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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the application filed on 07/21/2023. Applicant has submitted Claims 34-66 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 34-66 are rejected; 2) Claims 45 and 58 are objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. EP21155372.2, filed on 02/05/2021, has been filed in this matter.
Claim Interpretation
Generally: The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Objections
Claims 45 and 58 are objected to because of the following informalities: both recite “characterisation” and not “characterization”. Examiner believes this to be a translation error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 54 is objected to because of the following informalities: it recites “The method of any claim 34.” Examiner believes this to be a typographical error and should be “The method of Claim 34. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 52, 58, 64, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 52 and 58 recite the limitation "the patterning device," among other limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 52 depends on Claim 51, which depends from Claim 34. The limitation “a patterning device” is not introduced in Claims 34, 51, or 52. However, it is introduced in Claim 35. Either Claim 52 depends from Claim 35, or should be corrected to “a patterning device.” In either case, correction and clarification is required.
Claim 58 depends on Claim 56, which depends from Claim 55. The limitation “a patterning device” is not introduced in Claims 55, 56, nor 58. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Claim 64 recites the limitation "The computer program," among other limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 64 depends on Claim 34. The limitation “The computer device” is not introduced in Claims 34 nor 64. Correction and clarification is required.
Claim 66 recites the limitation "The computer apparatus," among other limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 66 depends on Claim 34. The limitation “The computer device” is not introduced in Claims 34 nor 66. Correction and clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 34-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 34 and 55 recite calculating various elements, such as irradiance, temperature, and aberrations.
The limitations of calculating various elements, such as irradiance, temperature, and aberrations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer and optical components. That is, other than reciting the use of such components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the computer language, “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating each of the claimed aspects based on the detected information and models. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using generic components to perform the calculating steps. The components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform both the ranking and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 35-54, 56-63, and 66 are rejected for depending on rejected Claims 34 and 55. Upon review of the dependent claims, Examiner does not find any of the dependent claims to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Regarding Claim 64-65, Claims 64-65 are directed towards converting the method of Claim 34 into a computer program and into a computer readable medium. For similar reasoning to that laid out above, the change of statutory category from a process into a machine Examiner finds that Claims 64-65 fails to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 64 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 64 recites “the computer program” and claim 65 recites, “ the computer readable medium carrying a computer program”. A product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. Similarly, the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When the BRI encompasses transitory forms of signal transmission, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter would be appropriate. Thus, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See, e.g., Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134 (claims to a "machine-readable medium" were non-statutory, because their scope encompassed both statutory random-access memory and non-statutory carrier waves). (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 34, 38-39, 41-44, 51-57, 61-62, and 64-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerhard (US 20130188162 A1).
Regarding Claim 34, Gerhard discloses:
A method comprising:
calculating an irradiance profile for at least one optical element of a projection system (Gerhard, [0011], “in order to calculate the change to the optical property brought about by the heat emission of the electromagnetic radiation, an irradiation distribution of the individual optical elements”) from a power and illumination source pupil of a radiation beam (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0047], radiation source 14);
estimating a temperature distribution as a function of time in the at least one optical element of the projection system using the calculated irradiance profile for the at least one optical element of the projection system (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0057], “For each of the optical elements 26 maps of the heat conductivity and thermal links and boundary conditions for a temperature distribution of the elements are stored in the evaluating device 44. Upon the basis of the intensity distribution calculated for the incoming radiation and the aforementioned information on the individual optical elements 26 a temperature distribution in the respective optical element 26 is simulated, time-resolved, by the evaluating device 44”); and
calculating thermally induced aberrations of the projection system (Gerhard, [0003], “In particular, when using radiation in the ultraviolet or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wavelength range the effect of intensive radiation can lead to radiation-induced changes in the properties of the individual optical elements of the projection objective of the projection exposure tool. These changed properties bring about aberrations in the projection objective. The extent of these aberrations depends upon the radiation dosage”) based on the estimated temperature distribution and a thermal expansion parameter map associated with the at least one optical element of the projection system (Gerhard, [0011], “in order to calculate the change to the optical property brought about by the heat emission of the electromagnetic radiation, an irradiation distribution of the individual optical elements is first of all determined by the exposure radiation, from this local heating of the optical elements is determined, and then, with the aid of the thermal expansion coefficients determined, the change to the optical property is determined”),
wherein the thermal expansion parameter map is a spatial map indicating spatial variations of thermal expansion parameters in the at least one optical element of the projection system or a uniform map (Gerhard, [0011], “The thermal expansion coefficients are at at least two different locations of the overall optical surface, in particular at many locations distributed like a grid over the entire optical surface”).
Regarding Claim 38, Gerhard discloses Claim 34, and Gerhard further discloses:
… further comprising calculating the temperature distribution using linear or non-linear differential equations (Gerhard, [0081], “Since one is not given any sharp differentiation between overall temperature and local heating, but rather a continuous profile, Tzc is obtained with known heat transfer on the specimen via a "finite element calculation."” Examiner notes that finite element calculation inherently involves partial differential equations, which inherently are either linear or non-linear).
Regarding Claim 39, Gerhard discloses Claim 34, and Gerhard further discloses:
… further comprising estimating the temperature distribution using a thermal dynamic model based on first principles (Gerhard, [0081], “Since one is not given any sharp differentiation between overall temperature and local heating, but rather a continuous profile, Tzc is obtained with known heat transfer on the specimen via a "finite element calculation"”).
Regarding Claim 41, Gerhard discloses Claim 34, and Gerhard further discloses:
… further comprising using temperature measurements of the at least one optical element of the projection system for feedback correction of the estimated temperature distribution and the prediction of the thermally induced aberrations (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0054], “The projection exposure tool 10 includes a control apparatus 40 which is configured to compensate for, i.e. correct, changes to the optical properties of the projection objective 24 occurring during an exposure process due to heating of the optical elements 26 using manipulation devices 50. For this purpose the control apparatus 40 includes an evaluating device 44 in which initially the intensity distribution of the radiation striking the mirror surfaces of the individual optical elements 26 is calculated”) for at least one of thermal drift, thermal disturbances, modelling errors, changes in thermal boundary conditions and calibration errors (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0059], “Image errors resulting from the local deformations are determined by recalculating representative rays or using stored sensitivities. The image errors determined are passed on to the control signal output device 46 which generates from this a control signal 48 which is passed on to manipulation devices 50. The control signal 48 communicates appropriate instructions to the manipulation devices 50 in order to compensate for the calculated image errors”).
Regarding Claim 42, Gerhard discloses Claim 41, and Gerhard further discloses:
… wherein the temperature measurements are real-time or sampled temperature measurements (Gerhard, [0012], “this correction takes place, in a time-resolved fashion, during the exposure process, i.e. the imaging characteristics are corrected continuously over the time during which a wafer is exposed. Therefore, a so-called forward correction is possible by which, over a specific period of time, a control loop can be dispensed with”).
Regarding Claim 43, Gerhard discloses Claim 41, and Gerhard further discloses:
… using temperature measurements of the at least one optical element of the projection system for estimating a change of thermal boundary conditions of the at least one optical element (Gerhard, [0035], “when measuring the surface topography, the temperature distribution of the optical element is monitored, in a locally resolved fashion, with temperature sensors. This preferably takes place in a time-resolved fashion”), and
estimating the temperature distribution and calculating the thermally induced aberrations of the projection system based on the estimation of the effect of thermal boundary conditions of the at least one optical element (Gerhard, [0011], “in order to calculate the change to the optical property brought about by the heat emission of the electromagnetic radiation, an irradiation distribution of the individual optical elements is first of all determined by the exposure radiation, from this local heating of the optical elements is determined, and then, with the aid of the thermal expansion coefficients determined, the change to the optical property is determined”).
Regarding Claim 44, Gerhard discloses Claim 41, and Gerhard further discloses:
… wherein the feedback correction is based on the difference between the temperature measurements and estimated temperatures (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0054], “The projection exposure tool 10 includes a control apparatus 40 which is configured to compensate for, i.e. correct, changes to the optical properties of the projection objective 24 occurring during an exposure process due to heating of the optical elements 26 using manipulation devices 50. For this purpose the control apparatus 40 includes an evaluating device 44 in which initially the intensity distribution of the radiation striking the mirror surfaces of the individual optical elements 26 is calculated”).
Regarding Claim 51, Gerhard discloses Claim 34, and Gerhard further discloses:
… further comprising correcting thermally induced aberrations based on the predicted thermally induced aberrations in the projection system (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0054], “The projection exposure tool 10 includes a control apparatus 40 which is configured to compensate for, i.e. correct, changes to the optical properties of the projection objective 24 occurring during an exposure process due to heating of the optical elements 26 using manipulation devices 50. For this purpose the control apparatus 40 includes an evaluating device 44 in which initially the intensity distribution of the radiation striking the mirror surfaces of the individual optical elements 26 is calculated”).
Regarding Claim 52, Gerhard discloses Claim 51, and Gerhard further discloses:
… wherein the correcting for the predicted thermally induced aberrations includes at least one of: translating and rotating at least one optical element, the patterning device, or a substrate (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0060], “In FIG. 1, for illustrative purposes, two manipulation devices 50 assigned to the respective optical elements 26 are shown. These serve, for example, to shift the assigned optical element 26 in the direction of the light or perpendicular to the latter or in order to turn about an appropriate axis of rotation”), adapting the illumination source pupil setting, source mask optimization, changing the power of one or more sector heater or cooler, or adapting the shape of a deformable manipulator (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0060], “Such manipulators include deformable optical elements, locally heatable and/or coolable optical elements, plates that can be shifted in relation to one another, optionally asphericised, or interchangeable elements”).
Regarding Claim 53, Gerhard discloses Claim 34, and Gerhard further discloses:
… wherein the at least one optical element comprises a mirror or a lens (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0049], “the projection objective 24 also includes a plurality of optical elements 26 which can be designed dependently upon the design of the projection objective 24 and the radiation wavelength in the form of lenses and/or mirrors”).
Regarding Claim 54, Gerhard discloses Claim 34, and Gerhard further discloses:
… wherein the radiation beam comprises an EUV radiation beam (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0047], “The electromagnetic radiation 16 can be extreme ultraviolet radiation (EUV radiation)”).
Regarding Claim 55, Gerhard discloses:
A system comprising:
a projection system (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0047], a projection exposure tool 10) comprising at least one optical element and configured to project a radiation beam (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0047], radiation source 14), wherein the system is configured to predict thermally induced aberrations of the projection system (Gerhard, [0003], “In particular, when using radiation in the ultraviolet or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wavelength range the effect of intensive radiation can lead to radiation-induced changes in the properties of the individual optical elements of the projection objective of the projection exposure tool. These changed properties bring about aberrations in the projection objective. The extent of these aberrations depends upon the radiation dosage”) and to:
calculate an irradiance profile for the at least one optical element of the projection system from a power and illumination source pupil of the radiation beam (Gerhard, [0011], “in order to calculate the change to the optical property brought about by the heat emission of the electromagnetic radiation, an irradiation distribution of the individual optical elements”),
estimate a temperature distribution as a function of time in the at least one optical element of the projection system using the calculated irradiance profile for the at least one optical element of the projection system (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0057], “For each of the optical elements 26 maps of the heat conductivity and thermal links and boundary conditions for a temperature distribution of the elements are stored in the evaluating device 44. Upon the basis of the intensity distribution calculated for the incoming radiation and the aforementioned information on the individual optical elements 26 a temperature distribution in the respective optical element 26 is simulated, time-resolved, by the evaluating device 44”); and
calculate the thermally induced aberrations of the projection system (Gerhard, [0003], “In particular, when using radiation in the ultraviolet or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wavelength range the effect of intensive radiation can lead to radiation-induced changes in the properties of the individual optical elements of the projection objective of the projection exposure tool. These changed properties bring about aberrations in the projection objective. The extent of these aberrations depends upon the radiation dosage”) based on the calculated temperature distribution and a thermal expansion parameter map associated with the at least one optical element of the projection system (Gerhard, [0011], “in order to calculate the change to the optical property brought about by the heat emission of the electromagnetic radiation, an irradiation distribution of the individual optical elements is first of all determined by the exposure radiation, from this local heating of the optical elements is determined, and then, with the aid of the thermal expansion coefficients determined, the change to the optical property is determined”),
wherein the thermal expansion parameter map is a spatial map indicating spatial variations of thermal expansion parameters in the at least one optical element of the projection system or a uniform map (Gerhard, [0011], “The thermal expansion coefficients are at at least two different locations of the overall optical surface, in particular at many locations distributed like a grid over the entire optical surface”).
Regarding Claim 56, Gerhard discloses Claim 55, and Gerhard further discloses:
… at least one temperature sensor configured to make temperature measurements of the at least one optical element of the projection system for feedback correction for the estimated temperature distribution and the prediction of the thermally induced aberrations (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0054], “The projection exposure tool 10 includes a control apparatus 40 which is configured to compensate for, i.e. correct, changes to the optical properties of the projection objective 24 occurring during an exposure process due to heating of the optical elements 26 using manipulation devices 50. For this purpose the control apparatus 40 includes an evaluating device 44 in which initially the intensity distribution of the radiation striking the mirror surfaces of the individual optical elements 26 is calculated”) for at least one of thermal drift, thermal disturbances, modelling errors and calibration errors (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0059], “Image errors resulting from the local deformations are determined by recalculating representative rays or using stored sensitivities. The image errors determined are passed on to the control signal output device 46 which generates from this a control signal 48 which is passed on to manipulation devices 50. The control signal 48 communicates appropriate instructions to the manipulation devices 50 in order to compensate for the calculated image errors”).
Regarding Claim 57, Gerhard discloses Claim 56, and Gerhard further discloses:
… wherein the at least one temperature sensor comprises at least one of an optical element heating control temperature sensor, sector heater control temperature sensors, ambient temperature sensor, outlet and/or inlet cooling channel temperature sensor (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0035], “when measuring the surface topography, the temperature distribution of the optical element is monitored, in a locally resolved fashion, with temperature sensors”).
Regarding Claim 61, Gerhard discloses Claim 55, and Gerhard further discloses:
… wherein the system is configured to correct for thermally induced aberrations associated with the projection system based on the predicted thermally induced aberrations in the projection system (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0054], “The projection exposure tool 10 includes a control apparatus 40 which is configured to compensate for, i.e. correct, changes to the optical properties of the projection objective 24 occurring during an exposure process due to heating of the optical elements 26 using manipulation devices 50. For this purpose the control apparatus 40 includes an evaluating device 44 in which initially the intensity distribution of the radiation striking the mirror surfaces of the individual optical elements 26 is calculated”).
Regarding Claim 62, Gerhard discloses Claim 55, and Gerhard further discloses:
… wherein the at least one optical element comprises a mirror or a lens (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0049], “the projection objective 24 also includes a plurality of optical elements 26 which can be designed dependently upon the design of the projection objective 24 and the radiation wavelength in the form of lenses and/or mirrors”).
Regarding Claim 64, Gerhard discloses Claim 34, and Gerhard further discloses:
The computer program comprising computer readable instructions configured to cause a processor to carry out a method according to claim 34 (Gerhard, [0021], “the control apparatus is configured to implement the method according to the disclosure in the individual embodiments mentioned.” Examiner understands the control apparatus as described by Gerhard to be a computer processing system).
Regarding Claim 65, Gerhard discloses Claim 64, and Gerhard further discloses:
The computer readable medium carrying a computer program according to claim 64 (Gerhard, [0021], “the control apparatus is configured to implement the method according to the disclosure in the individual embodiments mentioned.” Examiner understands the control apparatus as described by Gerhard to be a computer processing system).
Regarding Claim 66, Gerhard discloses Claim 34, and Gerhard further discloses:
The computer apparatus comprising:
a memory storing processor readable instructions (Gerhard, [0021], “the control apparatus is configured to implement the method according to the disclosure in the individual embodiments mentioned.” Examiner understands the control apparatus as described by Gerhard to be a computer processing system and inherently contains a memory); and
a processor arranged to read and execute instructions stored in the memory (Gerhard, [0021], “the control apparatus is configured to implement the method according to the disclosure in the individual embodiments mentioned.” Examiner understands the control apparatus as described by Gerhard to be a computer processing system and inherently contains a processor);
wherein the processor readable instructions comprise instructions arranged to control the computer to carry out the method according to claim 34 (Gerhard, [0021], “the control apparatus is configured to implement the method according to the disclosure in the individual embodiments mentioned.” Examiner understands the control apparatus as described by Gerhard to be a computer processing system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 35-37, 45-50, 58-60, and 63, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhard (US 20130188162 A1) in view of Schaafsma (US 20210033979 A1).
Regarding Claim 35, Gerhard discloses Claim 34, but does not explicitly disclose:
… calculating the irradiance profile using a diffracted pattern of the radiation beam at a patterning device, the projection system projecting radiation from the patterning device.
Examiner notes that Gerhard does discuss masks. However, Schaafsma, in a similar field of endeavor (Measurement Apparatus And Method For Predicting Aberrations In A Projection System), discloses:
… calculating the irradiance profile using a diffracted pattern (Schaafsma, [0064], “diffraction patterns present on the mask and the transmission of the mask”) of the radiation beam at a patterning device, the projection system projecting radiation from the patterning device (Schaafsma, [0003], A lithographic apparatus may, for example, project a pattern (also often referred to as “design layout” or “design”) of a patterning device (e.g., a mask) onto a layer of radiation-sensitive material (resist) provided on a substrate (e.g., a wafer),” and [0049], “The term “reticle”, “mask” or “patterning device” as employed in this text may be broadly interpreted as referring to a generic patterning device that can be used to endow an incoming radiation beam with a patterned cross-section, corresponding to a pattern that is to be created in a target portion of the substrate”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gerhard with the patterning device of Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of patterning devices as disclosed by Schaafsma and how to use them to modify the system of Gerhard. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of a patterning device in a projection system for monitoring aberrations.
Regarding Claim 36, the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma discloses Claim 35, but Gerhard does not explicitly disclose:
… calculating the diffracted pattern using the power of the radiation beam, the illumination source pupil of the radiation beam and a characterization of the patterning device.
However, Schaafsma further discloses:
… calculating the diffracted pattern using the power of the radiation beam, the illumination source pupil of the radiation beam and a characterization of the patterning device (Shaafsmam, [0064], “The second group may include the illumination mode of the radiation beam, e.g., including the polarization mode, properties of the mask, such as the identity of the mask, diffraction patterns present on the mask and the transmission of the mask, reflection of radiation from the substrate W, and the width of the mask region being illuminated”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma with the patterning device of Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of patterning devices as disclosed by Schaafsma and how to use them to modify the system of the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of a patterning device in a projection system for monitoring aberrations.
Regarding Claim 37, the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma discloses Claim 35, and Gerhard further discloses:
… further comprising calculating the diffracted pattern using an optical model based on first principles (Gerhard, [0081], “Since one is not given any sharp differentiation between overall temperature and local heating, but rather a continuous profile, Tzc is obtained with known heat transfer on the specimen via a "finite element calculation."” Examiner notes that finite element calculation is based on first principles).
Regarding Claim 45, Gerhard discloses Claim 41, but does not explicitly disclose:
… using temperature measurements of the at least one optical element of the projection system for estimating a mismatch between the irradiance profile for the at least one optical element and the actual irradiance profile, the irradiance profile being calculated independently of the characterisation of the patterning device and calculated using coefficients of a plurality of irradiance shapes, and
estimating the temperature distribution and the thermally induced aberrations of the projection system based on the irradiance profile mismatch.
However, Schaafsma, in a similar field of endeavor (Measurement Apparatus And Method For Predicting Aberrations In A Projection System), discloses:
… using temperature measurements of the at least one optical element of the projection system for estimating a mismatch between the irradiance profile for the at least one optical element and the actual irradiance profile, the irradiance profile being calculated independently of the characterisation of the patterning device and calculated using coefficients of a plurality of irradiance shapes (Shaafsma, [0062], “A controller CT is configured to adjust lenses of the projection system PS in order to correct the aberrations caused by the projection system PS. Several of the lenses of the projection system PS may be provided with manipulators which are configured to modify the shape, position and/or orientation of those lenses. The lens manipulators may for example be mechanical actuators which apply compressive or stretching force to edges of a lens, or may for example be heaters coolers which are configured to selectively heat or cool parts of a lens, respectively. The effect of modifying the lens shapes, positions and orientations using the manipulators is well-known and thus the lens manipulators can be used to correct the aberration introduced by the projection system PS in a known way”), and
estimating the temperature distribution and the thermally induced aberrations of the projection system based on the irradiance profile mismatch (Shaafsma, [0062], “The sensor S, processor PR, controller CT and lens manipulators thus comprise a feedback loop, which is used to measure aberrations and to correct measured aberrations,” and [0098], “there is a mismatch between the model represented by the solid curve and the actual measurements represented by the dots. This is particularly evident in the initial part of the post-lot cooling portion after the last substrate has been exposed. This is at least partially because the fast heating effects are not well modelled. This mismatch will have an impact on system performance as the corrections made for the aberrations will not be fully accurate”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gerhard with the patterning device of Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of patterning devices as disclosed by Schaafsma and how to use them to modify the system of Gerhard. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of a patterning device in a projection system for monitoring aberrations.
Regarding Claim 46, the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma discloses Claim 45, and Gerhard further discloses:
… further comprising using temperature measurements of a plurality of optical elements (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0049], “the projection objective 24 also includes a plurality of optical elements 26 which can be designed dependently upon the design of the projection objective 24 and the radiation wavelength in the form of lenses and/or mirrors”) and …
Shaafsma further discloses:
… using one coefficient of the coefficients of the plurality of irradiance shapes for a plurality of optical elements of the projection system (Shaafsma, [0094], “the LHC predicted aberrations in the projection system PS by calibrating an application specific lens-heating model containing exponentials describing the time-dependent nature of the individual Zernike coefficients in a similar way as described above.” Examiner notes that Zernike coefficients are inherently effected by temperature and thermal expansion).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gerhard with the patterning device of Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of patterning devices as disclosed by Schaafsma and how to use them to modify the system of Gerhard. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of a patterning device in a projection system for monitoring aberrations.
Regarding Claim 47, the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma discloses Claim 45, and Gerhard further discloses:
… using temperature measurements of a plurality of optical elements and estimating one coefficient, or a subset of coefficients, of the coefficients of the plurality of irradiance shapes for the at least one optical element (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0049], “the projection objective 24 also includes a plurality of optical elements 26 which can be designed dependently upon the design of the projection objective 24 and the radiation wavelength in the form of lenses and/or mirrors”), and
Shaafsma further discloses:
feeding through the estimated coefficient, or subset of coefficients, of the plurality of irradiance shapes to at least one other optical element as a nominal input (Shaafsma, [0094], “the LHC predicted aberrations in the projection system PS by calibrating an application specific lens-heating model containing exponentials describing the time-dependent nature of the individual Zernike coefficients in a similar way as described above.” Examiner notes that Zernike coefficients are inherently effected by temperature and thermal expansion).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gerhard with the patterning device of Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of patterning devices as disclosed by Schaafsma and how to use them to modify the system of Gerhard. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of a patterning device in a projection system for monitoring aberrations.
Regarding Claim 48, the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma discloses Claim 46, but Gerhard does not explicitly disclose:
… further comprising using a single feedback gain for estimating the coefficients of the plurality of irradiance shapes for the plurality of optical elements.
However, Schaafsma further discloses:
… further comprising using a single feedback gain for estimating the coefficients of the plurality of irradiance shapes for the plurality of optical elements (Shaafsma, [0062], “A controller CT is configured to adjust lenses of the projection system PS in order to correct the aberrations caused by the projection system PS. Several of the lenses of the projection system PS may be provided with manipulators which are configured to modify the shape, position and/or orientation of those lenses,” and “The sensor S, processor PR, controller CT and lens manipulators thus comprise a feedback loop, which is used to measure aberrations and to correct measured aberrations”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gerhard with the patterning device of Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of patterning devices as disclosed by Schaafsma and how to use them to modify the system of Gerhard. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of a patterning device in a projection system for monitoring aberrations.
Regarding Claim 49, the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma discloses Claim 46, and Gerhard further discloses:
… further comprising estimating uncertainty in the applied power of one or more sector heater or cooler (Gerhard, FIG. 1, [0054], “The projection exposure tool 10 includes a control apparatus 40 which is configured to compensate for, i.e. correct, changes to the optical properties of the projection objective 24 occurring during an exposure process due to heating of the optical elements 26 using manipulation devices 50. For this purpose the control apparatus 40 includes an evaluating device 44 in which initially the intensity distribution of the radiation striking the mirror surfaces of the individual optical elements 26 is calculated”).
Regarding Claim 50, Gerhard discloses Claim 34, but does not explicitly disclose:
… further comprising using pressure measurements in the projection system for feedback correction for the estimation of the temperature distribution and the prediction of the thermally induced aberrations.
However, Schaafsma, in a similar field of endeavor (Measurement Apparatus And Method For Predicting Aberrations In A Projection System), discloses.
… further comprising using pressure measurements in the projection system for feedback correction for the estimation of the temperature distribution and the prediction of the thermally induced aberrations (Shaafsma, [0064], “The first group relates to the environment of the projection lens, which may include the temperature of the projection lens, the pressure in the projection lens, the differential pressure at different locations in the projection lens, and the cooling water temperature”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gerhard with the patterning device of Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of patterning devices as disclosed by Schaafsma and how to use them to modify the system of Gerhard. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of a patterning device in a projection system for monitoring aberrations.
Regarding Claim 58, Gerhard discloses Claim 56, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the system is configured to:
use temperature measurements of the at least one optical element of the projection system for estimating a mismatch between the irradiance profile for the at least one optical element and the actual irradiance profile, the irradiance profile being calculated independently of the characterisation of the patterning device and calculated using coefficients of a plurality of irradiance shapes, and
estimate the temperature distribution and the thermally induced aberrations of the projection system based on the irradiance profile mismatch.
However, Schaafsma, in a similar field of endeavor (Measurement Apparatus And Method For Predicting Aberrations In A Projection System), discloses.
… wherein the system is configured to:
use temperature measurements of the at least one optical element of the projection system for estimating a mismatch between the irradiance profile for the at least one optical element and the actual irradiance profile, the irradiance profile being calculated independently of the characterisation of the patterning device and calculated using coefficients of a plurality of irradiance shapes (Shaafsma, [0062], “A controller CT is configured to adjust lenses of the projection system PS in order to correct the aberrations caused by the projection system PS. Several of the lenses of the projection system PS may be provided with manipulators which are configured to modify the shape, position and/or orientation of those lenses. The lens manipulators may for example be mechanical actuators which apply compressive or stretching force to edges of a lens, or may for example be heaters coolers which are configured to selectively heat or cool parts of a lens, respectively. The effect of modifying the lens shapes, positions and orientations using the manipulators is well-known and thus the lens manipulators can be used to correct the aberration introduced by the projection system PS in a known way”), and
estimate the temperature distribution and the thermally induced aberrations of the projection system based on the irradiance profile mismatch (Shaafsma, [0062], “The sensor S, processor PR, controller CT and lens manipulators thus comprise a feedback loop, which is used to measure aberrations and to correct measured aberrations,” and [0098], “there is a mismatch between the model represented by the solid curve and the actual measurements represented by the dots. This is particularly evident in the initial part of the post-lot cooling portion after the last substrate has been exposed. This is at least partially because the fast heating effects are not well modelled. This mismatch will have an impact on system performance as the corrections made for the aberrations will not be fully accurate”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gerhard with the patterning device of Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of patterning devices as disclosed by Schaafsma and how to use them to modify the system of Gerhard. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of a patterning device in a projection system for monitoring aberrations.
Regarding Claim 59, the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma discloses Claim 58, but Gerhard does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the system is configured to use temperature measurements of a plurality of optical elements and use one coefficient of the coefficients of the plurality of irradiance shapes for a plurality of optical elements of the projection system.
However, Shaafsma further discloses:
… wherein the system is configured to use temperature measurements of a plurality of optical elements and use one coefficient of the coefficients of the plurality of irradiance shapes for a plurality of optical elements of the projection system (Shaafsma, [0094], “the LHC predicted aberrations in the projection system PS by calibrating an application specific lens-heating model containing exponentials describing the time-dependent nature of the individual Zernike coefficients in a similar way as described above.” Examiner notes that Zernike coefficients are inherently effected by temperature and thermal expansion).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma with the patterning device of Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of patterning devices as disclosed by Schaafsma and how to use them to modify the system of the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of a patterning device in a projection system for monitoring aberrations.
Regarding Claim 60, the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma discloses Claim 59, but the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the system further comprises less than nine temperature sensors per optical element and/or over five temperature sensors for the plurality of optical elements.
However, Gerhard and Schaafsma discloses the use of multiple sensors (Gerhard [0035], [0076], and Shaafsma [0055], [0095]), but does not disclose an exact number. The number of sensors is a result-effective variable. In that, if there are insufficient sensors it would fail to sufficiently monitor the apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before Applicant's filing date to include “… wherein the system further comprises less than nine temperature sensors per optical element and/or over five temperature sensors for the plurality of optical elements,” since determining the optimum number of sensors and their types is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 63, Gerhard discloses Claim 55, but does not explicitly disclose:
The lithographic apparatus comprising:
the projection system of claim 55, the projection system being configured to use the radiation beam to project a pattern from a patterning device onto a substrate.
Examiner notes that Gerhard does discuss masks. However, Schaafsma, in a similar field of endeavor (Measurement Apparatus And Method For Predicting Aberrations In A Projection System), discloses.
The lithographic apparatus comprising:
the projection system of claim 55, the projection system being configured to use the radiation beam to project a pattern from a patterning device onto a substrate (Schaafsma, [0003], A lithographic apparatus may, for example, project a pattern (also often referred to as “design layout” or “design”) of a patterning device (e.g., a mask) onto a layer of radiation-sensitive material (resist) provided on a substrate (e.g., a wafer),” and [0049], “The term “reticle”, “mask” or “patterning device” as employed in this text may be broadly interpreted as referring to a generic patterning device that can be used to endow an incoming radiation beam with a patterned cross-section, corresponding to a pattern that is to be created in a target portion of the substrate”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gerhard with the patterning device of Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of patterning devices as disclosed by Schaafsma and how to use them to modify the system of Gerhard. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of a patterning device in a projection system for monitoring aberrations.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhard (US 20130188162 A1), in view of Schaafsma (US 20210033979 A1), and in further view of Yuji (JP2009010174A).
Regarding Claim 40, Gerhard discloses Claim 34, but does not explicitly disclose:
… calculating the thermally induced aberrations using a static non-linear function, …
… calculating the thermally induced aberrations using a mapping towards the thermally induced aberrations.
However, Schaafsma, in a similar field of endeavor (Measurement Apparatus And Method For Predicting Aberrations In A Projection System), discloses:
… calculating the thermally induced aberrations using a static non-linear function (Shaafsma, FIG. 4, [0044], “FIG. 4 depicts a diagram of calibration data and a projection system heating model curve according to an embodiment of the invention and a comparison with previous projection system heating model curves”), …
… calculating the thermally induced aberrations using a mapping towards the thermally induced aberrations (Shaafsma, FIG. 4, [0044], “FIG. 4 depicts a diagram of calibration data and a projection system heating model curve according to an embodiment of the invention and a comparison with previous projection system heating model curves”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gerhard with the patterning device of Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of patterning devices as disclosed by Schaafsma and how to use them to modify the system of Gerhard. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use of a patterning device in a projection system for monitoring aberrations.
The combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma discloses the above, but does not explicitly disclose:
… calculating structural strain in the at least one optical element of the projection system from the estimated temperature distribution (Yuji, P14, L36-41, “it is possible to suppress the heat generation of each mirror due to the irradiation with the EUV light L during exposure, and it is possible to suppress the deterioration of the optical performance due to thermal strain. In this case, as described with reference to FIG. 8, the control unit 71 may move the radiation plate 51 in the Z direction so as to approach the mirror 21 via the moving unit 60 d. As a result, the distance in the Z direction of the space S shown in FIG. 2 can be reduced to increase the heat dissipation efficiency”),
calculating the thermally induced aberrations of the projection system based on the calculated structural strain in the at least one optical element of the projection system (Yuji, P14, L36-41, “it is possible to suppress the heat generation of each mirror due to the irradiation with the EUV light L during exposure, and it is possible to suppress the deterioration of the optical performance due to thermal strain. In this case, as described with reference to FIG. 8, the control unit 71 may move the radiation plate 51 in the Z direction so as to approach the mirror 21 via the moving unit 60 d. As a result, the distance in the Z direction of the space S shown in FIG. 2 can be reduced to increase the heat dissipation efficiency”),
calculating structural deformation of the at least one optical element of the projection system using the calculated structural strain and calculating the thermally induced aberrations of the projection system using the calculated structural deformation of the at least one optical element of the projection system (Yuji, P14, L36-41, “it is possible to suppress the heat generation of each mirror due to the irradiation with the EUV light L during exposure, and it is possible to suppress the deterioration of the optical performance due to thermal strain. In this case, as described with reference to FIG. 8, the control unit 71 may move the radiation plate 51 in the Z direction so as to approach the mirror 21 via the moving unit 60 d. As a result, the distance in the Z direction of the space S shown in FIG. 2 can be reduced to increase the heat dissipation efficiency”), and …
However, Yuji, in a similar field of endeavor (EXPOSURE APPARATUS AND ATMOSPHERE REPLACEMENT METHOD), discloses:
… calculating structural strain in the at least one optical element of the projection system from the estimated temperature distribution (Yuji, P14, L36-41, “it is possible to suppress the heat generation of each mirror due to the irradiation with the EUV light L during exposure, and it is possible to suppress the deterioration of the optical performance due to thermal strain. In this case, as described with reference to FIG. 8, the control unit 71 may move the radiation plate 51 in the Z direction so as to approach the mirror 21 via the moving unit 60 d. As a result, the distance in the Z direction of the space S shown in FIG. 2 can be reduced to increase the heat dissipation efficiency”),
calculating the thermally induced aberrations of the projection system based on the calculated structural strain in the at least one optical element of the projection system (Yuji, P14, L36-41, “it is possible to suppress the heat generation of each mirror due to the irradiation with the EUV light L during exposure, and it is possible to suppress the deterioration of the optical performance due to thermal strain. In this case, as described with reference to FIG. 8, the control unit 71 may move the radiation plate 51 in the Z direction so as to approach the mirror 21 via the moving unit 60 d. As a result, the distance in the Z direction of the space S shown in FIG. 2 can be reduced to increase the heat dissipation efficiency”),
calculating structural deformation of the at least one optical element of the projection system using the calculated structural strain and calculating the thermally induced aberrations of the projection system using the calculated structural deformation of the at least one optical element of the projection system (Yuji, P14, L36-41, “it is possible to suppress the heat generation of each mirror due to the irradiation with the EUV light L during exposure, and it is possible to suppress the deterioration of the optical performance due to thermal strain. In this case, as described with reference to FIG. 8, the control unit 71 may move the radiation plate 51 in the Z direction so as to approach the mirror 21 via the moving unit 60 d. As a result, the distance in the Z direction of the space S shown in FIG. 2 can be reduced to increase the heat dissipation efficiency”), and …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma with the strain and deformation sensing of Yuji. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of the strain and deformation sensing as disclosed by Yuji and how to use them to modify the system of the combination of Gerhard and Schaafsma. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)), specifically the use sensing, predicting, and modifying a projection system based on strain or deformation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from Examiner should be directed to CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0079. Examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST (8-4 CST).
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 Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner' s Supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached on (571) 272-3995. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877