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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 2/3/2026, with respect to the §112 rejections of claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §112 rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 2/3/2026, with respect to the §103 rejections of the claims, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 8) that Waiblinger includes no suggestion or hint that would prompt a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Waiblinger’s technique of providing “a depth profile of the composition of the portion of the mask” and instead generate a plurality of “images” of the photomask using the electron beam at a plurality of acceleration voltages; the “depth profile of the composition of the portion of the mask” of Waiblinger is an image.
In a step 1520, Waiblinger produces “a SEM (scanning electron microscope) image” [0082] as part of a method 1500 (of figure 15) for analysis of the EUV mask. Each scan of the electron microscope is performed “with various beam energies across the same portion of the photolithographic mask” [0014] such that “the high energy electron beam 510 also increases the interaction volume 570 of the high Z sample 450. The increase in the depth of the interaction volume 570 leads to an increase in the radius from which backscattered electrons and reflected photons can be detected. FIGS. 4 and 5 demonstrate that the beam energy can be used as a parameter to investigate the depth profile of a sample” [0058]. Signals are detected at each of a plurality of layers of a sample, where the depth of signals from a layer is controlled by the energy of the primary electron beam (as described in paragraph [0058]) and, as demonstrated by the method 1500 of figure 15, an image is generated for defects at each layer of the sample.
Additionally, figure 4 and 5 illustrate images formed by the interaction between primary electrons having a certain energy, and the sample, to emit secondary and backscattered electrons from a particular depth corresponding to the energy of the primary electron beam.
Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the signals produced by detectors of a scanning electron microscope are images – as evidenced by Shemesh U.S. PGPUB No. 2007/0114404: “A Scanning electron microscope generates images of an object under test from secondary electrons that are scattered/omitted from the inspected object” [0028]. This is consistent with the description of paragraph [0082] of Waiblinger that the scanning electron microscope produces images.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 9) that Waiblinger includes no suggestion or hint that would prompt a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Waiblinger’s technique of providing “a depth profile of the composition of the portion of the mask” and instead generated a first image and a second image of the photomask using the electron beam at the first and the second acceleration voltages, analyze the first and second images to obtain first and second information about the structure of the photomask at the first and the second depth, respectively, then determine the quality of the repaired defect based at least in part of the first and second information about the structure of the photomask at the first and second depths; as discussed above, the “depth profile of the composition of the portion of the mask” of Waiblinger is an image.
Further, Waiblinger identifies that “a SEM (scanning electron microscope) image” [0082] is associated with “the defect” [0082] for each of at least “a defect 810, 820, 830, 840 or any other” [0082]. Further, it is commonly understood (with respect to the discussion of the prior art, as evidenced by Shemesh U.S. PGPUB No. 2007/0114404: [0028]) that the product of a scanning electron microscopy detection, such as each scan of the “depth profile of the composition of the portion of the mask” of Waiblinger, is an image – where each of the imaging scans is incorporated into a depth profile.
Waiblinger discloses analyzing the first and second images (the detected information from each of the first scan at a first energy and the second scan at a second energy) since “a SEM (scanning electron microscope) image is used to decide, whether the defect can be identified as a defect of the absorber layer 760” [0082] (and this analysis is performed for each of a plurality of defects “810, 820, 830, 840 or any other” [0082]).
Waiblinger discloses that the first and second information about the structure is obtained at the first depth and the second depth, at least since figure 8 illustrates that each of the defects 810, 820, 830, 840 is located at a different depth. It is understood that each of these depths is imaged by changing the energy of the primary electron beam (“by varying the energy of the incident electrons, it is possible to reach different depths within the sample” [0010]), thereby generating image signals at each depth (“multiple scans with various beam energies across the same portion of the photolithographic mask provide a depth profile of the composition of the portion of the mask” [0014]).
Waiblinger then discloses determining the quality of the repaired defect based at least in part of the first and second information about the structure of the photomask at the first and second depths (“After a repair process the mask has to be inspected again” [0023]) including “at least one computing means for determining the performance of the at least one portion of the photolithographic mask at the exposure wavelength based on the measured signals” [0024]. This process is repeated for each of “multiple scans” [0014], generating “a SEM (scanning electron microscope) image” [0082] for each defect “810, 820, 830, 840 or any other” [0082] so that “a SEM (scanning electron microscope) image is used to decide, whether the defect can be identified as a defect of the absorber layer 760” [0082].
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on page 10) with respect to the Hashimoto reference; Applicant reiterates the arguments with respect to claim 1, which is taught by the Waiblinger reference, as discussed, above.
Further, Hashimoto evinces, as described above, that a scanning electron microscope, such as that of Waiblinger, forms images from the signal(s) of detected secondary electrons from a scan of an object with a primary electron beam: “an inspection apparatus that scans the inspection target substrate with an electron beam, detects secondary electrons emitted from the inspection target substrate according to irradiation of the electron beam, and acquires a pattern image” [Hashimoto: 0005]. This is the art-recognized functionality of a scanning electron microscope, such as the scanning electron microscope of Waiblinger.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (on pages 10 and 11) with respect to the Steigerwald reference; Applicant reiterates the arguments with respect to claim 1, which is taught by the Waiblinger reference, as discussed, above.
Applicant does not provide additional arguments with respect to the dependent claims and no additional response is necessary.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waiblinger et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0126728.
Regarding claim 1, Waiblinger discloses a method for electron beam-induced processing of a defect of a microlithographic photomask, including the steps of: a) providing an activating electron beam at a first acceleration voltage and a process gas in the region of a defect of the photomask for the purpose of repairing the defect (“…in order to provide the second processing gas… The electron beam 920 decomposes the second precursor gas… The corresponding component of the second precursor gas deposits on the absorber layer 760 to remove the defect” [0073]), and b) producing at least one image of the photomask, in which the region of the defect is captured at least in part, by providing an electron beam at at least one second acceleration voltage, for the purpose of determining a quality of the repaired defect, wherein a plurality of images of the photomask are produced using the electron beam at a corresponding plurality of second acceleration voltages which differ from one another, for the purpose of acquiring depth information in relation to a structure of the photomask (“multiple scans with various beam energies across the same portion of the photolithographic mask provide a depth profile of the composition of the portion of the mask” [0014]). However, although Waiblinger discusses that “by varying the energy of the incident electrons, it is possible to reach different depths within the sample” [0010], and that the interaction between the electron beam and the processing gas occurs “on the absorber layer” [0073] and that the electron beam is imaged at different depths to form “a depth profile” [0014] of an interaction volume having “considerable depth” [0057], there is no explicit disclosure that the second acceleration voltage differs from the first acceleration voltage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second acceleration voltage different from the first acceleration voltage since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use a second acceleration voltage different from the first acceleration voltage for the purpose of creating a complete depth profile of the sample (reaching different depths by varying the beam energy) and to repair a defect in the sample by ensuring that the electron beam energy is appropriately selected to reach a known depth of the defect to interact with the defect. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 2, although Waiblinger discusses that “by varying the energy of the incident electrons, it is possible to reach different depths within the sample” [0010], and that the interaction between the electron beam and the processing gas occurs “on the absorber layer” [0073] and that the electron beam is imaged at different depths to form “a depth profile” [0014] of an interaction volume having “considerable depth” [0057], there is no explicit disclosure that the second acceleration voltage differs from the first acceleration voltage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second acceleration voltage different from the first acceleration voltage since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use a second acceleration voltage different from the first acceleration voltage for the purpose of creating a complete depth profile of the sample (reaching different depths by varying the beam energy) and to repair a defect in the sample by ensuring that the electron beam energy is appropriately selected to reach a known depth of the defect to interact with the defect. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 3, Waiblinger discloses that step b) is carried out in situ (“This embodiment has the advantage that the defect localization and the repair of the defect can be performed in a single device and, thus significantly reducing the effort and time needed for mask repair” [0021]) in relation to step a) (“FIG. 9 shows a scanning electron microscope 900 with which the defects of photolithographic mask 800 represented in FIG. 8 can be analyzed” [0065] – “The electron beam 920 repeatedly scans the sample 930 with various beam energies. Backscattered electrons 960 are measured with the detector 970” [0066] – “the scanning electron microscope 900 may also comprise a nozzle 1030 through with a second precursor gas can be provided at the position of the sample 930 the electron beam 920 hits the sample 930” [0073] – “The electron beam 920 decomposes the second precursor gas at the position the absorber layer 760 of the photolithographic mask miss absorber material. The corresponding component of the second precursor gas deposits on the absorber layer 760 to remove the defect” [0073]).
Regarding claim 4, Waiblinger discloses that steps a) and b) are carried out in a vacuum environment (“the computing means 1010 may also control the high vacuum within the scanning electron microscope 900 via a pressure sensor (not indicated in FIG. 9) and the vacuum pump 1000” [0069]) and the photomask remains in the vacuum environment between step a) and step b) (“FIG. 9 shows a scanning electron microscope 900 with which the defects of photolithographic mask 800 represented in FIG. 8 can be analyzed” [0065] – “The electron beam 920 repeatedly scans the sample 930 with various beam energies. Backscattered electrons 960 are measured with the detector 970” [0066] – “the scanning electron microscope 900 may also comprise a nozzle 1030 through with a second precursor gas can be provided at the position of the sample 930 the electron beam 920 hits the sample 930” [0073] – “The electron beam 920 decomposes the second precursor gas at the position the absorber layer 760 of the photolithographic mask miss absorber material. The corresponding component of the second precursor gas deposits on the absorber layer 760 to remove the defect” [0073]).
Regarding claim 5, Waiblinger discloses that steps a) and b) are carried out using the same scanning electron microscope apparatus, and/or the electron beam at the first acceleration voltage and the electron beam at the at least one second acceleration voltage are produced by the same electron source (“FIG. 9 shows a scanning electron microscope 900 with which the defects of photolithographic mask 800 represented in FIG. 8 can be analyzed” [0065] – “The electron beam 920 repeatedly scans the sample 930 with various beam energies. Backscattered electrons 960 are measured with the detector 970” [0066] – “the scanning electron microscope 900 may also comprise a nozzle 1030 through with a second precursor gas can be provided at the position of the sample 930 the electron beam 920 hits the sample 930” [0073] – “The electron beam 920 decomposes the second precursor gas at the position the absorber layer 760 of the photolithographic mask miss absorber material. The corresponding component of the second precursor gas deposits on the absorber layer 760 to remove the defect” [0073]).
Regarding claim 6, Waiblinger discloses determining the quality of the repaired defect using an image analysis of the at least one produced image of the photomask and/or on the basis of a comparison of the at least one produced image of the photomask with reference data for the at least one second acceleration voltage (“At block 1550, the performance of the photolithographic mask 800 is determined from this set of data. This can for example be performed by the computing means 1010 of the scanning electron microscope 900. It is then decided at decision block 1560 whether the discrepancy between the determined and the predetermined performance of the photolithographic mask 800 requires the repair of the identified defect of the multi-layer structure” [0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Waiblinger discloses generating the reference data using a simulation on the basis of a given model of the photomask, wherein, during the simulation, at least one reference image is produced on the basis of a simulated interaction between an electron beam, which corresponds to the at least one second acceleration voltage, and the given model of the photomask (“the method may further comprise simulating signals generated by the electron beam interacting with the portion of the photolithographic mask and determining the performance of the portion of the photolithographic mask at the exposure wavelength by evaluating simulated and measured signals” [0019]).
Regarding claim 8, Waiblinger discloses that a region outside of the defect is captured in the at least one produced image of the photomask (“the portion of the mask 800 containing the defect can be compared with a portion without defect” [0071]) and the method includes the step of: generating the reference data on the basis of an image analysis of the region outside of the defect (“the method may further comprise simulating signals generated by the electron beam interacting with the portion of the photolithographic mask and determining the performance of the portion of the photolithographic mask at the exposure wavelength by evaluating simulated and measured signals” [0019]).
Regarding claim 9, Waiblinger discloses that the determination of the quality of the repaired defect includes: a determination of a contour of one or more structures in the at least one produced image of the photomask, and/or a determination of a dimension of the one or more structures on the basis of the determined contour (“When the sample 930 comprises the mask 800 having several defects 810, 820, 830 and 840, the information contained in the measured signals of the backscattered electrons 960 and/or generated photons 980 allow localising these defects and analyzing their composition” [0071]).
Regarding claim 12, Waiblinger discloses that during the determination of the quality of the repaired defect, an intensity profile of the at least one produced image of the photomask is determined and a deviation of the determined intensity profile from a reference intensity profile of reference data is determined, in particular for each of the at least one second acceleration voltage (“the composition of the sample 10 can be determined from the spectrum and intensity distribution of the characteristic x-ray radiation” [0056]).
Regarding claim 13, Waiblinger discloses that the deviation of the determined intensity profile from the reference intensity profile is determined for a region of the produced image which comprises a contour of one or more structures of the photomask (“When the sample 930 comprises the mask 800 having several defects 810, 820, 830 and 840, the information contained in the measured signals of the backscattered electrons 960 and/or generated photons 980 allow localising these defects and analyzing their composition” [0071]).
Regarding claim 16, Waiblinger discloses a method for electron beam-induced processing of a defect of a microlithographic photomask, including the steps of: providing an activating electron beam at a first acceleration voltage and a process gas in the region of a defect of the photomask, and repairing the defect at least in part by use of the process gas activated by the electron beam (“…in order to provide the second processing gas… The electron beam 920 decomposes the second precursor gas… The corresponding component of the second precursor gas deposits on the absorber layer 760 to remove the defect” [0073]); producing a first image of the photomask, in which the region of the defect is captured at least in part, by providing an electron beam at a second acceleration voltage (“multiple scans with various beam energies across the same portion of the photolithographic mask provide a depth profile of the composition of the portion of the mask” [0014]); producing a second image of the photomask, in which the region of the defect is captured at least in part, by providing an electron beam at a third acceleration voltage which differs from the second acceleration voltage (“multiple scans with various beam energies across the same portion of the photolithographic mask provide a depth profile of the composition of the portion of the mask” [0014]); analyzing the first produced image of the photomask to obtain first information about a structure of the photomask at a first depth (“At block 1550, the performance of the photolithographic mask 800 is determined from this set of data. This can for example be performed by the computing means 1010 of the scanning electron microscope 900. It is then decided at decision block 1560 whether the discrepancy between the determined and the predetermined performance of the photolithographic mask 800 requires the repair of the identified defect of the multi-layer structure” [0083]); analyzing the second produced image of the photomask to obtain second information about the structure of the photomask at a second depth (“At block 1550, the performance of the photolithographic mask 800 is determined from this set of data. This can for example be performed by the computing means 1010 of the scanning electron microscope 900. It is then decided at decision block 1560 whether the discrepancy between the determined and the predetermined performance of the photolithographic mask 800 requires the repair of the identified defect of the multi-layer structure” [0083]); and determining the quality of the repaired defect based at least in part on the first and second information about the structure of the photomask at the first and second depths (“At block 1550, the performance of the photolithographic mask 800 is determined from this set of data. This can for example be performed by the computing means 1010 of the scanning electron microscope 900. It is then decided at decision block 1560 whether the discrepancy between the determined and the predetermined performance of the photolithographic mask 800 requires the repair of the identified defect of the multi-layer structure” [0083]). However, although Waiblinger discusses that “by varying the energy of the incident electrons, it is possible to reach different depths within the sample” [0010], and that the interaction between the electron beam and the processing gas occurs “on the absorber layer” [0073] and that the electron beam is imaged at different depths to form “a depth profile” [0014] of an interaction volume having “considerable depth” [0057], there is no explicit disclosure that the second acceleration voltage differs from the first acceleration voltage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a second acceleration voltage different from the first acceleration voltage since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use a second acceleration voltage different from the first acceleration voltage for the purpose of creating a complete depth profile of the sample (reaching different depths by varying the beam energy) and to repair a defect in the sample by ensuring that the electron beam energy is appropriately selected to reach a known depth of the defect to interact with the defect. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Regarding claim 17, Waiblinger discloses that determining the quality of the repaired defect comprises determining the quality of the repaired defect using an image analysis of the first produced image of the photomask and the second produced image of the photomask (“At block 1550, the performance of the photolithographic mask 800 is determined from this set of data. This can for example be performed by the computing means 1010 of the scanning electron microscope 900. It is then decided at decision block 1560 whether the discrepancy between the determined and the predetermined performance of the photolithographic mask 800 requires the repair of the identified defect of the multi-layer structure” [0083]).
Regarding claim 18, Waiblinger discloses that determining the quality of the repaired defect comprises determining the quality of the repaired defect on the basis of a comparison of the first produced image of the photomask with reference data for the second acceleration voltage, and a comparison of the second produced image (“the beam energy can be used as a parameter to investigate the depth profile of a sample” [0058]) of the photomask with reference data for the third acceleration voltage (“At block 1550, the performance of the photolithographic mask 800 is determined from this set of data. This can for example be performed by the computing means 1010 of the scanning electron microscope 900. It is then decided at decision block 1560 whether the discrepancy between the determined and the predetermined performance of the photolithographic mask 800 requires the repair of the identified defect of the multi-layer structure” [0083]).
Regarding claim 19, Waiblinger discloses producing at least a third image of the photomask, in which the region of the defect is captured at least in part, by providing an electron beam at at least one fourth acceleration voltage which differs from the first, second, and third acceleration voltages (“multiple scans with various beam energies across the same portion of the photolithographic mask provide a depth profile of the composition of the portion of the mask” [0014]); analyzing the at least one third produced image of the photomask to obtain at least one third information about the structure of the photomask at at least a third depth; and determining the quality of the repaired defect based at least in part on the first information, the second information, and at least one third information about the structure of the photomask (“At block 1550, the performance of the photolithographic mask 800 is determined from this set of data. This can for example be performed by the computing means 1010 of the scanning electron microscope 900. It is then decided at decision block 1560 whether the discrepancy between the determined and the predetermined performance of the photolithographic mask 800 requires the repair of the identified defect of the multi-layer structure” [0083]). Additionally, paragraphs [0075-0077] explicitly describe imaging the sample at three different energies.
Regarding claim 20, Waiblinger discloses that repairing the defect by use of the process gas activated by the electron beam, producing the first image of the photomask; producing the second image of the photomask are carried out in a vacuum environment (“the computing means 1010 may also control the high vacuum within the scanning electron microscope 900 via a pressure sensor (not indicated in FIG. 9) and the vacuum pump 1000” [0069]); wherein the photomask remains in the vacuum environment after repairing the defect and before producing the first image; and wherein the photomask remains in the vacuum environment after producing the first image and before producing the second image (“the defect localization and the repair of the defect can be performed in a single device and, thus significantly reducing the effort and time needed for mask repair” [0021]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waiblinger et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0126728 in view of Hashimoto et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0346769.
Regarding claim 10, Waiblinger discloses the claimed invention except that there is no explicit disclosure of a reference contour.
Hashimoto discloses a method for electron beam-induced processing of a defect of a microlithographic photomask (“As an inspection method, a method of performing inspection by comparing a measurement image obtained by imaging a pattern formed on a substrate, such as a semiconductor wafer or a lithography mask” [0004]), wherein during the determination of the quality of the repaired defect, a deviation of the determined contour from a reference contour in reference data and/or a deviation of the determined dimension from a reference dimension in reference data are/is determined (“comparing the inspected image and the reference image and determining whether there is a defect based on a result of a comparison; and selecting a defect within a range preset based on the contour line as a valid defect, from at least one defect determined to be a defect by the comparison, using the contour data, and outputting the defect” [0022-0024]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Waiblinger with the comparison of Hashimoto in order to provide an improved method for accurately determining the location and dimensions of defect in a photomask.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waiblinger et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0126728 in view of Steigerwald et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0284600.
Regarding claim 14, Waiblinger discloses the claimed invention except that while Waiblinger discloses “intensity distribution of the characteristic x-ray radiation” [0056] and that “Continuum x-rays… are produced when striking beam electrons 20 are slowed to varying degrees by the strong electromagnetic field of atomic nuclei in the sample 10” [0054], there is no explicit disclosure that a determined intensity profile is a one-dimensional or a two-dimensional intensity profile.
Steigerwald discloses a scanning electron microscope (“a scanning particle microscope 1405 in the form of a scanning electron microscope (SEM) 1405” [0110]) for analyzing an EUV mask sample (“The invention relates to a method and an apparatus for repairing at least one defect of a photolithographic mask for the extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wavelength range” [Abstract]), during the determination of the quality of the repaired defect, a one-dimensional or a two-dimensional intensity profile of the at least one produced image of the photomask is determined and a deviation of the determined intensity profile from a reference intensity profile of reference data is determined (“The curve 920 represents the intensity profile of a simulated aerial image after the defect has been repaired. A repair shape 600 that has an imaging structure 610 in the form of a Fresnel zone plate 605 was determined for the purposes of repairing the defect” [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Waiblinger with the intensity profile of Steigerwald in order to provide a determination of the location and dimensions of a defect for repair.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 11; Waiblinger et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0126728 discloses a method for electron beam-induced processing of a defect of a microlithographic photomask, including the steps of: a) providing an activating electron beam at a first acceleration voltage and a process gas in the region of a defect of the photomask for the purpose of repairing the defect (“…in order to provide the second processing gas… The electron beam 920 decomposes the second precursor gas… The corresponding component of the second precursor gas deposits on the absorber layer 760 to remove the defect” [0073]), and b) producing at least one image of the photomask, in which the region of the defect is captured at least in part, by providing an electron beam at at least one second acceleration voltage, for the purpose of determining a quality of the repaired defect, wherein a plurality of images of the photomask are produced using the electron beam at a corresponding plurality of second acceleration voltages which differ from one another, for the purpose of acquiring depth information in relation to a structure of the photomask (“multiple scans with various beam energies across the same portion of the photolithographic mask provide a depth profile of the composition of the portion of the mask” [0014]). However, although Waiblinger discloses comparing image data to reference data “When the sample 930 comprises the mask 800 having several defects 810, 820, 830 and 840, the information contained in the measured signals of the backscattered electrons 960 and/or generated photons 980 allow localising these defects and analyzing their composition” [0071], there is no explicit disclosure that the determination of the quality of the repaired defect includes: a determination of a contour of one or more structures in the at least one produced image of the photomask, and/or a determination of a dimension of the one or more structures on the basis of the determined contour; wherein the deviation of the determined contour from the reference contour in the reference data and/or the deviation of the determined dimension from the reference dimension in the reference data is determined for each of the at least one second acceleration voltage.
Hashimoto et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0346769 discloses a method for electron beam-induced processing of a defect of a microlithographic photomask (“As an inspection method, a method of performing inspection by comparing a measurement image obtained by imaging a pattern formed on a substrate, such as a semiconductor wafer or a lithography mask” [0004]), wherein during the determination of the quality of the repaired defect, a deviation of the determined contour from a reference contour in reference data and/or a deviation of the determined dimension from a reference dimension in reference data are/is determined (“comparing the inspected image and the reference image and determining whether there is a defect based on a result of a comparison; and selecting a defect within a range preset based on the contour line as a valid defect, from at least one defect determined to be a defect by the comparison, using the contour data, and outputting the defect” [0022-0024]). However, Hashimoto does not disclose that the determination of the quality of the repaired defect includes: a determination of a contour of one or more structures in the at least one produced image of the photomask, and/or a determination of a dimension of the one or more structures on the basis of the determined contour; wherein the deviation of the determined contour from the reference contour in the reference data and/or the deviation of the determined dimension from the reference dimension in the reference data is determined for each of the at least one second acceleration voltage.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a method for electron beam-induced processing of a defect of a microlithographic photomask, including the steps of: determining a quality of the repaired defect including: a determination of a contour of one or more structures in the at least one produced image of the photomask, and/or a determination of a dimension of the one or more structures on the basis of the determined contour, that is determined for each of the at least one second acceleration voltage of an electron beam which differs from a first acceleration voltage of an activating electron beam provided with a process gas in the region of the defect.
Regarding claim 15; Waiblinger et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0126728 discloses the claimed invention except that while Waiblinger discloses “At step 1520, a SEM (scanning electron microscope) image is used to decide, whether the defect can be identified as a defect of the absorber layer 760” [0082], there is no explicit disclosure that an extent of a deviation of a parameter determined from the at least one produced image of the photomask from a reference parameter determined from reference data is determined during the determination of the quality of the repaired defect and the method comprises the steps of: determining whether the determined deviation is less than a predetermined threshold value.
Girmonsky et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0256687 discloses “an electron beam examination tool” [0016] wherein an extent of a deviation of a parameter determined from the at least one produced image of the photomask from a reference parameter determined from reference data is determined during the determination of the quality of the repaired defect and the method comprises the steps of: comparing the determined deviation to a predetermined threshold value (“a difference image between the optical image of the semiconductor specimen, and a reference image, can be generated, and locations of the difference image in which a difference in pixel intensity is above a threshold can be indicative of a location of interest (which can include a defect)” [0056]). However, Girmonsky does not disclose determining whether the determined deviation is less than a predetermined threshold value.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a method for electron beam-induced processing of a defect of a microlithographic photomask, wherein an extent of a deviation of a parameter determined from at least one produced image of the photomask from a reference parameter determined from reference data is determined during a determination of the quality of a repaired defect comprises the steps of: determining whether the determined deviation is less than a predetermined threshold value, and/or controlling an HMI unit to output a communication: "satisfactory" and/or controlling a mask output unit to output the repaired photomask if the determined deviation is less than the predetermined threshold value, and/or controlling the HMI unit to output a communication: "unsatisfactory" if the determined deviation is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold value.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881