DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Den Boef et al. [US 2019/0137893].
For claim 1, Den Boef teaches a detection device (see Fig. 5) for detecting a relative position between a first mark and a second mark respectively provided in a first object and a second object arranged to overlap each other (gratings that overlap or partially overlap in two different layers, see [0047] or [0077] and [0078]), comprising:
an illumination system (410 and 529, see Fig. 5) configured to illuminate the first mark and the second mark with illumination light which is unpolarized light (polarizers of Fig. 4 are removed in Fig. 5); and
a detection system (440, 422, 528-528”) including an image sensor (440) and configured to form an image on an imaging surface of the image sensor from diffracted lights from the first mark and the second mark illuminated by the illumination system (1st and 2nd order diffracted light incident on sensor 440, see Fig. 5),
wherein the first mark and the second mark are configured to form, on the imaging surface, optical information representing the relative position in a first direction or a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (horizontal and vertical directions in the x and y direction, see [0077]-[0081] and Fig. 7, orthogonal directions of overlay values in two dimensions, see [0107]),
a light blocking body including a first light blocking portion crossing an optical axis of the detection system in a direction parallel to a third direction and a second light blocking portion crossing the optical axis of the detection system in a direction parallel to a fourth direction is provided on a pupil surface of the detection system (pupils 1220 and 1230 that have blocking portions that extend in the horizontal and vertical directions, see Fig. 12, blocking portions 1310 and 1320 have blocking portions the extend in the horizonal and vertical directions, see Fig. 13(a) and blocking portions 1340 and 1350 have blocking portions the extend in the horizonal and vertical directions, see Fig. 13(b)), and
the third direction is a direction conjugate to the first direction and the fourth direction is a direction conjugate to the second direction (horizontal and vertical in the x and y direction for determine overlay error are conjugate with the blocking portions in the horizontal and vertical directions of the pupil aperture, see [0077]).
For claim 2, Den Boef teaches among lights from the first mark and the second mark illuminated with the illumination light, unnecessary light including no information representing the relative position is blocked by both the first light blocking portion and the second light blocking portion (zeroth diffraction light is blocked, see [0108]).
For claim 3, Den Boef teaches the illumination system is configured to perform, for the first mark and the second mark, oblique incident illumination with the illumination light (off axis illumination, see Fig. 5).
For claim 4, Den Boef teaches a light intensity distribution at an exit of a pupil surface of the illumination system is asymmetrical with respect to an optical axis of the illumination system (1200 and 1210, see Figs. 1200 and 1210).
For claim 6, Den Boef teaches the illumination system and the detection system share a prism (426), and a pupil surface (529) of the illumination system is arranged between a light source (410) and the prism, and the illumination light is reflected by the prism to illuminate the first mark and the second mark (see the light path in Fig. 5).
For claim 7, Den Boef teaches the diffracted lights (1st and 2nd order diffracted lights, see Fig. 5) from the first mark and the second mark pass through the prism to enter the imaging surface (440), and the pupil surface (528-528”) of the detection system is arranged between the prism and the imaging surface.
For claim 8, Den Boef teaches the first light blocking portion extends over a diameter in the third direction of the pupil surface of the detection system, and the second light blocking portion extends over a diameter in the fourth direction of the pupil surface of the detection system (in pupil 1230, horizontal and vertical blocking portions extend through a center of the aperture, see Fig. 12).
For claim 9, Den Boef teaches the pupil surface of the detection system includes a light transmitting region in a region where the light blocking body is not arranged, and the diffracted lights from the first mark and the second mark illuminated with the illumination light pass through the light transmitting region to form the optical information representing the relative position on the imaging surface (transmitted through regions 1234 and 1236, see [0108]).
For claim 10, Den Boef teaches first-order diffracted lights from the first mark and the second mark illuminated with the illumination light pass through the light transmitting region to form the optical information representing the relative position on the imaging surface (higher diffraction orders of structure 460 that formed on two layers, see [0076]-[0077] and [0108]).
For claim 15, Den Boef teaches the illumination system is able to change a wavelength of the illumination light (see [0094]).
For claim 16, Den Boef teaches the a lithography apparatus for transferring a pattern of an original to a substrate (see Fig. 1), comprising: a detection device defined in claim 1 (see Fig. 5 and [0037]), wherein the lithography apparatus is configured to align the original as a first object provided with a first mark and the substrate as a second object provided with a second mark (see [0034]) based on an output from the detection device (the metrology apparatus may be used with a metrology recipe that can be used in alignment between the patterning device and the substrate by measuring a relative position of the substrate, see [0097] and [0098]).
For claim 17, Den Boef teaches the lithography apparatus is formed as an imprint apparatus (see [0203]).
For claim 18, Den Boef teaches an article manufacturing method comprising: transferring a pattern of an original to a substrate using a lithography apparatus defined in claim 17; and processing the substrate so as to obtain an article from the substrate having undergone the transferring (manufacture of an integrated circuit by resolving an image of a developed resist, see [0003] and [0037]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Boef in view of Tanaka [US 2003/0053058].
For claims 11-14, Den Boef fails to teach a second detection system including a second image sensor having a second imaging surface, wherein a third mark is further provided in the first object and a fourth mark is further provided in the second object, and the second detection system forms an image on the second imaging surface of the second image sensor from lights from the third mark and the fourth mark illuminated by the illumination system, wherein the detection system and the second detection system share some components, wherein a magnification of the detection system is different from a magnification of the second detection system, wherein a first aperture stop is arranged on the pupil surface of the detection system, and a second aperture stop is arranged on a pupil surface of the second detection system.
Tanaka teaches a second detection system including a second image sensor having a second imaging surface (second high magnification sensor s2, see Fig. 8 and [0078]), wherein a third mark is further provided in the first object and a fourth mark is further provided in the second object, and the second detection system forms an image on the second imaging surface of the second image sensor from lights from the third mark and the fourth mark illuminated by the illumination system (alignment marks detected with template at multiple positions using a first low magnification scope and high magnification scope, see [0077]-[0089]), wherein the detection system and the second detection system share some components (share components up until the half mirror, see Fig. 8), wherein a magnification of the detection system is different from a magnification of the second detection system (high and low magnification, see [0078]), a first aperture stop is arranged on the pupil surface of the detection system, and a second aperture stop is arranged on a pupil surface of the second detection system (different “appartures”, see [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the different measurement systems as taught by Tanaka with the measurement system as taught by Den Boef in order to provide for rough alignment to locate the measurement position and then provide for greater alignment precision once the general mark position is found.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Boef in view of Feler [US 2021/0333218].
For claim 5, Den Boef fails to teach a light intensity distribution at an exit of a pupil surface of the illumination system is symmetrical with respect to an optical axis of the illumination system.
Feler teaches a light intensity distribution at an exit of a pupil surface of the illumination system is symmetrical with respect to an optical axis of the illumination system (symmetric off-center illumination pupil, see Fig. 5 and [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the symmetric distribution of the illumination pupil as taught by Feler in the pupil as taught by Den Boef in order to reduce cross talk and mark size and reduce single angle distribution effects caused by off-center illumination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iwai et al. [US 2013/0100459], Minoda et al. [US 2012/0328725], Taki et al. [US 2021/0318626] teach off-axis illumination techniques for template alignment in imprint lithography. Manassen et al. [US 2021/0364279] teaches pupil masking in Moiré pattern imaging. Kurosawa et al. [US 2006/0007436] in Fig.8F and [0077] masking the center of the pupil using a mirror array.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759