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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 20, the limitation of “a first overlay error parameter calculated from the averages and distortions...” and “a second overlay error parameter calculated from the averages” render the claims indefinite because the claims fails to specify: what constitute an “overlay parameter”, whether the parameter is a scalar, vector, statistical value, RMS value, maximum value, mean value or another metric and how the parameter is calculated and the units or objective criteria by which the parameter is measured. The claims further recite “calculating an amount of wavelength adjustment ... in such a way that a first overlay error parameter ...is smaller than a second overlay error parameter...”. However, it is noted that this limitation is written in purely result-oriented functional language and does not recite: an algorithm, a calculated method or a defined comparison methodology. Accordingly, the claims fail to provide objective boundaries for determining whether the limitation is satisfied.
For the purpose of examination, the claims are interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Under this interpretation, the recited “overlay parameter” is reasonably understood as a value representing overlay error derived from overlay measurements at multiple positions, and the recited comparison between a first and a second overlay error parameter is understood as a comparison between overlay error values obtained before and after a correction or adjustment.
Similarly, the recited “distortions produced when a wavelength of the pulse laser light is changed” are reasonably understood as imaging or overlay-related distortions affected by wavelength variation during scanning exposure.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harayama (U.S.Pat. 8,400,611 B2) in view of Okita (US 2006/0040191 A1).
With respect to claims 1-2 and 20, Harayama discloses an electronic device manufacturing method comprising: performing scanning exposure in which plural scan fields (original shots) of a first photosensitive substrate (8) are exposed to pulse laser light having a reference wavelength (e.g., excimer laser) ; measuring overlay errors at plural positions in each of the plural scan fields (see col.2, lines 47-55), using a controller (15) calculating an average of the overlay errors at each of the plural positions in scan field scanned in the same scan direction out of the plural scan fields and adjusting the wavelength of the pulse laser light to reduce distortion during scanning exposure (see figures 1, 5 and related descriptions; col.4, lines 37 thru col.5 line 54).
Thus, Harayama discloses substantially all features of the instant claims. However, Harayama does not explicitly discloses teach measuring overlay errors at plural position across multiple exposure fields, calculating average overlay errors and determining correcting values based on such average for feedback control of an exposure apparatus, as recited in the instant claims. Okita discloses an electronic device apparatus/method and teaches measuring overlay errors at plural position across multiple exposure fields, calculating averaged overlay errors and determining correction values based on such averages for feedback control of an exposure apparatus (see abstract and paragraphs [0033-0041]). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harayama and Okita to obtain the claimed invention as recited in the mentioned claims. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to incorporate the overlay measurement and averaging technique of Okita into the scanning exposure apparatus/method of Harayama in order to determine appropriate wavelength adjustments based on averaged overlay errors since Harayama teaches that wavelength variation affects distorting during scanning exposure and Okita teaches that overlay errors can be quantified and averaged for correction. The combination merely applies known measurement techniques to a known control parameter to achieve predictable improvements in overlay accuracy.
With respect to claims 3, 11 and 12, these claims further recite that scan fields have outer edges located inside or intersecting an outer edge of the photosensitive substrate, and that plural substrates or corresponding scan field position are used. However, Harayama discloses scanning exposure over plural scan fields arranged across a substrate area, including edge regions of the substrate, which inherently results in scan fields having edges located within or intersecting the substrate boundary (see figures 3-4). Such geometric relationships are inherent to scanning exposure processes and do not impart patentable weights.
As to claims 4 and 13, Harayama discloses calculating wavelength-related correction values based on positional information during scanning exposure (see claim 3). Performing such calculations at individual positions along the scan direction represents an obvious implementation detail of the feed control taught by Harayama.
With respect to claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18 and 19, these claims further define overlay error parameters, distortions, wavelength adjustments and correction values using summations, absolute values, vector components, sensitivity coefficients and separation of scan and cross-scan directions. These limitations merely represent routine mathematical formulations of known relationships between overlay errors, distortion and wavelength variation. Harayama teaches distortion sensitivity of a projection optical system with respect to wavelength variation and Okita teaches averaging and summation of overlay errors for correction purposes as discussed above. This is a concrete evidence that expressing these known relationships using summation operations, absolute values or directional components would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claims 7, 8, 1-17, these claims further recite calculating focus shift based on wavelength adjustment and performing synchronous control of a reticle stage and a substrate stage based on calculated correction values. Harayama discloses feedback based on control of exposure system components, including control of optical parameters and stage movement in response to calculated correction values (see col.6, lines 35-58). Performing synchronous control of reticle stage and substrate stage, as well as adjusting focus based on wavelength related calculations, represents conventional scanner control techniques and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Simons et al (U.S.Pat. 11,061,336); Lee et al (U.S.Pat. 10,809,624 B2) disclose electronic device manufacturing methods and have been cited for technical background.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-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, Toan Minh 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
12/17/25
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882