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 .
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 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 1-3, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) being anticipated by the prior art of record Weisbuch (US 2018/0284597)
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses:
A method comprising:
receive a representation of a contour of a substrate pattern (one or more of fig 1-4);
determine a curvature of the contour (par 9-10 and/or fig 3-4);
and use a computer simulation model (computer in fig 7, simulation in par 4-5, 27, 37-38, 50) to determine an etch effect (see one or more of par 28, 39, 41, 43) for the substrate pattern based on the curvature, wherein the simulation model comprises a correlation between etch biases (see one or more of etch model/features/kernels/OPC correction, desired etch profile, pre/post etch shapes/contours/bias in one or more of abstract, summary, and/or one or more of fig 2-4, 6) and curvatures of contours.
(Claim 2) wherein the etch effect is an etch bias (see one or more of par 7-10, 14 , 35-37, 48-49)
(Claims 3, 20) wherein the curvature is determined based on (1) a slope of the contour; and (2) a maximum or a minimum in the contour (fig 1-4, 6).
(Claim 11) wherein the contour is obtained from a representation of the substrate pattern from an after development inspection for the substrate pattern (fig 1-4, 6)
(Claim 12) wherein the contour is obtained from a resist model or an optical model (summary).
(Claim 13) wherein the etch effect comprises etch bias between an after etch contour and an after development contour (see one or more of par 7-10, 14 , 35-37, 48-49), and the etch bias is configured to be provided to a cost function to facilitate determination of costs associated with individual patterning process variables (see one or more of par 2, 7-10, 14 , 35-37, 48-49)
(Claims 14-15) instructions, when executed by a computer/processor (fig 7), perform the method
(Claim 16) recite similar subject matter and rejected for the same reason.
(Claim 17) wherein the simulation model is an etch model (see one or more of etch model/features/kernels/OPC correction, desired etch profile, pre/post etch shapes/contours/bias in one or more of abstract, summary, and/or one or more of fig 2-4, 6)
(Claim 18) wherein the representation of the pattern comprises (1) an inspection result from an after development inspection for the pattern; or (2) a model of the contour in the pattern (fig 1-4, 6)
(Claims 19) wherein the representation of the pattern comprises an inspection result from an after development inspection for the pattern, and wherein the inspection result from the after development inspection for the pattern is obtained from a scanning electron microscope or an optical metrology tool (fig 1-4, 6).
Claims 1-3, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) being anticipated by the prior art of record Lo (US 2020/0278604)
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses:
A method comprising:
receive a representation of a contour (abstract, fig 4-5) of a substrate pattern;
determine a curvature of the contour (par 35); and
use a computer simulation model (par 15, 22, 32, 38, 49) to determine an etch effect for the substrate pattern based on the curvature, wherein the simulation model comprises a correlation between etch biases and curvatures of contours (par 20, 25).
Claim 16 recite similar subject matter and rejected for the same reason. For cost function, see par 38
(Claim 2) wherein the etch effect is an etch bias (par 20, 25)
(Claims 3, 20) wherein the curvature is determined based on (1) a slope of the contour; and (2) a maximum or a minimum in the contour (fig 4-5).
(Claim 11) wherein the contour is obtained from a representation of the substrate pattern from an after development inspection for the substrate pattern (fig 1-6).
(Claim 12) wherein the contour is obtained from a resist model or an optical model (fig 1-5).
(Claim 13) wherein the etch effect comprises etch bias between an after etch contour and an after development contour, and the etch bias is configured to be provided to a cost function to facilitate determination of costs associated with individual patterning process variables (fig 1-5).
(Claims 14-15) instructions, when executed by a computer/processor, perform the method (fig 1-2, 6)
(Claim 17) wherein the simulation model is an etch model (par 20, 25)
(Claim 18) wherein the representation of the pattern comprises (1) an inspection result from an after development inspection for the pattern; or (2) a model of the contour in the pattern (fig 1-6).
(Claims 19) wherein the representation of the pattern comprises an inspection result from an after development inspection for the pattern, and wherein the inspection result from the after development inspection for the pattern is obtained from a scanning electron microscope or an optical metrology tool (fig 1-6)
Claims 1-3, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) being anticipated by the prior art of record Kotani (US 2010/0190342)
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses:
A method comprising:
receive a representation of a contour (abstract, summary) of a substrate pattern;
determine a curvature of the contour (abstract, summary and/or fig 1, 3-9 and related text); and
use a computer simulation model (fig 1-2, 7) to determine an etch effect (see one or more of par 28, 34-35, 47-49, 55, 59-60, 66, 69, 82) for the substrate pattern based on the curvature, wherein the simulation model comprises a correlation between etch biases (see one or more of par 28, 34-35, 47-49, 55, 59-60, 66, 69, 82) and curvatures of contours.
(Claim 2) wherein the etch effect is an etch bias (see one or more of par 28, 34-35, 47-49, 55, 59-60, 66, 69, 82).
(Claims 3, 20) wherein the curvature is determined based on (1) a slope of the contour; and (2) a maximum or a minimum in the contour (par 5, 30, 78)
(Claim 11) wherein the contour is obtained from a representation of the substrate pattern from an after development inspection for the substrate pattern (fig 1, 3-9).
(Claim 12) wherein the contour is obtained from a resist model or an optical model (fig 7-8).
(Claim 13) wherein the etch effect comprises etch bias between an after etch contour and an after development contour, and the etch bias is configured to be provided to a cost function to facilitate determination of costs associated with individual patterning process variables (fig 1, 3-9).
(Claims 14-15) instructions, when executed by a computer/processor, perform the method (fig 1-2)
(Claim 17) wherein the simulation model is an etch model bias (see one or more of par 28, 34-35, 47-49, 55, 59-60, 66, 69, 82).
(Claim 18) wherein the representation of the pattern comprises (1) an inspection result from an after development inspection for the pattern; or (2) a model of the contour in the pattern (fig 1, 3-9)
(Claims 19) wherein the representation of the pattern comprises an inspection result from an after development inspection for the pattern, and wherein the inspection result from the after development inspection for the pattern is obtained from a scanning electron microscope or an optical metrology tool (fig 1, 3-9)
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over one or more of above mentioned main references in the 35 USC 102 rejections in view of one or more of: secondary references Gonzalez (US 2018/0211438) or Harding (US 2007/0112543)
The main references disclose substantially all the elements in the claims except derivatives in claims 4-6; however, derivatives are disclosed by the secondary references:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (in the instant application) to apply derivative simply because one or more of the following reasons:
Gonzalez par 61: any point in the contour, a local function may be used to generate a first derivative or second derivative value.
Harding par 32: Using straightforward mathematical derivative concepts, radius/minimum/maximum of curve positions/values and/or slope ( first derivative) and slope difference (second derivative) of a curve can be calculated.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over one or more of above mentioned main references in the 35 USC 102 rejections in view of one or more of: secondary references Dai (US 2016/0198942) or Alessi (US 2011/0299143).
the main references disclose substantially all the elements in the claims except features multi-dimensional algorithm comprises one or more non-linear, linear, or quadratic functions in claims 7-10; however, these features are disclosed by the secondary references:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (in the instant application) to utilize multi-dimensional algorithm comprises one or more non-linear, linear, or quadratic functions simply because one or more of the following reasons:
Dai, Par 196: Three-dimensional are choices for optimization algorithm. The optimizer / optimization can employ a standard or derived algorithm for function optimization (minimization or maximization). It can be a multi-dimensional, non-linear, and iterative algorithm.
Alessi, par 87: Multi-dimensional interpolation methods, such as tri-linear interpolation can be used to interpolate between the values stored as will be familiar to those skilled in the art.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DINH whose telephone number is 571-272-1890. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax 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.
/PAUL DINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights