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 § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, 13, and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tinnemans et al. (Tinnemans) (2007/0076180).
Regarding claim 1, Tinnemans discloses a method of performing a lithographic (Fig. 1, 5) performance qualification test (para 0086-0088, 0107-0110), the method comprising: obtaining exposure layout data describing multiple exposure layouts (para 0075, “does profile” “controlling the intensity of the radiation received at each point on the substrate”), each exposure layout relating to exposure of multiple exposure fields on a substrate (para 0091, “moving the substrate table WT accurately through a sequence of exposure positions relative to the projection system PS”, “Each of the exposure positions represent positions of the substrate table WT at which exposure of the substrate W or a portion of the substrate W will occur”); performing one or more dummy exposures on a substrate comprising photoresist for each of the one or more exposure layouts, the dummy exposure using no exposure illumination or exposure illumination having an exposure energy below an exposure threshold of the photoresist (para 0105, “a distortion measuring device 520 using radiation of a secondary wavelength (to which a resist on the substrate W is not sensitive)”); monitoring one or more exposure parameters of each dummy exposure to obtain exposure parameter data (para 0105-0109, “distortion measuring device 520 can be used offline to generate calibration data to link thermally-induced distortions with the desired dose pattern”); and identifying the exposure layout and/or one or more exposure parameters with a best and/or worst performance by evaluating lithographic performance of each dummy exposure and/or its corresponding exposure layout from the exposure parameter data respective to that dummy exposure (para 0107-0110, “data representing the distortion determined by the distortion measuring device 520 can be forwarded during exposure either to the substrate-position-based expansion-compensator 540, to the control-signal-based expansion-compensator 560, or to both”, “to identify the calibrated pattern that has characteristics closest to that of the desired dose pattern and use the corresponding calibration data as the basis for estimating thermally-induced distortions”, “additionally, the desired dose pattern can be mathematically "decomposed" or "expanded" into a number of calibration patterns (here used as basis functions) that are weighted so that their sum best represents the requested dose pattern”).
Regarding claim 2, Tinnemans discloses wherein each exposure layout of the exposure layout data describes one or more selected from: field size, field layout, intrafield layout and/or the number and locations of alignment marks or other features (para 0075, 0091, “Each of the exposure positions represent positions of the substrate table WT at which exposure of the substrate W or a portion of the substrate W will occur”).
Regarding claim 3, Tinnemans discloses wherein the one or more exposure parameters comprise one or more parameters which change during exposure (para 0075, “the radiation dose received by each point on the substrate can alternatively or additionally be controlled”, para 0086, 0087, thermal distortion changes during exposure).
Regarding claim 4, Tinnemans discloses wherein the one or more exposure parameters comprise one or more selected from: any servo related parameter, any force parameter, any movement parameter, any positional parameter, any temperature parameter, any flow parameter, and/or any pressure parameter, of the dummy exposure and/or of a lithographic apparatus used to perform the dummy exposure (para 0086, 0087, 0091, 0099, temperature parameter).
Regarding claim 5, Tinnemans discloses wherein the one or more exposure parameters relate to one or more selected from: a substrate stage, a reticle stage, the substrate, any lens, any fluid, a grid plate, and/or an immersion hood, of a lithographic apparatus used to perform the dummy exposure (para 0090-0094, a substrate stage, any lens).
Regarding claim 6, Tinnemans discloses wherein the evaluating lithographic performance comprises inputting the exposure parameter data into a model trained or configured to infer performance parameter data for one or more performance parameters from the exposure parameter data (para 0096-0100, “data relating to the distortion and/or imaging error of the projection system PS can be derived from the temperature distribution (obtained either by measurement or by modeling the heating effects of a particular desired dose pattern) using an associated predictive model (e.g., a mathematical model that provides the required output based the temperature distribution/profile, which should be provided as input)”).
Regarding claim 7, Tinnemans discloses wherein the one or more performance parameters comprise one or more selected from: edge placement, contrast, overlay, focus or defectivity (para 0087, 0088, defectivity, overlay).
Regarding claim 8, Tinnemans discloses selecting the one or more exposure parameters based on: the impact of the exposure parameter on the performance parameter; and/or the specific one or more performance parameters being determined (para 0086-0088, distortion, geometrical change, “Thermal distortions will tend to reduce the quality of the pattern formed on the substrate W”, “overlay problems”).
Regarding claim 9, Tinnemans discloses selecting the one or more exposure parameters based on: expert knowledge; and/or variance of the exposure parameter during the dummy exposure test (para 0086-0088, 0090, based on variance of the exposure parameter during the dummy exposure test).
Regarding claim 10, Tinnemans discloses wherein the evaluating lithographic performance comprises identifying one or more preferred and/or non-preferred exposure layouts out of the one or more exposure layouts (para 0089-0092 preferred exposure layouts, “desired dose pattern”).
Regarding claim 12, Tinnemans discloses wherein the evaluating lithographic performance comprises identifying one or more problem areas or exposure effects in at least one of the one or more exposure layouts (para 0086-0088, 0104, 0105, exposure effects of thermal distortion).
Regarding claim 13, Tinnemans discloses determining a correction strategy to mitigate the effect of the one or more problem areas or exposure effects (para 0108, 0109, “distortion measuring device 520 to determine a relationship between the distortion of the substrate W and/or projection system PS and the temperatures measured by the temperature sensors 525”, “compensators 540 and 560 can be able to determine the distortion”, para 0111, “a significant level of compensation can be achieved by adjusting the position/movement of the substrate W, and the process can be implemented relatively easily and economically”).
Regarding claim 16, Tinnemans discloses a non-transient computer program carrier comprising a computer program therein (para 0126), the computer program, when run on a suitable apparatus, configured to cause the apparatus to at least perform of claim 15 (para 0126, “semiconductor memory, magnetic or optical disk”).
Regarding claim 17, Tinnemans discloses a processing arrangement comprising: the non-transient computer program carrier of claim 16; and a processor operable to run the computer program comprised on the non-transient computer program carrier (para 0126, “semiconductor memory, magnetic or optical disk”.
Regarding claim 18, Tinnemans discloses a lithographic apparatus comprising the processing arrangement of claim 17 (Fig. 1, 5, para 0030-0038).
Regarding claim 19, Tinnemans discloses wherein each exposure layout of the exposure layout data describes one or more selected from: field size, field layout, intrafield layout and/or the number and locations of alignment marks or other features (para 0075, 0091, “Each of the exposure positions represent positions of the substrate table WT at which exposure of the substrate W or a portion of the substrate W will occur”).
Regarding claim 20, Tinnemans discloses wherein the one or more exposure parameters comprise one or more parameters which change during exposure (para 0075, “the radiation dose received by each point on the substrate can alternatively or additionally be controlled”, para 0086, 0087, thermal distortion changes during exposure).
Regarding claim 21, Tinnemans discloses wherein the one or more exposure parameters comprise one or more selected from: any servo related parameter, any force parameter, any movement parameter, any positional parameter, any temperature parameter, any flow parameter, and/or any pressure parameter, of the dummy exposure and/or of a lithographic apparatus used to perform the dummy exposure (para 0086, 0087, 0091, 0099, temperature parameter).
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tinnemans et al. (Tinnemans).
Regarding claim 11, Tinnemans discloses wherein the performing a dummy exposure comprises simulating the exposure with a reticle (para 0032, the patterning device can be a reticle or mask or an array of individually controllable elements); and the evaluating comprises evaluating alignment mark positioning for one or more of the exposure layouts (para 0087, 0105, “sensors can be provided that measure the position and/or orientation of markers formed on the substrate W”). Although Tinnemans does not disclose that the reticle has a dense alignment mark population, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a reticle having a dense alignment mark population since providing a reticle having a dense population of alignment mark or a reticle having only a few alignment mark is merely an intended use of the invention of Tinnemans to monitor the change of geometry and alignment.
Regarding claim 14, Tinnemans does not disclose repeating performance of the performing the dummy exposure, monitoring and evaluating for different exposure layouts on the same substrate. Since Tinnemans discloses that the dummy exposure uses radiation of wavelength that is not sensitive to a resist on the substrate (para 0105), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform another dummy exposure, monitoring and evaluating for different exposure layouts on the same substrate in order to provide more cost-effective way of evaluating exposure parameters on a substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (2005/0286036) discloses using light having wavelength or energy below the minimum energy capable ore removing the photoresist to measure alignment mark (para 0028). However, Lee does not disclose a dummy exposure to monitor and evaluate exposure parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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 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.
/PETER B KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 January 9, 2026