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 .
This Office Action is responsive to communications filed on 12/07/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application. Claims 1, 11 and 18 are independent. An Office Action on the merits follows here below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/07/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shishido et al. (US 20150212019 A1) in combination with Choi (US 20200081336 A1).
Regarding Claim 11: Shishido discloses a pattern inspection method (Refer to para [001]; “The present invention relates to a pattern inspection device and a pattern inspection method.”) comprising: obtaining an image of a substrate on which a pattern is formed (Refer to para [007]; “A pattern inspection device includes an imaging unit that images an electron beam image of a pattern formed on a substrate;”); extracting a plurality of contours based on the image (Refer to para [050]; “After that, the real SEM image is acquired (S522) and a positional deviation between the design data and the real SEM image is detected (S523) and, based on the result, the design data is transformed and extracted (S524). Next, the simulated SEM image generation parameters, stored in the model condition file, are applied to the transformed/extracted design data to generate a simulated SEM image (S525).”)obtaining a plurality of pattern coordinate values of the plurality of contours (Refer to para [056]; “As a defect determination result, the position coordinates of a defective portion 211, as well as the characteristic amounts such as the defect size or shade value of the defective portion, are output (S212).”) extracting the plurality of target coordinate values for a target pattern among the plurality of pattern coordinate values based on a profile of the plurality of pattern coordinate values (Refer to para [053]; “Next, the positional deviation between the design data and the SEM image is detected (S205). The specific method for detecting a positional deviation will be described in (1-3). Because the SEM image includes an image distortion caused by the scanning distortion of the electron beam or by a vibration in the stage, the positional deviation amount is not uniform in the image but is different among the points in the image. Therefore, the output is a positional deviation map 206 that indicates a deviation amount (Δx, Δy) for each position (x, y). After the design data is transformed based on the positional deviation map 206, the area corresponding to the SEM image is extracted (S207). After that, a simulated SEM image 209, which simulates the SEM image, is generated from the selected design data (S208).”) generating pattern inspection data by performing a curve-fitting on the detected plurality of target coordinate values (Refer to para [124]; “A(t) obtained by this calculation is a smooth curve as indicated by the reference numeral 851. Using A(t) instead of a(t) allows the brightness correction coefficient to be calculated more reliably, resulting in an increase in the accuracy of the inspection. For example, when an image includes a large defect, the brightness correction coefficient calculated in the eighth embodiment is affected by the large defect.”) and analyzing consistency of an optical proximity correction (OPC) pattern based on the pattern inspection data (Refer to para [091]; “Next, FIG. 19 shows the preprocessing that is performed when a mask pattern (FIG. 17(b)) is used. OPC (optical proximity correction) has been performed on the mask pattern, and the preprocessing, which simulates exposure simulation, must be performed.”).
While Shishido discloses “…In many cases, an edge parallel to the scanning direction of the electron beam is darker than an edge vertical to the scanning direction as shown in FIG. 5(a). (In this example in which a scanning direction 306 of the electron beam is the horizontal direction, a horizontal-direction edge 305 is darker than a vertical-direction edge 303. An oblique edge 304 is intermediate in brightness);” Shidhido does not expressly disclose analyzing consistency of an optical proximity correction (OPC) pattern based on the pattern inspection data, wherein the pattern inspection data comprises at least one of a width in a first direction, a height in a second direction, and a pattern slope of the target pattern.
Choi teaches “a method of manufacturing a mask, and more particularly, a method for performing optical proximity correction (OPC) and a method of manufacturing a mask by using OPC.” wherein the pattern inspection data (Refer to para [102]; “a series of operations for manufacturing a mask may include a measurement process, a defect inspection, and a defect repair process.”) comprises at least one of a width in a first direction, a height in a second direction, and a pattern slope of the target pattern (Refer to para [022]; “The layout of the pattern on the mask may have a one-dimensional or two-dimensional shape. Here, the one-dimensional shape may denote not a line having no area but a shape extending in one direction such as a line and space pattern. The edges may correspond to straight lines surrounding a perimeter of the layout of the pattern. According to an embodiment, the edges may correspond to straight lines surrounding a space between the layouts of the pattern, or straight lines surrounding the layouts of the pattern and a space between the layouts of the pattern. A more detailed description on the extraction of the edges is given with reference to FIG. 2B.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shishido by enhancing the defect inspection processor as taught by Choi.
The suggestion/motivation for combining the teachings of Shishido and Choi would have been in order to “realize a good mask capable of optimally forming a target pattern on a wafer by manufacturing a mask through an exposure process based on the optimal mask data.” (at para [106], Choi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Shishido and Choi in order to obtain the specified claimed elements of Claim 11. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 18-20 are allowed.
Yamaguchi (US 20150285627 A1) discloses “In general, measurement of a dimension between patterns using a scanning electron microscope is conducted by measuring a dimension between contour lines formed on the basis of a dimension between peaks of a luminance profile and an SEM image.” Refer to para [038]; “For detecting an edge of an overlay measuring pattern, it was necessary to specify edge detection ranges of all upper layer patterns and lower layer patterns in the visual field. Furthermore, it was necessary to individually set a threshold value that defines an edge position with respect to a signal strength profile.” Refer to para [046 and 047]; “Symmetry is found from a profile of the charged particle beam intensity every pattern. A pattern for which center of gravity calculation is to be conducted selectively is determined on the basis of intensity of the symmetry and a pattern arrangement. An upper layer and a lower layer are discriminated on the basis of symmetry of every pattern found from the profile of the charged particle beam intensity and information registered by an operator beforehand (the number of patterns and an inter-pattern pitch in the first layer and the number of patterns and an inter-pattern pitch in the second layer). A difference is calculated from centers of gravity in the first layer and the second layer. A schematic sectional view, pattern positions, and deviation are displayed on an image display device in a superposed form on the basis of detected center of gravity positions.”).
The prior art either singly or in combination does not teach, disclose or suggest at least the following claim limitation(s): “… obtaining an image of a substrate on which a pattern is formed; extracting a plurality of contours based on the image; obtaining a plurality of pattern coordinate values of the plurality of contours; extracting the plurality of target coordinate values of the target pattern among the plurality of pattern coordinate values based on a profile of the plurality of pattern coordinate values; generating pattern inspection data by performing a curve-fitting on the detected plurality of target coordinate values; and analyzing consistency of an optical proximity correction (OPC) pattern based on the pattern inspection data, wherein the plurality of target coordinate values of the target pattern represent a transition region of a nanosheet, the pattern inspection data comprises a width in a first direction, a height in the second direction, and a pattern slope of the target pattern, the generating of the pattern inspection data comprises generating the pattern inspection data by using a curve-fitting method on the plurality of target coordinate values using at least one of a Sigmoid function, a hyperbolic tangent function, and a Fermi-Dirac function, and the extracting of the plurality of target coordinate values comprises extracting pattern coordinate values of a region where a slope changes in the profile as the target coordinate value.”
Claims 12-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Related Application(s): 19/032,417 19/191,497 19/011972 19/006422 18/768632 18/795463 18/632558 18/394330 18/600724 18/111785 17/954975
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIA M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1583. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Stephen (Steve) Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
MIA M. THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2665
/MIA M THOMAS/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights