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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Budach et al. [US 2010/0297362 A1].
The applied reference has a common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As per claim 1, a method for particle beam-induced processing of a defect of a microlithographic photomask, including the steps of:
a) providing an image of at least a portion of the photomask [0066 SEM image of a mask, 0067 same region of the mask, 0071 a scanning electron microscope image of the defect],
b) determining a geometric shape of a defect in the image as a repair shape [0068 region 107 to be repaired, see FIG. 2C, 0071 the region to be repaired is determined], with the repair shape comprising a number n of pixels [0069 pixels, 0070 pixel for pixel, 0075 a minimum number of pixels that each surface segment has],
c) subdividing, in computer-implemented fashion [0070 the division into the surface segments is undertaken via a software program], the repair shape into a number k of sub-repair shapes [0068 broken down into a multiplicity of surface segments 108, 109, see FIG. 2D, 0071 suitable breakdown of the region to be repaired into surface segments], with an i-th of the k sub-repair shapes having a number mi of pixels, which are a subset of the n pixels of the repair shape [0069 pixels, 0070 pixel for pixel, 0075 an unmasked pixel is then selected and combined with pixels in the environment to form a surface segment, 0076 if the segment has reached the desired size, selects a new unmasked pixel in order to form a new surface segment],
d) providing an activating particle beam and a process gas [0086] at each of the mi pixels of a first of the sub-repair shapes for the purposes of processing the first of the sub-repair shapes [0068 processing of the mask, when repairing the mask, 0071 repair of the defect by a radiation induced chemical process, the object is fed a suitable gas or gas mixture via a gas inlet system, and the electron beam is guided over the individual points of the region to be repaired, 0080 incident on each pixel],
e) repeating step d) for the first of the sub-repair shapes over a number j of repetition cycles [0070 defective masks can be etched or repaired in test passes, pixel for pixel, as a function of processing cycles, 0071 dwelltime at each location, on the next occasion, are likewise part of the scanning strategy, 0085 the inventive method provides the freedom of setting the signal-to-noise ratio of the detected interaction products via two parameters, specifically via the number of cycles over which the signal is required], and
f) repeating steps d) and e) for each further sub-repair shape [0070 defective masks can be etched or repaired in test passes, pixel for pixel, as a function of processing cycles, 0072 continues the repair of the defect in all surface segments, 0073 further processing, in all surface segments, 0085 the inventive method provides the freedom of setting the signal-to-noise ratio of the detected interaction products via two parameters, specifically via the number of cycles over which the signal is required, and via the size of the surface segments over which the signal is spatially integrated, on the basis of the material that is changing during processing, selection of the appropriate parameters is, of course, dependent on the respective individual case].
2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the activating particle bean and the process gas are solely provided at each of the mi pixels of the first of the sub-repair shapes in step d) [0080 incident on each pixel per pixel and per cycle (loop)].
3. The method of Claim 1, wherein the repair shape is subdivided in step c) into the number k of sub-repair shapes on the basis of a threshold (W) [0068 as depicted in FIG. 2D only so many surface segments fit, which are representative of pixels and processed by a limiting value, 0072 and 0073 limiting value; in other words, it is interpreted that division into surface segments via a software program is part of the scanning strategy for repairing the defects pixel by pixel represented by the surface segments that are processed according to dwelltime and the limiting value].
4. The method of Claim 3, wherein the threshold (W) is an empirically determined value, which is determined before step a) [0036 depending on the type of mask to be processed and the type of defect to be repaired, the size of the surface segments can be empirically designed].
5. The method of Claim 3, wherein the particle beam-induced processing comprises an etching of the defect or a deposition of material on the defect and the threshold (W) is determined from empirical values of an etching rate (R) or a deposition rate on the basis of a number n of pixels of a repair shape [0036, 0069 inhomongenities in the etching or deposition rate are determined with sufficient spatial resolution, 0070 parameters are determined empirically and then input into the control software, 0088].
6. The method of Claim 3, wherein the threshold (W) is an empirically determined value which is determined on the basis of parameters which are selected from a group comprising: the number n of pixels of the repair shape, a size of the pixels, an area of incidence of the particle beam, a dwell time of the activating particle beam on a respective pixel, a gas quantity flow rate with which the process gas is provided, a composition of the process gas and a gas quantity flow rate ratio of various gaseous components of the process gas [0007 diverse parameters, 0070 parameters are determined empirically and then input into the control software, 0071 size, suitable gas or gas mixture, dwelltime, part of the scanning strategy, 0085 parameters].
7. The method of Claim 1, wherein the repair shape is subdivided into the plurality of sub-repair shapes with the aid of a Voronoi approach [FIG. 2D depicts a tessellation, Voronoi being a particularly old and well-known type of tessellation dating back to the early 20th century].
8. The method of Claim 7, wherein the sub-repair shapes are determined as Voronoi regions starting from Voronoi centers in step c), with each sub-repair shape comprising the pixel of the repair shape corresponding to the associated Voronoi center and all pixels of the repair shape that are arranged closer to the associated Voronoi center than any other Voronoi center of the repair shape [these features are considered inherent to a Voronoi approach, 0075 starting from a circle around the pixel].
9. The method of Claim 1, wherein the repair shape is subdivided into the plurality of sub-repair shapes in such a way that the m"i pixels of a respective sub-repair shape have the same distance from one another in a scanning direction [0068-0069, 0071 approximately equal/the same size would have pixels the same distance from one another in the scanning direction to repair the defect according to dwelltime and noise ratio, 0075 determined in terms of position and shape].
10. The method of Claim 1, wherein the repair shape comprises at least two spaced apart regions and the repair shape is subdivided into the plurality of sub-repair shapes in such a way that each sub-repair shape comprises at most one of the at least two spaced apart regions [given that masks are realistically much more complex than depicted, 0066 FIG. 2A, 0068 FIG. 2B and FIG. 2D].
11. The method of Claim 1, wherein said method comprises the following step before step d): calculating a sequence in which the activating particle beam is successively provided at the mi pixels of the first of the sub-repair shapes such that a depletion of the process gas byway of a chemical reaction activated by the activating particle beam is implemented uniformly over the sub-repair shape [0064 desired scanning strategy, 0072-0074 changing the scanning strategy].
12. The method of Claim 1, wherein the sequence in which steps d) and e) are carried out in step f) for the further sub-repair shapes differs from a row-by-row and/or column-by-column sequence and/or is randomly distributed [[0049 meandering scanning strategy, 0064 desired scanning strategy (it is interpreted that scanning is old and well-known to be by row, by column, or random), 0068 scanning strategy is continued only in the surface segments in which the signal has not yet reached the prescribed limiting value].
13. The method of Claim 1, wherein the repair shape is subdivided in a number h of mutually different subdivisions into sub-repair shapes in step c) [0068 broken down into a multiplicity of surface segments 108, 109, see FIG. 2D, 0071 suitable breakdown of the region to be repaired into surface segments], and steps d) to f) are carried out for each of the h subdivisions [0070 defective masks can be etched or repaired in test passes, pixel for pixel, as a function of processing cycles, 0071 dwelltime at each location, on the next occasion, are likewise part of the scanning strategy, 0072 continues the repair of the defect in all surface segments, 0073 further processing, in all surface segments, 0085 the inventive method provides the freedom of setting the signal-to-noise ratio of the detected interaction products via two parameters, specifically via the number of cycles over which the signal is required, and via the size of the surface segments over which the signal is spatially integrated, on the basis of the material that is changing during processing, selection of the appropriate parameters is, of course, dependent on the respective individual case].
14. The method of Claim 13, wherein steps d) to f) are carried out for each of the h subdivisions over a number g of repetition cycles, where g is less than j, and/or over a number j/h of repetition cycles [0070 defective masks can be etched or repaired in test passes, pixel for pixel, as a function of processing cycles, 0071 dwelltime at each location, on the next occasion, are likewise part of the scanning strategy, 0072 continues the repair of the defect in all surface segments, 0073 further processing, in all surface segments, 0085 the inventive method provides the freedom of setting the signal-to-noise ratio of the detected interaction products via two parameters, specifically via the number of cycles over which the signal is required, and via the size of the surface segments over which the signal is spatially integrated, on the basis of the material that is changing during processing, selection of the appropriate parameters is, of course, dependent on the respective individual case, as desired].
15. The method of Claim 13, wherein the number h of subdivisions differ from one another by way of a displacement, in particular a lateral displacement, of boundaries of their sub-repair shapes relative to the repair shape [0068 as depicted in FIGS. 2C and 2D].
16. The method of Claim 1, wherein steps d) to f) are repeated over a number p of repetition cycles, and wherein p is an integer greater than or equal to two [0070 processing cycles (loops) it is interpreted that the plural is greater than or equal to two; also, the flowcharts depict iteration thus a number of repetition cycles greater than or equal to two].
18. A computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by a computing apparatus for controlling an apparatus for particle beam-induced processing of a defect of a microlithographic photomask, prompt the apparatus to carry out the method steps of Claim 1 [FIG. 1, flowcharts connote computer-implemented, 0070 control software, software program].
As per claim 17, an apparatus for particle beam-induced processing of a defect of a microlithographic photomask [FIG. 1], comprising:
means for [see Claim Interpretation above] providing an image of at least a portion of a photomask [0066 SEM image of a mask, 0067 same region of the mask, 0071 a scanning electron microscope image of the defect],
a computing apparatus for [see Claim Interpretation above] determining a geometric shape of a defect in the image as a repair shape [0068 region 107 to be repaired, see FIG. 2C, 0071 the region to be repaired is determined], with the repair shape comprising a number n of pixels [0069 pixels, 0070 pixel for pixel, 0075 a minimum number of pixels that each surface segment has] and being configured to subdivide the repair shape into a plurality of sub-repair shapes in computer-implemented fashion [0068 broken down into a multiplicity of surface segments 108, 109, see FIG. 2D, 0071 suitable breakdown of the region to be repaired into surface segments, 0070 the division into the surface segments is undertaken via a software program], and
means for [see Claim Interpretation above] providing an activating particle beam and a process gas [0086] at each pixel of every sub-repair shape over a number j of repetition cycles [0070 defective masks can be etched or repaired in test passes, pixel for pixel, as a function of processing cycles, 0071 dwelltime at each location, on the next occasion, are likewise part of the scanning strategy, 0085 the inventive method provides the freedom of setting the signal-to-noise ratio of the detected interaction products via two parameters, specifically via the number of cycles over which the signal is required] for processing the respective sub-repair shape [0068 processing of the mask, when repairing the mask, 0071 repair of the defect by a radiation induced chemical process, the object is fed a suitable gas or gas mixture via a gas inlet system, and the electron beam is guided over the individual points of the region to be repaired, 0072 continues the repair of the defect in all surface segments, 0073 further processing, in all surface segments, 0085 the inventive method provides the freedom of setting the signal-to-noise ratio of the detected interaction products via two parameters, specifically via the number of cycles over which the signal is required, and via the size of the surface segments over which the signal is spatially integrated, on the basis of the material that is changing during processing, selection of the appropriate parameters is, of course, dependent on the respective individual case].
20.The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the computing apparatus is configured to subdivide the repair shape in a number h of mutually different subdivisions into the sub-repair shapes [0068 broken down into a multiplicity of surface segments 108, 109, see FIG. 2D, 0071 suitable breakdown of the region to be repaired into surface segments], and
wherein the means for providing the activating particle beam and the process gas is configured to carry out providing the activating particle beam and the process gas at each pixel of every sub-repair shape over the number j of repetition cycles for processing the respective sub-repair shape for each of the h subdivisions [0070 defective masks can be etched or repaired in test passes, pixel for pixel, as a function of processing cycles, 0071 dwelltime at each location, on the next occasion, are likewise part of the scanning strategy, 0072 continues the repair of the defect in all surface segments, 0073 further processing, in all surface segments, 0085 the inventive method provides the freedom of setting the signal-to-noise ratio of the detected interaction products via two parameters, specifically via the number of cycles over which the signal is required, and via the size of the surface segments over which the signal is spatially integrated, on the basis of the material that is changing during processing, selection of the appropriate parameters is, of course, dependent on the respective individual case].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate or render obvious a method for determining a threshold (W) for subdividing a repair shape on the basis of the threshold (W) into a number k of sub-repair shapes during particle beam-induced processing of a defect of a microlithographic photomask, including the steps of
i)particle beam-induced processing of a first test defect of a photomask using predetermined processing parameters, the first test defect having a first size,
ii) determining a quality of the processing of the first test defect,
iii) repeating steps i) and ii) for modified processing parameters until processing parameters are determined[], for which the determined quality is better than or equal to a predetermined quality,
iv) particle beam-induced processing of further test defects of the photomask using the determined processing parameters, with the further test defects each having a size that differs from the sizes of the other further test defects and from the sire of the first test defect,
v) determining the quality of the processing for each further test defect, and
vi) determining the threshold (W) on the basis of the quality determined for the first and the further test defects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEIGH M GARBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
/LEIGH M GARBOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights