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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an optical element” in claim 3; “a reflective optical element” in claim 17; “a first driving element” in claim 17; “a second driving element” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2015/0221075 A1) in view of Phan et al. (US 6665065 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a method, comprising:
capturing a first reference image of a mask (1) by an inspection apparatus (Fig. 1; [0029]; [0031]), the capturing comprising measuring a first reflected light intensity from the first reference image ([0041]);
measuring a second reflected light intensity on the mask by the inspection apparatus ([0042]);
comparing the second reflected light intensity with the first reflected light intensity from the first reference image ([0043]-[0044]);
determining whether a first comparison result of the first and second reflected light intensities is acceptable ([0045]); and
in response to the determination determines that the first comparison result is unacceptable, adjusting an inspection parameter of the inspection apparatus ([0050]-[0051]).
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose
performing, using the mask, an exposure process on a wafer;
after performing the exposure process, measuring a second reflected light intensity on the mask by the inspection apparatus.
However, Phan, in the same field of endeavor of mask inspection systems and methods, discloses performing, using a mask (12), an exposure process on a wafer (Fig. 2; Abstract; Col. 4, lines 40-45);
after performing the exposure process, measuring a second reflected light intensity on the mask by the inspection apparatus (Abstract; Col. 4, lines 11-30).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watanabe with method which inspects the mask between exposures where the motivation would be to detect defects resulting from increasing exposure, improving the reliability of the mask by mitigating the occurrence of eventual defects (Phan: Col. 5, lines 51-59).
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe in view of Phan discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses
in response to the determination determines that the first comparison result is acceptable, performing an inspection process on the mask by the inspection apparatus (Watanabe: [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe in view of Phan discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the inspection parameter comprises a power of a light source in the inspection apparatus (Watanabe: [0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe in view of Phan discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses
after adjusting the inspection parameter, measuring a third reflected light intensity on the mask by the inspection apparatus (Watanabe: [0033]; [0050]-[0051] – where “further transmission images can be compared to each other, or reflections images can be compared to each other” implies repeated measurements and comparisons of reflected light by the inspection apparatus).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe in view of Phan discloses the method of claim 6, as outlined above, and further discloses
comparing the first and third reflected light intensities (Watanabe: [0043]-[0044]; [0050]-[0051]); and
determining whether a second comparison result of the first and third reflected light intensities is acceptable (Watanabe: [0045]; [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe in view of Phan discloses the method of claim 7, as outlined above, and further discloses
in response to the determination determines that the second comparison result is acceptable, performing an inspection process on the mask by the inspection apparatus (Watanabe: [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe in view of Phan discloses the method of claim 7, as outlined above, and further discloses
in response to the determination determines that the second comparison result is unacceptable, adjusting an inspection recipe of the mask used in the inspection apparatus (Watanabe: [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe in view of Phan discloses the method of claim 10, as outlined above, and further discloses
capturing a second reference image of the mask by the inspection apparatus using the adjusted inspection recipe (Watanabe: [0042]; [0050]-[0051]).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2015/0221075 A1) in view of Phan et al. (US 6665065 B1) further in view of Takeda et al. (US 2023/0137226 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe in view of Phan discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the inspection parameter comprises a vertical position of a mask stage in the inspection apparatus relative to an optical element in the inspection apparatus.
However, Takeda, in the same field of endeavor of mask inspection systems and methods, discloses wherein an inspection parameter comprises a vertical position of a mask stage (110) in an inspection apparatus relative to an optical element (150) in the inspection apparatus (Fig. 1; [0032]; [0034]; [0052]-[0054]; [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watanabe in view of Phan with a mask stage which may be adjusted vertically, increasing the functionality of the measurement system and the number of inspection parameters which may be adjusted to identify changes in the mask.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe in view of Phan discloses the method of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the inspection parameter comprises a leveling status of a mask stage in the inspection apparatus.
However, Takeda discloses wherein an inspection parameter comprises a leveling status of a mask stage in the inspection apparatus ([0032]; [0034]; [0052]-[0054]; [0068] – where the leveling status is interpreted as being implied by the x, y, z and θ orientation of the stage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watanabe in view of Phan with a mask stage having a defined orientation, increasing the functionality of the measurement system and the number of inspection parameters which may be adjusted to identify changes in the mask and ensuring quality measurements.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2015/0221075 A1) in view of Phan et al. (US 6665065 B1) further in view of Liu et al. (US 2016/0110858 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe in view of Phan discloses the method of claim 7, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose
in response to the determination determines that the second comparison result is unacceptable, inhibit an inspection recipe of the mask used in the inspection apparatus.
However, Liu, in the same field of endeavor of mask inspection systems and methods, discloses a method with a step that, in response to a determination that a second comparison result is unacceptable, inhibits an inspection recipe of a mask used in an inspection apparatus ([0060], lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watanabe in view of Phan which a method which is able to inhibit an inspection recipe of a mask in response measurements, ensuring that manufacturing resources are efficiently used during the manufacturing process.
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2015/0221075 A1) in view of Phan et al. (US 6665065 B1) further in view of Hyun et al. (KR 20100101828 A – portions of the translation are being cited)
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe discloses a method, comprising:
measuring a first reflected light intensity on a mask (1) by an inspection apparatus (Fig. 1; [0029]; [0031]) [0041]);
measuring a second reflected light intensity on the mask by the inspection apparatus, wherein the mask is supported by a mask stage (2) in a first position as an inspection parameter (Fig. 1; [0031]; [0042]);
determining whether a first reflection difference between the first and second reflected light intensities is acceptable ([0045]); and
in response to the determination determines that the first reflection difference is acceptable, performing an inspection process on the mask by the inspection apparatus ([0050]-[0051]).
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose
measuring a first reflected light intensity of a light calibration mark on a mask by an inspection apparatus;
after measuring the first reflected light intensity, guiding a light in an exposure system using the mask;
after guiding the light in the exposure system, measuring a second reflected light intensity of the light calibration mark on the mask by the inspection apparatus, wherein the mask is supported by a mask stage in a first position as an inspection parameter.
However, Phan, in the same field of endeavor of mask inspection systems and methods, discloses after measuring a first reflected light intensity, guiding a light in an exposure system using a mask (12/52) (Fig. 1-2; Abstract; Col. 4, lines 40-45);
after guiding the light in the exposure system, measuring a second reflected light intensity on the mask by the inspection apparatus, wherein the mask is supported by a mask stage (60) in a first position as an inspection parameter (Fig. 2; Abstract; Col. 4, lines 11-30; Col. 5, last 2 lines).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watanabe with method which inspects the mask between exposures where the motivation would be to detect defects resulting from increasing exposure, improving the reliability of the mask by mitigating the occurrence of eventual defects (Col. 5, lines 51-59).
Watanabe in view of Phan does not explicitly disclose measuring a first reflected light intensity of a light calibration mark on a mask by an inspection apparatus;
measuring a second reflected light intensity of the light calibration mark on the mask by the inspection apparatus, wherein the mask is supported by a mask stage in a first position as an inspection parameter.
However, Hyun, in the same field of endeavor of mask inspection systems and methods, discloses measuring a first reflected light intensity of a light calibration mark (130) on a mask (100) by an inspection apparatus (Fig. 2; Pg. 2, lines 26-29; Pg. 2, line 35 – Pg. 3, line 6; Pg. 3, lines 20-22 and 29-33; Pg. 4, lines 3-15 – where the autofocus calibration procedure implies repeated measurements of light reflected from the calibration mark);
measuring a second reflected light intensity of the light calibration mark on the mask by the inspection apparatus, wherein the mask is supported by a mask stage (200) in a first position as an inspection parameter (Fig. 2; Pg. 2, lines 26-29; Pg. 2, line 35 – Pg. 3, line 6; Pg. 3, lines 20-22 and 29-33; Pg. 4, lines 3-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watanabe in view of Phan with an inspection system which uses a calibration mark disposed on a mask to adjust inspection parameters of the system where the motivation would be to allow for an accurate representation of the reflecting substance and surrounding environment, increasing the accuracy of the calibration and overall inspection quality (Hyun: Pg. 4, lines 8-15).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe in view of Phan and Hyun discloses the method of claim 12, as outlined above, and further discloses
in response to the determination determines that the first reflection difference is unacceptable, measuring a plurality of third reflected light intensities of the light calibration mark on the mask by the inspection apparatus with the mask stage in a plurality of second positions different than the first position for measuring the second reflected light intensity (Watanabe: [0033]; [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe in view of Phan and Hyun discloses the method of claim 13, as outlined above, and further discloses
calculating a plurality of second reflection differences between each of the third reflected light intensities and the first reflected light intensity (Watanabe: [0050]-[0051] – where “further transmission images can be compared to each other, or reflections images can be compared to each other” implies repeated measurements and comparisons of reflected light by the inspection apparatus).
Regarding claim 15, Watanabe in view of Phan and Hyun discloses the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and further discloses
determining a smallest one of the second reflection differences (Watanabe: [0050]-[0051] – where “a smallest one of the second reflection differences” is interpreted as a tolerance range for difference measurements defined by a predetermined threshold); and
compensating the first position of the mask stage with the smallest one of the second reflection differences (Watanabe: [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 16, Watanabe in view of Phan and Hyun discloses the method of claim 14, as outlined above, and further discloses
determining whether the second reflection differences are acceptable (Watanabe: [0045]); and
in response to the determination determines that the second reflection differences are unacceptable, adjusting an inspection recipe of the mask used in the inspection apparatus (Watanabe: [0050]-[0051]).
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2015/0221075 A1) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 4760265).
Regarding claim 17, Watanabe discloses a system, comprising:
a mask stage (2) in an inspection apparatus (Fig. 1; [0031]);
a light source (6) (Fig. 1; [0034]);
a reflective optical element (81, 82, 83) between the light source and the mask stage (Fig. 1; [0035]);
a controller (14, 20) initiating a first relative motion between the mask stage and the reflective optical element (Fig. 1; [0032]; [0051]);
a detector (11A) disposed in the inspection apparatus, wherein the detector is configured to capture reflected light intensity on a mark over the mask stage (Fig. 1; [0035]);
an analyzer (15) electrically connected to the detector, wherein the analyzer is configured to generate an adjustment parameter to the controller based on the captured reflected light intensity (Fig. 1; [0035]; [0050]-[0051]); and
a first driving element (4A-C) connected to the mask stage, wherein the first driving element is configured to adjust a position of the mask stage in response to the adjustment parameter (Fig. 1; [0032]; [0050]-[0051]).
Watanabe does not explicitly disclose a light source over the mask stage.
However, Yoshida, in the same field of endeavor of mask inspection systems and methods, discloses a measurement system comprising a light source (10) over a mask stage (110) (Fig. 1, 5; Col. 7, lines 4-9; Col. 11, lines 11-19; Col. 12, lines 5-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watanabe with a light source positioned over the mask stage, where such an arrangement is known in the art and allows for efficient illumination and control over the position of the mask, increasing overall imaging quality while reducing the complexity of the measurement apparatus.
Regarding claim 19, Watanabe in view of Yoshida discloses the system of claim 17, as outlined above, and further discloses wherein the controller initiates a power variation on the light source, the power variation allowing a variation of the reflected light intensity on the mark (Watanabe: [0071]).
Regarding claim 20, Watanabe in view of Yoshida discloses the system of claim 17, as outlined above and further discloses
a lens in the inspection apparatus (81, 82, 83) (Watanabe: Fig. 1; [0035]).
Watanabe in view Yoshida does not disclose
a second driving element connected to the lens, wherein the controller initiates a second relative motion between the lens and the light source through the second driving element.
However, Yoshida further discloses wherein a controller (62) initiates a second relative motion between a lens (50) and a light source (10) through a second driving element (58, 60) (Fig. 1; Col. 7, lines 4-9; Col. 8, lines 24-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watanabe in view of Yoshida with a lens which may be adjusted, increasing the functionality of the measurement system and the number of inspection parameters which may be adjusted to identify changes in the mask.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2015/0221075 A1) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 4760265) further in view of Takeda et al. (US 2023/0137226 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe in view of Yoshida discloses the system of claim 17, as outlined above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first relative motion initiated by the controller includes moving the mask stage vertically.
However, Takeda, in the same field of endeavor of mask inspection systems and methods, discloses wherein a first relative motion initiated by a controller (130) includes moving a mask stage (110) vertically (Fig. 1; [0031]-[0032]; [0034]; [0052]-[0054]; [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watanabe in view of Yoshida with a mask stage which may be adjusted vertically, increasing the functionality of the measurement system and the number of inspection parameters which may be adjusted to identify changes in the mask.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER YAZBACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571)270-5789. 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.
/MAHER YAZBACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights