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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12 June 2026, with respect to the specification, the drawings, and the claims have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the specification and the drawings, and the rejections of claims 3, 5, 7-9, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The limitations “modulating the patterning parameters enhances a patternability of the defect in the patterning device onto the patterned substrate” and “wherein the defect in the patterned substrate is caused by or made more or less frequent by modulating the patterning parameters” are functional limitations. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, the cited references teach the structural limitations of the claims (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 below). Therefore, the limitations of the claims are met.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the European Patent Office on 09 September 2021. The previously issued Non-Final Rejection indicated that all certified copies of foreign priority documents have been received. However, upon further review, it is noted that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP 21195866.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 4, 9-11, 13-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tung-Sing Pak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0142800 A1), hereinafter Tung-Sing Pak.
Regarding claim 1, Tung-Sing Pak discloses a system for detecting a defect in a patterning device (paragraph 0069), the system comprising:
a charged particle inspection system configured for inspecting a patterned substrate (paragraph 0069), wherein the patterned substrate (paragraph 0012, wafer) is produced using the patterning device (paragraph 0012, reticle) and by modulating patterning parameters (paragraph 0012, “different values of a parameter”) compared to patterning parameters used during a regular production patterning process (paragraph 0012, “a nominal value of the parameter”), and wherein modulating the patterning parameters enhances a patternability of the defect in the patterning device (paragraph 0013: the defects in the patterning device (“reticle”) include crystal growth defects) onto the patterned substrate (paragraph 0064, last two sentences: “the crystal growth defect shows higher variation when modulated”); and
one or more processors (FIG. 5, element 58) configured by machine readable instructions (FIG. 5, element 56) to:
detect a defect in the patterned substrate associated with the enhanced patternability of the defect in the patterning device (paragraphs 0020-0021); and
detect the defect in the patterning device based on the defect in the patterned substrate (paragraphs 0020-0021).
The limitation “wherein the defect in the patterned substrate is caused by or made more or less frequent by modulating the patterning parameters” is a functional limitation. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Tung-Sing Pak discloses the structural limitations of the system, wherein the system is capable of causing defects on the patterned substrate by modulating patterning parameters (paragraph 0064, “CD variations 48 can be attributed to pattern noise caused by the modulation of the value of dose”, emphasis added), and enhancing the patternability of a defect in the patterning device onto the patterned substrate by modulating patterning parameters (Tung-Sing Pak, paragraphs 0013 and 0064: “the crystal growth defect [in the reticle] shows higher variation when modulated”, emphasis added). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 2, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Tung-Sing Pak discloses that modulating the patterning parameters enhances the patternability of the defect in the patterning device (paragraph 0013: the defects in the patterning device (“reticle”) include crystal growth defects) onto the patterned substrate relative to a patternability of the defect in the patterning device in the regular production patterning process (paragraph 0064, last three sentences), and balances the enhanced patternability (paragraph 0064, CD variations 52) with a quantity of patterned defects in the patterned substrate associated with the modulated patterning parameters (paragraph 0064, CD variations 48, 50), and is performed without regard for a patterning productivity of the patterned substrate; wherein the charged particle inspection system and the one or more processors are further configured to inspect the patterned substrate at candidate defect areas on the patterned substrate in multiple fields (paragraph 0068) and determine which defects repeat across the patterned substrate and thus were enhanced by modulating the patterning parameters (paragraph 0068).
The limitations “modulating the patterning parameters…is performed without regard for a patterning productivity of the patterned substrate” and “defects…were caused by or made more or less frequent by modulating the patterning parameters” are functional limitations. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Tung-Sing Pak teaches the structural limitations of the system as discussed supra (see claim 1). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 4, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Tung-Sing Pak discloses that modulating the patterning parameters comprises varying a dose or focus of exposure illumination associated with the regular production patterning process (paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 9, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Tung-Sing Pak discloses that the patterning device is a mask (paragraphs 0006, 0012), and the regular production patterning process is a semiconductor manufacturing process (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 10, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Tung-Sing Pak discloses that the charged particle inspection system is a scanning electron microscope (SEM) (paragraph 0069), the patterned substrate is a patterned semiconductor wafer (paragraph 0033), and the defect in the patterning device comprises a particle on the patterning device (paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 11, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Tung-Sing Pak discloses that modulating the patterning parameters to enhance the patternability of the defect in the patterning device onto the patterned substrate comprises modulating the patterning parameters to enhance a likelihood that the defect in the patterning device is patterned onto the patterned substrate relative to a likelihood of patterning the defect in the regular production patterning process (paragraph 0064).
Regarding claim 13, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Tung-Sing Pak discloses that the patterned substrate is produced with a lithography system associated with the regular production patterning process or a separate lithography system (paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 14, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
In addition, Tung-Sing Pak discloses that the patterned substrate produced using the patterning device and by modulating patterning parameters compared to patterning parameters used during a regular production patterning process is produced using a pattern design and patterning device that are the same as a pattern design and a patterning device used in the regular production patterning process (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 15, Tung-Sing Pak discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions thereon (paragraph 0087), the instructions when executed by a computer, causing operations comprising:
inspecting a patterned substrate with a charged particle inspection system (paragraph 0069), wherein the patterned substrate (paragraph 0012, wafer) is produced using a patterning device (paragraph 0012, reticle) and by modulating patterning parameters (paragraph 0012, “different values of a parameter”) compared to patterning parameters used during a regular production patterning process (paragraph 0012, “a nominal value of the parameter”), and wherein modulating the patterning parameters enhances a patternability of a defect in the patterning device onto the patterned substrate (paragraph 0064, last two sentences);
detecting a defect in the patterned substrate associated with the enhanced patternability of the defect in the patterning device (paragraphs 0020-0021); and
detecting the defect in the patterning device based on the defect in the patterned substrate (paragraphs 0020-0021).
The limitation “wherein the defect in the patterned substrate is caused by or made more or less frequent by modulating the patterning parameters” is a functional limitation. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Tung-Sing Pak discloses the structural limitations of the system, wherein the system is capable of causing defects on the patterned substrate by modulating patterning parameters (paragraph 0064, “CD variations 48 can be attributed to pattern noise caused by the modulation of the value of dose”, emphasis added), and enhancing the patternability of a defect in the patterning device onto the patterned substrate by modulating patterning parameters (Tung-Sing Pak, paragraphs 0013 and 0064: “the crystal growth defect [in the reticle] shows higher variation when modulated”, emphasis added). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 16, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 15 discloses the medium of claim 15.
In addition, Tung-Sing Pak discloses that modulating the patterning parameters enhances the patternability of the defect in the patterning device (paragraph 0013: the defects in the patterning device (“reticle”) include crystal growth defects) onto the patterned substrate relative to a patternability of the defect in the patterning device in the regular production patterning process (paragraph 0064, last three sentences), and balances the enhanced patternability (paragraph 0064, CD variations 52) with a quantity of patterned defects in the patterned substrate associated with the modulated patterning parameters (paragraph 0064, CD variations 48, 50), and is performed without regard for a patterning productivity of the patterned substrate; wherein the operations further comprise repeating the inspection at candidate defect areas on the patterned substrate in multiple fields (paragraph 0068) to determine which defects repeat across the patterned substrate and thus were enhanced by modulating the patterning parameters (paragraph 0068).
The limitations “modulating the patterning parameters…is performed without regard for a patterning productivity of the patterned substrate” and “defects…were caused by or made more or less frequent by modulating the patterning parameters” are functional limitations. Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Tung-Sing Pak teaches the structural limitations of the system as discussed supra (see claim 15). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 18, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 15 discloses the medium of claim 15.
In addition, Tung-Sing Pak discloses that modulating the patterning parameters comprises varying a dose or focus of exposure illumination associated with the regular production patterning process (paragraph 0038).
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.
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.
Claims 3, 5-6, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung-Sing Pak as respectively applied to claims 1, 4, 15, and 18 above, in view of Tel et al. (EP Patent No. 3531205 A1), hereinafter Tel (‘205).
Regarding claim 3, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Tung-Sing Pak fails to disclose that modulating the patterning parameters comprises coating a substrate with a different, higher dose resist compared to a regular production patterning process resist.
However, Tel (‘205) discloses that modulating the patterning parameters comprises coating a substrate with a different, higher dose resist compared to a regular production patterning process resist (paragraph 0079, column 19 lines 41-44).
Optimizing the resist dose is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Tel (‘205) teaches that “the contribution of one or more processing variables associated with the resist layer… tend to be essentially spatially uniform because the entire substrate is usually coated with the resist layer” (paragraph 0110, column 27 lines 35-39). As such, Tel (‘205) identifies the resist dose as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., spatially uniform contributions to substrate processing effects. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the resist dose and identifies said dose as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the resist dose to meet the claimed increase since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Furthermore, features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Tel (‘205) teaches the structural limitations of the claim, i.e., a system which is capable of modulating the resist dose (paragraph 0079, column 19 lines 41-44). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 5, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 4 discloses the system of claim 4.
In addition, Tung-Sing Pak discloses that modulating the patterning parameters comprises varying the dose of the exposure illumination associated with the regular production patterning process (paragraph 0038), and wherein varying the dose comprises increasing the dose relative to a dose used for the regular production patterning process (paragraph 0038, lines 11-13; the dose is increased by 4 mJ/
c
m
2
from a nominal, i.e., regular, dose).
Tung-Sing Pak fails to disclose that modulating the patterning parameters comprises coating a substrate with a different resist compared to a regular production patterning process resist.
However, Tel (‘205) discloses that modulating the patterning parameters comprises coating a substrate with a different resist compared to a regular production patterning process resist (paragraph 0079, column 19 lines 41-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tung-Sing Pak to include that modulating the patterning parameters comprises coating a substrate with a different resist compared to a regular production patterning process resist, based on the teachings of Tel (‘205) that this enhances predictability of chemical processes during future substrate processing (Tel (‘205), paragraph 0196).
Regarding claim 6, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Tung-Sing Pak fails to disclose that modulating the patterning parameters comprises providing higher contrast illumination for patterning compared to illumination provided during the regular production patterning process.
However, Tel (‘205) discloses that modulating the patterning parameters comprises providing higher contrast illumination for patterning compared to illumination provided during the regular production patterning process (paragraph 0036, column 6 lines 48-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tung-Sing Pak to include that modulating the patterning parameters comprises providing higher contrast illumination for patterning compared to illumination provided during the regular production patterning process, based on the teachings of Tel (‘205) that this produces higher contrast images for inspection (Tel (‘205), paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 17, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 15 discloses the medium of claim 15.
Tung-Sing Pak fails to disclose that modulating the patterning parameters comprises coating a substrate with a different, higher dose resist compared to a regular production patterning process resist.
However, Tel (‘205) discloses that modulating the patterning parameters comprises coating a substrate with a different, higher dose resist compared to a regular production patterning process resist (paragraph 0079, column 19 lines 41-44).
Optimizing the resist dose is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Tel (‘205) teaches that “the contribution of one or more processing variables associated with the resist layer… tend to be essentially spatially uniform because the entire substrate is usually coated with the resist layer” (paragraph 0110, column 27 lines 35-39). As such, Tel (‘205) identifies the resist dose as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., spatially uniform contributions to substrate processing effects. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the resist dose and identifies said dose as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the resist dose to meet the claimed increase since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Furthermore, features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), but “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis in original)). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)), i.e., a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the case at hand, Tel (‘205) teaches the structural limitations of the claim, i.e., a system which is capable of modulating the resist dose (paragraph 0079, column 19 lines 41-44). Therefore, the limitations of the claim are met.
Regarding claim 19, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 18 discloses the medium of claim 18.
In addition, Tung-Sing Pak discloses that modulating the patterning parameters comprises varying the dose of the exposure illumination associated with the regular production patterning process (paragraph 0038), wherein varying the dose comprises increasing the dose relative to a dose used for the regular production patterning process (paragraph 0038, lines 11-13; the dose is increased by 4 mJ/
c
m
2
from a nominal, i.e., regular, dose).
Tung-Sing Pak fails to disclose that modulating the patterning parameters comprises coating a substrate with a different resist compared to a regular production patterning process resist.
However, Tel (‘205) discloses that modulating the patterning parameters comprises coating a substrate with a different resist compared to a regular production patterning process resist (paragraph 0079, column 19 lines 41-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tung-Sing Pak to include that modulating the patterning parameters comprises coating a substrate with a different resist compared to a regular production patterning process resist, based on the teachings of Tel (‘205) that this enhances predictability of chemical processes during future substrate processing (Tel (‘205), paragraph 0196).
Claims 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tel et al. (EP Patent No. 3462240 A1), hereinafter Tel (‘240).
Regarding claim 7, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Tung-Sing Pak fails to disclose that modulating the patterning parameters comprises varying a pupil fill ratio (PFR) associated with the regular production patterning process.
However, Tel (‘240) discloses that modulating the patterning parameters comprises varying a pupil fill ratio (PFR) associated with the regular production patterning process (paragraph 0085, page 13, lines 1-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tung-Sing Pak to include that modulating the patterning parameters comprises varying a pupil fill ratio (PFR) associated with the regular production patterning process, based on the teachings of Tel (‘240) that this enables balancing of multiple variables according to application requirements (Tel (‘240), paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 8, Tung-Sing Pak in view of Tel (‘240) as applied to claim 7 discloses the system of claim 7.
In addition, Tel (‘240) discloses that the PFR is varied to less than a particular percentage (paragraph 0085, page 13, lines 1-14), which causes an illuminator efficiency of the regular production patterning process to be less than 100% (paragraph 0084, page 12 lines 29-30).
Optimizing the pupil fill ratio is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Tel (‘240) teaches that “a low pupil fill ratio may discard radiation, leading to lower throughput” (Tel (‘240), paragraph 0084, page 12 lines 29-30). As such, Tel (‘240) identifies the pupil fill ratio as a variable which achieves a recognized result, i.e., lowering throughput. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the pupil fill ratio and identifies said pupil fill ratio as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the pupil fill ratio to meet the claimed pupil fill ratio since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 12, Tung-Sing Pak as applied to claim 1 discloses the system of claim 1.
Tung-Sing Pak fails to disclose that the patterned defects in the patterned substrate associated with the modulated patterning parameters comprise stochastic defects.
However, Tel (‘240) discloses that the patterned defects in the patterned substrate associated with the modulated patterning parameters comprise stochastic defects (paragraph 0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tung-Sing Pak to include that the patterned defects in the patterned substrate associated with the modulated patterning parameters comprise stochastic defects, based on the teachings of Tel (‘240) that these stochastic defects beneficially impose a constraint on design variables to avoid unfeasible or impossible variations (Tel (‘240), paragraph 0084).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung-Sing Pak in view of Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0118261 A1), hereinafter Watanabe.
Regarding claim 20, Tung-Sing Pak discloses a method for detecting a defect in a patterning device (paragraph 0069), the method comprising:
inspecting a patterned substrate with a charged particle inspection system (paragraph 0069), wherein the patterned substrate (paragraph 0012, wafer) is produced using the patterning device (paragraph 0012, reticle) and by modulating patterning parameters (paragraph 0012, “different values of a parameter”) compared to patterning parameters used during a regular production patterning process (paragraph 0012, “a nominal value of the parameter”), and wherein modulating the patterning parameters enhances a patternability of the defect in the patterning device (paragraph 0013: the defects in the patterning device (“reticle”) include crystal growth defects) onto the patterned substrate (paragraph 0064, last two sentences);
detecting a defect in the patterned substrate associated with the enhanced patternability of the defect in the patterning device (paragraphs 0020-0021); and
detecting the defect in the patterning device based on the defect in the patterned substrate (paragraphs 0020-0021).
Tung-Sing Pak fails to disclose that the defect in the patterned substrate is caused by or made more or less frequent by modulating the patterning parameters.
However, Watanabe discloses that the defect in the patterned substrate is caused by or made more or less frequent by modulating the patterning parameters (paragraph 0081 discloses that an "index value" is calculated, as part of a mask pattern verification model, on the basis of changes in intensity/exposure parameters, and paragraphs 0066-0067 disclose that the frequency of defects is high when an index value is high, i.e., the change in intensity/exposure parameters in mask pattern verification affects the defect frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tung-Sing Pak to include that the defect in the patterned substrate is caused by or made more or less frequent by modulating the patterning parameters, based on the teachings of Watanabe that this process improves the accuracy of patterning device verification (Watanabe, paragraph 0083).
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 ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights