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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/18/2025 and 06/27/2024 were being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tas et al. (US 2021/0262859 A1) in view of Schloss et al. (US 2008/0048285 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Tas teaches the claimed instrumented-substrate framework directly: wafer-dimensioned substrate 102; multiple photoelectric sensors 103 at spatial locations; conductive wirelines; controller 101; processors and memory; wireless communication circuitry; an onboard battery/voltage source; and measurement of illumination containing in-band 13.5 nm EUV and out-of-band wavelengths. Tas [0018]–[0025], [0028], [0036], [0040]–[0052], Figs. 1–4.
Tas determines wavelength-, time-, and spatially resolved EUV information from current measurements, but does not expressly state that its controller sums the sensor output into the claimed accumulated in-band dosage measurement. Tas [0021]–[0025], [0040]–[0048].
Schloss teaches a wafer-shaped sensor with traces, onboard power, processor 212, integrator 214, wireless communication, pulse-energy measurement, and summation of successive pulse energies to compute accumulated UV dose. Schloss [0018]–[0024], [0028]–[0029], [0046]–[0048], Figs. 1A–5.
In view of the utility of expressing Tas’s wafer-plane EUV sensor outputs as accumulated exposure dose for lithography calibration, it would have been obvious to configure Tas’s controller to accumulate its time-resolved EUV-responsive electrical measurements using Schloss’s known wafer-dose processing. The modification preserves Tas’s EUV photoemissive sensor and predictably produces an autonomous in-band EUV dosage measurement.
With regard to claim 14, refer to claim 1, since claim 14 recites the corresponding system implementation. Additionally, Tas expressly discloses system 300 operating with the instrumented substrate in an EUV process tool and receiving illumination having in-band 13.5 nm EUV and out-of-band portions. Tas [0018]–[0021], [0028], [0040]–[0052], Figs. 3–4. The dose-accumulation rationale stated for claim 1 applies within Tas’s disclosed EUV system.
With regard to claim 20, refer to claim 1, since claim 20 recites the corresponding method implementation. Tas discloses FOUP storage and factory automation removing the instrumented substrate from the FOUP and placing it in the photon pathway, followed by EUV measurement and storage/processing. Tas [0049]–[0052], Figs. 3–4. Schloss teaches a process-compatible measurement wafer and FOUP/base-station handling environment. Schloss [0028]–[0029], Figs. 2 and 5. In view of using the metrology wafer in the same automated flow as production wafers, returning the wafer to its FOUP after measurement is the predictable completion of the disclosed load-measure cycle.
Claim(s) 2 – 8, 15 – 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tas et al. (US 2021/0262859 A1) in view of Schloss et al. (US 2008/0048285 A1), and in further view of Liu et al. (WO 2021/074042 A1).
With regard to claim 2, Tas already identifies in-band 13.5 nm and out-of-band illumination [0019]–[0021], bur fails to expressly disclose one or more out-of-band dosage sensors, wherein the one or more out-of-band dosage sensors are configured to generate out-of-band dosage measurements from the out-of-band illumination.
Liu expressly distinguishes desired EUV from parasitic DUV reaching the substrate and determines their respective contributions, [0049]–[0064], Figs. 3, 5–7.
In view of the utility of separately measuring useful EUV exposure and parasitic DUV exposure at the substrate plane, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Tas’s plural-sensor instrumented substrate to include a separately responsive out-of-band dosage channel, such as taught by Liu, thereby predictably producing distinct in-band and out-of-band dosage measurements for exposure analysis, so each portion is measured at the wafer plane.
With regard to claims 3 and 4, Tas modified teaches the separately generated EUV and DUV dosage measurements, refer to the discussion of claim 2.
Tas modified fails to expressly teach Applicant’s signal-composition calculation. Notice that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Liu teaches calculating a quantitative relative-dose relationship between the separately determined DUV and EUV contributions for effective exposure control [0054]–[0064], Figs. 5–7. Notice that once the two nonzero dosage values are available, expressing the relationship as in-band dosage divided by out-of-band dosage is the reciprocal mathematical representation of the same measured composition.
In view of the utility of representing the relative spectral composition of the exposure in a directly usable quantitative value, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify Tas’s processor to calculate the relative relationship between the separately measured in-band and out-of-band dosages, such as taught by Liu, including selecting the reciprocal direction recited in claim 4, thereby predictably generating the claimed signal-composition value without changing either underlying physical measurement.
With regard to claim 5, refer to the discussion of claims 2–4 for the previously addressed dosage measurements and signal composition.
Tas teaches transmitting calculated wavelength, time, or spatially resolved measurement values to factory automation, Tas [0043]–[0049].
Schloss teaches wirelessly transferring wafer-sensor data to a base station or host. Fig. 3; Schloss [0028]–[0029], Figs. 2 and 5.
The added transmission limitation therefore uses the inherited communication interface for its disclosed purpose. As such, the communication interfaces are met by Tas already modified, see the rejections of claims 1 – 4.
With regard to claim 6, Tas modified teaches the claim invention according to claim 2 and further, Tas teaches selectable locations and patterns for plural sensors across the instrumented substrate [0018]–[0021], [0036], [0040]–[0048], Figs. 1–3., but does not expressly teach arranging the two spectral sensors adjacent to one another.
Liu teaches separately determining desired EUV and parasitic DUV contributions reaching the same substrate exposure. Liu [0049]–[0064], Figs. 3, 5–7. Liu does not prescribe the final physical spacing, but supplies the known paired spectral measurements whose spatial correspondence motivates the claimed arrangement.
In view of the utility of obtaining both spectral measurements at substantially the same substrate location and under substantially the same scanning illumination, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Tas by arranging its selectable sensor locations so that the in-band sensor is adjacent to the separate out-of-band sensor, such as taught by Liu, thereby predictably reducing spatial variation as a confounding difference between the two dosage measurements. This is a predictable rearrangement of known detector parts according to their intended measurement purpose because neither detector changes its operating principle. See MPEP § 2144.04; In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023, 86 USPQ 70, 73 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
With regard to claims 7 and 8, Tas modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1and further teaches that the photons may be in the EUV spectral range with an energy between 1 and 100 eV. For example, the spectral range may include in-band radiation in a 13.5 nm band and out-of-band radiation [0019] – [0021], [0028], [0039], [0052].
Tas modified fails to expressly disclose the precisely the EUV and out-of-band illumination wavelengths as claimed.
Liu teaches an EUV range of 5-20 nanometers [0049] [0059] [0063] and out-of-band DUV range of 130 -400 nanometers [0051] - [0063] within the recited wavelength intervals, [0049]–[0064], Figs. 3, 5–7.
In view of the utility of obtaining both spectral measurements as in, the in-band and out-of-band illuminations, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Tas to include the teachings such as that taught by Liu.
With regard to claims 15–17 and 19, refer to claims 2–5 and 7, respectively, as they recite corresponding system implementations; Tas supplies system 300 and its controller/processor architecture, Tas [0040]–[0052], Figs. 3–4.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tas et al. (US 2021/0262859 A1) in view of Schloss et al. (US 2008/0048285 A1), and in further view of Hult et al. (US 2009/0086179 A1).
With regard to claim 9, Tas modified teaches the instrumented-substrate architecture along with accumulated-dose processing, such as that taught by Schloss, see the rejection of claim 1. Tas further teaches plural photoelectric sensors 103 at selectable spatial locations and wavelength-resolved sensing including approximately 13.5-nm EUV, Tas [0018]–[0021], [0036], [0040]–[0048], Figs. 1–3.
Tas modified, however, do not expressly teach one or more in-band scattered dosage sensors positioned to receive radiation scattered from the intended image or scan field and to generate an accumulated in-band-scattered dosage measurement.
Hult teaches the identified deficiency through a radiometric stray-light test in which scattered light is expressly identified as stray light. Hult positions an apertured detector in the image plane, expressly identified as the wafer plane, and measures radiation scattered from a surrounding bright field into a dark image area. The detector signal is integrated or averaged during scans, and the dark-area/bright-field relationship quantifies the stray-light contribution, Hult [0032]–[0038], [0067]–[0075], [0096]–[0103], Figs. 4A–9.
In view of the utility of separately measuring intended in-band EUV dose and in-band EUV scattered outside the intended image area at the same wafer plane, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Tas’s wavelength-resolved wafer detector, with the wafer-plane apertured stray-light measurement taught by Hult, to position one or more of Tas’s EUV-responsive sensors where scattered in-band radiation is received and to accumulate that sensor output as taught by Schloss.
The modification would predictably generate a separate in-band-scattered dosage measurement without relocating a foreign optical architecture onto Tas’s substrate.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tas et al. (US 2021/0262859 A1) in view of Schloss et al. (US 2008/0048285 A1), and in further view of Sun et al. (US 2016/0138969 A) and Gresik et al. (US 2017/0040368 A1).
With regard to claim 10, Tas modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1, and as such, refer to the discussion of claim 1 for Tas’s instrumented-substrate architecture and Schloss’s accumulated-dose processing.
Tas modified, however, do not expressly teach the claimed absorptive-layer, cavity, aperture, and photodiode arrangement.
Sun teaches a wafer-form measurement device having cavities 104 containing diode sensors 106, a cover 105 over the recessed detector region, and openings 108 above or proximate the sensors so incident radiation reaches each diode. Sun [0025]–[0031], [0038]–[0046], Figs. 1A–1E. Sun does not expressly teach that the layer surrounding the opening is absorptive.
Grzesik teaches that exact remaining relationship through an optically absorbing layer 60 patterned with apertures 62 aligned with photodiodes 14, 16, and 18. The apertures admit primary radiation to the photodiodes, while surrounding absorbing regions 64 suppress unwanted secondary radiation. Grzesik [0038]–[0046], Figs. 3–4.
Schloss separately teaches the recited signal chain: a wafer-sized radiation sensor whose analog output is captured by integrators 214 and 216, digitized by an analog-to-digital converter internal to processor 212, and summed to compute accumulated UV dose. Schloss [0022]–[0023], [0026], Fig. 2.
In view of the utility of recessing and protecting a wafer-level photodiode while admitting radiation through a defined aperture and absorbing unwanted radiation outside that aperture, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Tas’s wafer sensor with Sun’s recessed cavity-and-photodiode package, and to form the layer surrounding Sun’s opening as an optically absorptive layer with a photodiode-aligned aperture, such as taught by Grzesik.
It further would have been obvious to process the photodiode output with Schloss’s integrator and analog-to-digital converter. The combined known elements would predictably shield the recessed detector outside the controlled aperture while admitting, integrating, and digitizing radiation received through the aperture.
With regard to claim 11, refer to the discussion of claim 10, as claim 11 adds only the photodiode material. Sun expressly teaches that diode detectors 106 may be silicon or silicon-carbide (SiC) diode detectors. Sun [0030]; see also [0027], [0046], Figs. 1A–1E.
In view of the utility of obtaining silicon or silicon-carbide (SiC) diode detectors, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Tas to include the teachings such as that taught by Sun in order to improve the instruments detection.
37. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tas et al. (US 2021/0262859 A1) in view of Schloss et al. (US 2008/0048285 A1), Sun et al. (US 2016/0138969 A) and Gresik et al. (US 2017/0040368 A1) and in further view of Dimsdale et al. (US 2002/0145607 A1).
With regard to claim 12, Tas modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 10, but fail to expressly teach “the illumination is generated in pulses,” “the one or more in-band dosage sensors comprise a comparator,” and “the controller is configured to activate and deactivate the integrator based on the pulses detected by the comparator” in the claimed causal relationship.
Dimsdale teaches the missing relationship. Optical detector 612 receives the laser pulses; comparator 3920 detects the pulse threshold crossings; comparator-responsive switch 3930 opens and closes the signal path so integrator 3940 integrates only during the detected pulse interval; and A/D converter 3950 samples the completed integration. Dimsdale [0173]–[0175], Figs. 38–40. Dimsdale’s comparator/switch timing circuit performs the claimed control function even though the intervening control logic is not repeatedly labeled a “controller.”
In view of the utility of excluding non-illuminated intervals and integrating detector current only while a radiation pulse is present, it would have been obvious to implement Dimsdale’s comparator-responsive integration gate through Tas’s existing controller in the Sun-Schloss dosage-sensor chain. This routine allocation of Dimsdale’s known gating function to the disclosed controller predictably activates and deactivates the integrator according to the detected pulse boundaries and produces a digitized pulse-dose value.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tas et al. (US 2021/0262859 A1) in view of Schloss et al. (US 2008/0048285 A1), Sun et al. (US 2016/0138969 A) and Gresik et al. (US 2017/0040368 A1) and in further view of Dimsdale et al. (US 2002/0145607 A1) and Boyd et al. (US Patent 4,352,021).
With regard to claim 13, Tas modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 12, but fail to expressly teach expressly teach “a plurality of in-band dosage sensors comprising the comparator,” with “the illumination scanned across the substrate in a scanning pattern,” and “the controller configured to determine the scanning pattern from the pulses of the illumination detected by the comparator of the plurality of in-band dosage sensors.”
Boyd teaches the missing distributed scan-determination relationship. A series of thin secondary-emission monitor wires occupies known spatial positions across the target; each wire generates a time-varying current proportional to the scanning-beam profile; and the output peak identifies the exact time the beam arrives at that wire location. The scan-control computer monitors beam position and abnormal beam behavior. Boyd col. 7:45–68, col. 8:1–11; Figs. 2–3 and 11. The known positions plus their time-ordered arrival detections define the beam’s path, direction, sequence, and timing.
In view of the utility of determining the actual path and timing of scanned illumination independently of a commanded trajectory, it would have been obvious to provide Dimsdale’s threshold-comparator pulse detection at plural known detector locations and process the temporal order and timing of those detections according to Boyd’s distributed beam-monitoring technique. Applying that processing in Tas’s controller predictably determines the scan pattern from which sensor detected the illumination and when, thereby revealing scan direction, path, timing, and abnormal beam behavior.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tas et al. (US 2021/0262859 A1) in view of Schloss et al. (US 2008/0048285 A1), and Liu et al. (WO 2021/074042 A1), and in further view of Renken et al. (US 2004/0154417 A1).
With regard to claim 18, Tas modified discloses the claimed invention according to claim 17, but fail to expressly teach expressly teach expressly teach “a front opening unified pod” wherein “the front opening unified pod is configured to receive the signal composition from the communication interface.”
Renken teaches the missing receiver ownership and data path. Renken’s FOUP handling system stores the instrumented process-condition measuring wafer and exchanges data with it; receiving unit 777 receives the wafer’s LED transmission; and electronics module 808, which contains a data-receiving unit, is mounted inside the FOUP handling system. Renken [0054]–[0055], [0072]–[0073], [0090], Figs. 7–9; claims 13, 29, and 33.
In view of the utility of preserving instrumented-wafer measurement results with the wafer during storage and transport, it would have been obvious to configure Renken’s established FOUP data-receiving unit to receive the signal-composition measurement transmitted by the communication interface of the Tas-Schloss-Liu system. The modification specifies the measurement content carried over Renken’s known instrumented-wafer-to-FOUP communication path and predictably makes that composition data available while the substrate is housed or transported in the Four
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJURA MALEVIC whose telephone number is (571)272-5975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9-5).
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571.272.3995. 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.
/DJURA MALEVIC/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights