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 § 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigenobu et al. [US 2020/0363734 A1] in view of Mitsuishi et al. [US 2019/0122915 A1].
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 12, Shigenobu et al. discloses an exposure apparatus (Fig. 1) exposing a substrate (4) to light (8), the exposure apparatus comprising:
a light source (7, see also paragraph [0017]);
a stage (6) configured to hold (5) the substrate (4) to be exposed (paragraph [0016]); and
a control device (9) configured to correct an exposure amount of light (paragraph [0021] teaches wherein the controller teaches adjustment of the oscillation frequency of the light source),
wherein the control device (9) is configured to: calculate substrate magnification components (paragraphs [0019]-[0020] teaches calculate substrate magnification), based on measurement results of alignment marks provided on the substrate (paragraph [0003] teaches overlay errors are measured by an alignment scope before and after exposure to obtain the variation amount of the substrate), correct the exposure amount based on a value of a difference between the substrate magnification component (paragraphs [0021]-[0022] teaches correcting the component of the substrate deformation amount such as a substrate magnification error).
Shigenobu et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the control device calculates substrate magnification components in a first direction and a second direction, based on measurement results of at least three alignment marks provided on the substrate, the first direction and the second direction crossing each other and being parallel with a surface of the substrate.
However, Shigenobu et al. discloses a substrate positioned in the X-Y plane (as shown in Fig. 1) with substrate deformation of substrate magnification in the X-Y plane (as shown in Fig. 3). Further, Mitsuishi et al. discloses wherein the magnifications is one type of distortion which is deformation generated to the substrate wherein the components of magnifications include those related to isotropic magnifications that generate the same amount of deformation in the X-direction and Y-direction, and those related to anisotropic magnifications that generate different amounts of deformation in the X-direction and Y-direction (paragraph [0066]). Further, Mitsuishi et al. discloses wherein the magnification of the substrate is measured from positions of alignment marks (Fig. 9 item of 218) of the substrate (paragraph [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate substrate magnification components in a first direction and a second direction based on measurement results of at least three alignment marks provided on the substrate, as taught by Mitsuishi et al. in the system of Shigenobu et al. because such a modification provides improvement in precision of alignment of the substrate (paragraph [0007] of Mitsuishi et al.).
Regarding claims 2, 8 and 13, Shigenobu et al. in view of Mitsuishi et al. discloses wherein the control device is configured to: correct the exposure amount to a first exposure amount in a case where the difference between the substrate magnification component of the first direction and the substrate magnification component of the second direction is a first value; and correct the exposure amount to a second exposure amount smaller than the first exposure amount in a case where the difference between the substrate magnification component of the first direction and the substrate magnification component of the second direction is a second value larger than the first value (paragraphs [0021]-[0022] of Shigenobu et al. teaches correcting the component of the substrate deformation amount such as a substrate magnification error wherein the controller teaches adjustment of the oscillation frequency of the light source and paragraphs [0066] and [0077] of Mitsuishi et al. teaches the components of substrate magnification as a result of multiple alignment marks).
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 14, Shigenobu et al. in view of Mitsuishi et al. discloses wherein the control device is configured to: correct the exposure amount to a first exposure amount in a case where the difference between the substrate magnification component of the first direction and the substrate magnification component of the second direction is a first value; and correct the exposure amount to a third exposure amount larger than the first exposure amount in a case where the difference between the substrate magnification component of the first direction and the substrate magnification component of the second direction is a second value larger than the first value (paragraphs [0021]-[0022] of Shigenobu et al. teaches correcting the component of the substrate deformation amount such as a substrate magnification error wherein the controller teaches adjustment of the oscillation frequency of the light source and paragraphs [0066] and [0077] of Mitsuishi et al. teaches the components of substrate magnification as a result of multiple alignment marks).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Shigenobu et al. in view of Mitsuishi et al. discloses wherein the control device is configured to change a width of a pattern formed in the substrate by adjusting the exposure amount (as shown in Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0021]-[0022] of Shigenobu et al).
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 16, Shigenobu et al. in view of Mitsuishi et al. discloses wherein the control device is configured to correct the exposure amount based on the difference between the substrate magnification component of the first direction and the substrate magnification component of the second direction and a difference from a reference value (paragraphs [0021]-[0022] of Shigenobu et al. teaches correcting the component of the substrate deformation amount such as a substrate magnification error wherein the controller teaches adjustment of the oscillation frequency of the light source and paragraphs [0066] and [0077] of Mitsuishi et al. teaches the components of substrate magnification as a result of multiple alignment marks).
Regarding claims 6, 11 and 17, Shigenobu et al. in view of Mitsuishi et al. discloses wherein the control device is configured to create a relational expression between the measurement results of the alignment marks and correction values of respective exposure amounts of a plurality of the substrates (paragraphs [0003] and [0021]-[0022] of Shigenobu et al. and paragraphs [0066] and [0077] and Fig. 9 of Mitsuishi et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights