally image features with an angled orientation (Mulder, paras. [0006], [0064]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of van Schoot et al. (“High-numerical aperture extreme ultraviolet scanner for 8-nm lithography and beyond,” van Schoot hereinafter; document included with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 4, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the half-fields are about 16.5 mm x 26 mm.
van Schoot discloses wherein the half-fields are about 16.5 mm x 26 mm (Fig. 11(c), page 7 of document, the half-fields are 16.5 mm x 26 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the half-fields are about 16.5 mm x 26 mm as taught by van Schoot as the dimensions of the half-fields in the method as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici since including wherein the half-fields are about 16.5 mm x 26 mm is commonly used to limit mask shadowing effects and improving throughput and lowering costs per exposure in a high-NA EUV scanner (van Schoot, pages 3, 4, and 16).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loopstra et al. (US PGPub 2007/0013890, Loopstra hereinafter) in view of De Boeij et al. (US PGPub 2007/0263190, De Boeij hereinafter) in view of Pici (US PGPub 2009/0226677) in view of Yoshikawa (US PGPub 2007/0181825).
Regarding claim 9, Loopstra discloses a photographic lithography apparatus (Figs. 1-6, paras. [0062]-[0078], [0090], [0113]-[0115], the lithographic apparatus exposes a pattern on the mask MA onto the wafer W), comprising:
a surface supportive of the mask comprising a pattern (Fig. 1A, paras. [0064], [0077]-[0078], [0086], support structure MT supports patterning device MA);
a chuck supportive of the wafer (Figs. 1A-B, paras. [0065], [0077]-[0080], substrate table WT supports wafer W);
optics optically interposed between the surface and the chuck (Fig. 1A, paras. [0066], [0077], projection system PS is arranged between support structure MT and substrate table WT);
a light source to expose the pattern onto the wafer via the optics (Fig. 1A, paras. [0063], [0075], the radiation source SO produces the radiation beam to expose the pattern on the mask to the wafer);
expose every other row of fields with the pattern and the wafer in a first relative orientation (Figs. 1-6, paras. [0114]-[0115], every other row of fields on the wafer is exposed with the pattern); and
expose remaining rows of the fields with the pattern and the wafer (Figs. 1-6, paras. [0114]-[0115], every other remaining row of fields on the wafer is exposed with the pattern). Loopstra does not appear to explicitly describe the pattern of rows of chip sections, each alternating row comprising half-fields mirrored with respect to corresponding half-fields of an adjacent row; a controller to control operations of the surface, the chuck, and the light source to: expose based on mirroring of the half-fields and the corresponding half-fields; re-orient the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation; and expose with the pattern and the wafer in the second relative orientation.
De Boeij discloses a surface supportive of the mask comprising a pattern of rows of chip sections (Figs. 1-2, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, paras. [0009], [0031]-[0033], [0053], [0064], [0074], the support MT supports mask MA including multiple dies 100), each alternating row comprising half-fields mirrored with respect to corresponding half-fields of an adjacent row (Fig. 14, paras. [0033], [0074], the mask includes half-die areas D1, D2 mirrored in adjacent rows),
expose the half-fields with the pattern and the wafer in a first relative orientation based on mirroring of the half-fields and the corresponding half-fields (Figs. 1, 11, 14, paras. [0033], [0038], [0074], the mirrored half-die areas D1, D2 are imaged on the substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the mask comprising a pattern of rows of chip sections, each alternating row comprising half-fields mirrored with respect to corresponding half-fields of an adjacent row, expose the half-fields with the pattern and the wafer in a first relative orientation based on mirroring of the half-fields and the corresponding half-fields as taught by De Boeij in the lithography apparatus exposing every other row as taught by Loopstra since including the mask comprising a pattern of rows of chip sections, each alternating row comprising half-fields mirrored with respect to corresponding half-fields of an adjacent row, expose the half-fields with the pattern and the wafer in a first relative orientation based on mirroring of the half-fields and the corresponding half-fields is commonly used to reduce field dependent aberrations (De Boeij, paras. [0011], [0074]).
Loopstra as modified by De Boeij does not appear to explicitly describe a controller to control operations of the surface, the chuck and the light source to: re-orient the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation, and expose with the pattern and the wafer in the second relative orientation.
Pici discloses re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation (Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0052]-[0059], the wafer W and patterning device MA are rotated to have an opposite orientation (see para. [0056], 180° degree rotation)), and exposing the wafer in the second relative orientation (Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0052]-[0059], the pattern is exposed to the wafer W in the rotated orientation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation, and exposing remaining rows of the half-fields with the pattern and the wafer in the second relative orientation as taught by Pici in the lithography apparatus exposing every other row as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij since including re-orienting the pattern and the wafer to have a second relative orientation opposite the first relative orientation, and exposing the wafer in the second relative orientation is commonly used to reduce or eliminate overlay error owing to the fingerprint of the lithographic apparatus (Pici, paras. [0046]-[0047], [0052], [0058]-[0059]).
Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici does not appear to explicitly describe a controller to control operations of the surface, the chuck, and the light source.
Yoshikawa discloses a controller to control operations of the surface, the chuck, and the light source (Fig 1, paras. [0035], [0038], [0045], [0051]-[0053], [0059], [0069], main controller 50 controls the reticle stage RST, the wafer stage WST, and the illumination system 10 comprising a light source).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a controller to control operations of the surface, the chuck and the light source, as taught by Yoshikawa, to perform the steps in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici since including to control operations of the surface, the chuck, and the light source is commonly used to automate complex control of the operation of the lithographic apparatus based on measurement information (Yoshikawa, para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 11, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici in view of Yoshikawa discloses wherein the controller re-orients the pattern and the wafer by rotating one of the chuck or the wafer (Pici, Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0052]-[0059], the wafer W and patterning device MA are rotated to have an opposite orientation, and as modified by Yoshikawa, Fig.1, paras. [0035], [0038], [0045], [0051]-[0053], [0059], [0069], [0074], main controller 50 controls the reticle stage RST and the wafer stage WST and rotates the wafer holder).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici and Yoshikawa as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of van Schoot et al. (“High-numerical aperture extreme ultraviolet scanner for 8-nm lithography and beyond,” van Schoot hereinafter).
Regarding claim 10, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici and Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the half-fields are about 16.5 mm x 26 mm.
van Schoot discloses wherein the half-fields are about 16.5 mm x 26 mm (Fig. 11(c), page 7 of document, the half-fields are 16.5 mm x 26 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the half-fields are about 16.5 mm x 26 mm as taught by van Schoot as the dimensions of the half-fields in the method as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici and Yoshikawa since including wherein the half-fields are about 16.5 mm x 26 mm is commonly used to limit mask shadowing effects and improving throughput and lowering costs per exposure in a high-NA EUV scanner (van Schoot, pages 3, 4, and 16).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici and Yoshikawa as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Mulder.
Regarding claim 12, although Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici and Yoshikawa discloses the controller (Yoshikawa, Fig.1, paras. [0035], [0038], [0045], [0051]-[0053], [0059], [0069], [0074], main controller 50), Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici and Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly describe a second mask with a second pattern, which is rotated relative to the pattern, and wherein the controller effectively re-orients the pattern and the wafer by replacing the mask with the second mask.
Mulder discloses a second mask with a second pattern, which is rotated relative to the pattern (Fig. 4, para. [0063], mask 41b is generated with a mirrored pattern relative to mask 41a), and wherein the controller effectively re-orients the pattern and the wafer by replacing the mask with the second mask (Fig. 4, para. [0063], the wafer is exposed with mask 41b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a second mask with a second pattern, which is rotated relative to the pattern, and wherein the controller effectively re-orients the pattern and the wafer by replacing the mask with the second mask as taught by Mulder with the controller in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici and Yoshikawa since including a second mask with a second pattern, which is rotated relative to the pattern, and wherein the controller effectively re-orients the pattern and the wafer by replacing the mask with the second mask is commonly used to optimize imaging to expose features in the desired direction on the wafer even in the presence of a preferred polarization direction of the lithographic apparatus (Mulder, abstract, paras. [0006], [0063]).
Regarding claim 13, Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici and Yoshikawa does not appear to explicitly describe additional optics, wherein the controller re-orients the pattern and the wafer by inserting the additional optics into a light path of the optics to optically rotated the pattern.
Mulder discloses additional optics, wherein the controller re-orients the pattern and the wafer by inserting the additional optics into a light path of the optics to optically rotated the pattern (Figs. 1, 2, 5, paras. [0064]-[0065], the integrator IN is inserted and rotated to form a rotated pupil shape as an optimal shape for imaging the rotated pattern, and the projection lens is adjusted corresponding to the rotated integrator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included additional optics, wherein the controller re-orients the pattern and the wafer by inserting the additional optics into a light path of the optics to optically rotated the pattern as taught by Mulder in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Loopstra as modified by De Boeij in view of Pici and Yoshikawa since including additional optics, wherein the controller re-orients the pattern and the wafer by inserting the additional optics into a light path of the optics to optically rotated the pattern is commonly used to optimally image features with an angled orientation (Mulder, paras. [0006], [0064]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571)272-2303. 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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882