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 .
Status
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed on 11/25/2025, which amended claims 1, 9, 11-12, and 17 and cancelled claim 10. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 20-21, “a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the first profile” should be changed to -- a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the second profile-- to agree with the “second profile” generated in lines 2-8 and 17-19.
Claim 1, lines 21-22, “a total wafer stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage based on the second profile” should be changed to -- a total wafer stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage based on the first profile-- to agree with the generated “first profile” generated in lines 9-11.
Claim 9, lines 23-24, “a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the first profile” should be changed to --a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the second profile-- to agree with the “second profile” generated in lines 14-15 and 21-22.
Claim 9, lines 24-25, “a total wafer stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage based on the second profile” should be changed to -- a total wafer stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage based on the first profile-- to agree with the generated “first profile” generated in lines 9-10.
Claim 17, lines 23-24, “a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the first profile” should be changed to --a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the second profile-- to agree with the “second profile” generated in lines 10-11.
Claim 17, lines 24-26, “a total wafer stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage based on the second profile” should be changed to -- a total wafer stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage based on the first profile-- to agree with the “first profile” measured in lines 13-14.
Appropriate correction is required to place claims in better form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 depends from claim 18, which depends from claim 17 and recites “wherein the computing device is configured to calculate a total energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage, based on the second profile of extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage.” Claim 17 recites “a computing device configured to generate a second profile of extreme ultraviolet let incident on the mask stage” in lines 10-11 and “the computing device is configured to determine a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the first profile” in lines 23-24, and claim 18 recites “wherein the computing device is configured to generate the second profile of extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage, based on the first profile and the energy of the portion of the extreme ultraviolet light measured by the sensor area.” Since claim 18 already requires computing a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the second profile, claim 19 does not appear to further limit the subject matter of claim 18. See MPEP 608.01(n), subsection III. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 19 is rejected as being of improper dependent form. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 17-18, and 20 are allowed.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 4th paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious the sensor area is on the lower surface of the body and is spaced apart from the support in a scan direction of the extreme ultraviolet light, the plurality of measurement sensors are spaced apart from one another in a direction perpendicular to the scan direction, and measurements of the plurality of measurement sensors and the first profile of the extreme ultraviolet light are configured to be transmitted to the computing device and used to generate a second profile of the extreme ultraviolet light at the body, the computing device being configured to determine a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the first profile and a total wafer stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage based on the second profile, and determine, based on the total mask stage energy, a first reference value, the total wafer stage energy, and a second reference value, that the extreme ultraviolet light has an error. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claim 1 render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious the sensor area is on the lower surface of the body and is spaced apart from the support in a scan direction of the extreme ultraviolet light, the plurality of measurement sensors are spaced apart from one another in a direction perpendicular to the scan direction, and the computing device is configured to generate a second profile of the extreme ultraviolet light at the mask stage based on the first profile and measurements of the plurality of measurement sensors, and determine a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the first profile and a total wafer stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage based on the second profile, and determine, based on the total mask stage energy, a first reference value, the total wafer stage energy, and a second reference value, that the first optics or the second optics has an error. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claim 9 render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious the sensor area includes a plurality of measurement sensors configured to measure an energy of a portion of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage, the sensor area is on the lower surface of the body and is spaced apart from the support in a scan direction of the extreme ultraviolet light, the plurality of measurement sensors are spaced apart from one another in a direction perpendicular to the scan direction, and the computing device is configured to determine a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the first profile and a total wafer stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage based on the second profile, and determine, based on the total mask stage energy, a first reference value, the total wafer stage energy, and a second reference value, that the first optics or the second optics has an error. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claim 17 render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The dependent claims are likewise allowable by virtue of their dependency upon an allowable independent claim as stated above.
Berger (US PGPub 2004/0067426) discloses a body positioned with respect to a wafer stage (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0023]-[0024], [0027]-[0028], reticle stage platen 47, 10 is arranged in a lithography system with respect to a wafer stage platen assembly 49); a support on a lower surface of the body, the support including an attachable extreme ultraviolet mask (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0023]-[0024], [0027]-[0028], the mask 45, 14 is clamped to a chuck 12 on the lower surface of the stage platen 10 facing the wafer 48); a sensor area including a plurality of measurement sensors configured to measure an energy of a first portion of extreme ultraviolet light incident on the body (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0027]-[0029], the reticle stage platen 10 includes detector device 16 with a linear array of photodiodes to measure the intensity of the arcuate slit 18 illuminating the mask), wherein extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage has a second portion (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0023]-[0024], [0027]-[0028], EUV light is incident to wafer stage platen assembly 49), wherein: the sensor area is on the lower surface of the body and is spaced apart from the support in a scan direction of the extreme ultraviolet light (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0027]-[0031], the detector device 16 is arranged on the lower surface of the platen 10 facing the wafer 49 in the lithography apparatus and is spaced apart from the chuck 12 in the scan direction of the arcuate slit 18), and the plurality of measurement sensors are spaced apart from one another in a direction perpendicular to the scan direction (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0027]-[0031], the photodiodes 22, 24, 26 are arranged in a linear array spaced apart along the length of the slit illumination profile). Berger does not describe or render obvious the body in communication with a computing device; a fiducial mark on the lower surface of the body and spaced apart from the support, wherein extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage has a second portion incident on a slit sensor of the wafer stage, the slit sensor being configured to measure a first profile of the second portion of the extreme ultraviolet light, and measurements of the plurality of measurement sensors and the first profile of the extreme ultraviolet light are configured to be transmitted to the computing device and used to generate a second profile of the extreme ultraviolet light at the body, the computing device being configured to determine a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the first profile and a total wafer stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage based on the second profile, and determine, based on the total mask stage energy, a first reference value, the total wafer stage energy, and a second reference value, that the extreme ultraviolet light has an error.
Yamamoto (JP2008-270342, English translation included with the 5/29/2025 Office Action) discloses the body in communication with a computing device (Figs. 1 and 8, pgs. 4 and 7, control device 4 controls the operation of the exposure apparatus EX and is in communication with mask stage 1 through first drive system 1D); a fiducial mark on the lower surface of the body and spaced apart from the support (Figs. 1-3, 6, 8, pages 5, 9-10 of the English translation, mask stage 1 includes a reference mark FM formed on reference member 20 spaced apart from mask holding unit MH); and wherein extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage has a second portion incident on a slit sensor of the wafer stage, the slit sensor being configured to measure a first profile of the second portion of the extreme ultraviolet light (Figs. 1 and 8, pgs. 7-8 and 16-17, the EUV exposure apparatus EX includes a substrate stage 2 having an aerial image detection sensor 3 with a slit 31 in a measurement plate 32. The sensor 3 measures the profile of EUV light). Yamamoto does not describe or render obvious describe measurements of the plurality of measurement sensors and the first profile of the extreme ultraviolet light are configured to be transmitted to the computing device and used to generate a second profile of the extreme ultraviolet light at the body, the computing device being configured to determine a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the first profile and a total wafer stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage based on the second profile, and determine, based on the total mask stage energy, a first reference value, the total wafer stage energy, and a second reference value, that the extreme ultraviolet light has an error.
Zimmerman et al. (US PGPub 2010/0302525, Zimmerman hereinafter) discloses measurements of the measurement sensor and the first profile of the extreme ultraviolet light are configured to be transmitted to the computing device and used to generate a second profile of the extreme ultraviolet light at the body, the computing device being configured to determine, based on the first profile and the second profile, that the extreme ultraviolet light has an error (Figs. 2, 5, 8, 10, 13-19, paras. [0065], [0070]-[0075], [0083]-[0086], [0089], [0105]-[0106], [0110], [0113]-[0115], [0123]-[0136], [0141]-[0147], [0149]-[0151], [0156]-[0164], [0169], measurement devices 190 on field planes FP2 and FP3 provide illumination field measurement data to correction module 170 to compute the uniformity error and necessary correction of the illumination field at the patterning device, or measurement sensor MS, energy sensor ES, and slit sensor WS detect illumination uniformity error to calculate correction to control uniformity compensators to set the EUV uniformity on the patterning device). Zimmerman does not describe or render obvious the computing device being configured to determine a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the first profile and a total wafer stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage based on the second profile, and determine, based on the total mask stage energy, a first reference value, the total wafer stage energy, and a second reference value, that the extreme ultraviolet light has an error.
Frijns (US PGPub 2008/0017810) discloses the wafer stage including a slit sensor (Figs. 1, 7, 9, paras. [0022], [0039], [0054]-[0055], [0059], [0063], substrate table WT includes a sensor 70); a computing device configured to generate a profile of the extreme ultraviolet light (Figs. 1, 7, 9, paras. [0022], [0039], [0050], [0052], [0054]-[0055], [0059], [0063], processor 36 obtains the energy profile); the slit sensor is configured to measure a first profile of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage (Figs. 1, 7, 9, paras. [0022], [0039], [[043], 0054]-[0055], [0059], [0063], substrate table WT includes a sensor 70 to measure the slit integrated uniformity of the illumination slit 74 of projected EUV radiation). Frijns does not describe or render obvious the computing device being configured to determine a total mask stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the mask stage based on the first profile and a total wafer stage energy of the extreme ultraviolet light incident on the wafer stage based on the second profile, and determine, based on the total mask stage energy, a first reference value, the total wafer stage energy, and a second reference value, that the extreme ultraviolet light has an error.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive owing to the cancellation of claim 10. The 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1 and 9 over Berger in view of Yamamoto in view of Zimmerman and the 35 U.S.C. rejection of claim 17 over Berger in view of Frijns in view of Zimmerman have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights