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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an optical module” in lines 7-8 in claim 1; “an optical module” in lines 11-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prosyentsov et al. (US PGPub 2013/0050674, Prosyentsov hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Prosyentsov discloses a lithography apparatus (Figs. 1-7, para. [0043], lithographic apparatus 100), comprising:
a substrate stage having a first region configured to hold a semiconductor substrate and a second region surrounding the first region (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0043], [0061]-[0065], substrate table WT supports a substrate W in a central region and includes an outer region surrounding the substate (Fig. 2));
a light receiver structure over the second region of the substrate stage (Figs. 2-7, paras. [0061]-[0065], alignment sensor AS is formed in a semiconductor chip 2 over the region of substrate table WT surrounding the substrate);
a light source configured to provide an alignment light toward the second region of the substrate stage (Figs. 1-7, paras. [0051], [0057]-[0058], [0061]-[0065], [0068], [0082], [0087]-[0088], [0092], [0130], the EUV radiation is emitted by the source collector module SO, and the EUV radiation is incident upon the alignment sensor AS on the substrate table WT during alignment);
a mask stage configured to secure a mask (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0043]-[0045], [0054]-[0055], [0059], support structure MT holds patterning device MA); and
an optical module configured to direct an exposure light from the mask onto the semiconductor substrate (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0043], [0054], [0055], [0057]-[0060], projection system PS projects the beam patterned by the patterning device MA onto the substrate W).
Regarding claim 2, Prosyentsov discloses wherein the exposure light is directed onto the semiconductor substrate along a first direction, and the alignment light is provided toward the second region of the substrate stage along a second direction substantially parallel with the first direction (Figs. 1-7, paras. [0043], [0051], [0054]-[0055], [0057]-[0065], [0068], [0082], [0087]-[0088], [0092], [0130], the EUV radiation is emitted by the source collector module SO, and the EUV radiation is incident upon the alignment sensor AS on the substrate table WT during alignment in a direction parallel to the direction in which the EUV radiation is directed on to the substrate W).
Regarding claim 15, Prosyentsov discloses a method for operating a lithography apparatus (Figs. 1-7, paras. [0043]-[0045], [0054]-[0065], lithographic apparatus 100 exposes a substrate W), comprising:
placing a semiconductor substrate over a first region of a substrate stage (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0043], [0061]-[0065], substrate table WT supports a substrate W in a central region);
directing an alignment light to a second region of the substrate stage (Figs. 1-7, paras. [0051], [0057]-[0058], [0061]-[0065], [0068], [0082], [0087]-[0088], [0092], [0130], the EUV radiation is emitted by the source collector module SO, and the EUV radiation is incident upon the alignment sensor AS on the substrate table WT during alignment. The alignment sensor AS is formed in a semiconductor chip 2 over the region of substrate table WT surrounding the substrate);
using a light receiver structure over the second region of the substrate stage, detecting a plurality of different wavelengths of light (Figs. 2-7, paras. [0061]-[0065], [0085]-[0087], [0095]-[0097], [0127]-[0132], alignment sensor AS is formed in a semiconductor chip 2 over the region of substrate table WT surrounding the substrate. The alignment sensor AS includes detectors 16a-e that detect different wavelengths of light using wavelength conversion material 4 or filters formed in the waveguides 5); and
after detecting the different wavelengths of light, directing an exposure light to the semiconductor substrate (Figs. 1-7, paras. [0043], [0054], [0055], [0057]-[0065], [0085]-[0087], [0092]-[0098], [0111]-[0116], [0127]-[0132], the alignment detection by alignment sensor AS is used to determine the alignment between the mask MA and substrate table WT, and the projection system PS projects the beam patterned by the patterning device MA onto the substrate W upon alignment).
Regarding claim 16, Prosyentsov discloses wherein directing the alignment light to the second region of the substrate stage is performed along a first direction, and directing the exposure light to the semiconductor substrate is performed along a second direction substantially parallel with the first direction (Figs. 1-7, paras. [0043], [0051], [0054]-[0055], [0057]-[0065], [0068], [0082], [0087]-[0088], [0092], [0130], the EUV radiation is emitted by the source collector module SO, and the EUV radiation is incident upon the alignment sensor AS on the substrate table WT during alignment in a direction parallel to the direction in which the EUV radiation is directed on to the substrate W).
Regarding claim 18, Prosyentsov discloses further comprising: determining whether a position of the substrate stage is acceptable based on a result of detecting the alignment light (Figs. 1-7, paras. [0043], [0054], [0055], [0057]-[0065], [0085]-[0087], [0092]-[0098], [0111]-[0116], [0127]-[0132], the alignment sensor AS determines the position of the substrate table WT relative to the mask MA to achieve alignment between the mask MA and the substrate table WT); and
in response the determination determines that the position of the substrate stage is not acceptable, adjusting a position of the substrate stage, wherein directing the exposure light to the semiconductor substrate is performed in response the determination determines that the position of the substrate stage is acceptable (the limitation “in response the determination determines that the position of the substrate stage is not acceptable, adjusting a position of the substrate stage, wherein directing the exposure light to the semiconductor substrate is performed in response the determination determines that the position of the substrate stage is acceptable” recites a contingent limitation in a method claim. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” See MPEP 2111.04, subsection II. For instance, the claim language does not require “adjusting a position of the substrate stage” when the determination determines the position of the substrate stage is acceptable. Figs. 1-7, paras. [0043], [0054], [0055], [0057]-[0065], [0085]-[0087], [0092]-[0098], [0111]-[0116], [0127]-[0132], the alignment sensor AS determines the position of the substrate table WT relative to the mask MA to achieve alignment between the mask MA and the substrate table WT and exposes the substrate W on the aligned substrate table WT).
Regarding claim 20, Prosyentsov discloses wherein the different wavelengths of light are longer than a peak wavelength of the exposure light (Figs. 2-7, paras. [0061]-[0065], [0068], [0085]-[0088], [0095]-[0097], [0127]-[0132], the alignment sensor AS includes detectors 16a-e that detect different wavelengths of infrared or visible radiation using wavelength conversion material 4 that converts incident EUV radiation).
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosyentsov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goodwin et al. (US PGPub 2013/0208104, Goodwin hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, although Prosyentsov discloses a photosensitive device layer comprising a plurality of photosensitive areas (Figs. 2-7, paras. [0061]-[0065], [0085]-[0087], [0095]-[0097], [0128]-[0132], alignment sensor AS includes a detector array 16a-16e formed of a CCD array), and discloses a color filter layer having a plurality of portions respectively over the photosensitive areas, wherein the portions of the color filter layer have different transmittance spectrums (Figs. 2-7, paras. [0061]-[0065], [0085]-[0087], [0095]-[0097], [0128]-[0132], the waveguides in the alignment sensor AS include different wavelength filters to select a different wavelength of radiation for each wavelength for the detector array), Prosyentsov does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the photosensitive device layer comprising a plurality of photosensitive pixels, wherein color filter layer has a plurality of portions respectively over the photosensitive pixels.
Goodwin discloses wherein the light receiver structure comprises: a photosensitive device layer comprising a plurality of photosensitive pixels (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0032], [0034]-[0035], CCD detector component 102a comprises pixels sensing wavelengths); and
a color filter layer having a plurality of portions respectively over the photosensitive pixels, wherein the portions of the color filter layer have different transmittance spectrums (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0029], [0032], [0034], [0035], [0038]-[0039], a material layer is applied on the pixels of the CCD component to change the spectral response for different pixels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a photosensitive device layer comprising a plurality of photosensitive pixels, a color filter layer having a plurality of portions respectively over the photosensitive pixels, wherein the portions of the color filter layer have different transmittance spectrums as taught by Goodwin in the light receiver structure in the lithography apparatus as taught by Prosyentsov since including a color filter layer having a plurality of portions respectively over the photosensitive pixels, wherein the portions of the color filter layer have different transmittance spectrums is commonly used to provide a CCD detector that is capable of facilitating the simplification of the illumination system and optics (Goodwin, para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 4, Prosyentsov as modified by Goodwin discloses wherein the light receiver structure further comprises: a shell surrounding the photosensitive device layer and the color filter layer, wherein the shell has an opening facing away from the substrate stage (Prosyentsov, Figs. 2-7, paras. [0064]-[0065], [0069], [0086], the alignment sensor AS includes an opaque material layer 8 on top of the semiconductor chip 2 around and above the detector array 16a-16e and waveguides 5. The opaque material includes windows 9, and as modified by Goodwin, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0029], [0038]-[0039], a material layer is applied on the pixels of the CCD component to change the spectral response for different pixels).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosyentsov as modified by Goodwin as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (US PGPub 2002/0041368, Ota hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Prosyentsov as modified by Goodwin does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the photosensitive pixels of the photosensitive device layer are arranged along a plane substantially parallel with a top surface of the substrate stage.
Ota discloses wherein the photosensitive pixels of the photosensitive device layer are arranged along a plane substantially parallel with a top surface of the substrate stage (Fig. 6, para. [0099], the 2D imaging device 86 is CCD arranged in a plane parallel to the top surface of the stage WST).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the photosensitive pixels of the photosensitive device layer are arranged along a plane substantially parallel with a top surface of the substrate stage as taught by Ota as the arrangement of the photosensitive pixels of the photosensitive device layer in the lithography apparatus as taught by Prosyentsov as modified by Goodwin since including wherein the photosensitive pixels of the photosensitive device layer are arranged along a plane substantially parallel with a top surface of the substrate stage is commonly used to effectively produce imaging signals used to adjust the positions of the projection system mirrors to improve exposure imaging quickly and efficiently (Ota, paras. [0013]-[0014], [0017], [0099], [0110]).
Claims 6, 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosyentsov as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (US PGPub 2002/0041368, Ota hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Prosyentsov does not appear to explicitly describe wherein a peak wavelength of the alignment light is different from a peak wavelength of the exposure light.
Ota discloses wherein a peak wavelength of the alignment light is different from a peak wavelength of the exposure light (Figs. 1-2, 6, paras. [0065], [0068]-[0073], [0096], [0099], [0107], [0110], [0112], [0114], [0130], the light source device 12 emits exposure light EL1 in the EUV range and emits measurement light in the ultraviolet range UV and visible range AL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a peak wavelength of the alignment light is different from a peak wavelength of the exposure light as taught by Ota in the lithography apparatus as taught by Prosyentsov since including wherein a peak wavelength of the alignment light is different from a peak wavelength of the exposure light is commonly used to adjust the positions of the projection system mirrors to improve exposure imaging quickly and efficiently (Ota, paras. [0013]-[0014], [0017], [0099], [0110]).
Regarding claim 7, Prosyentsov does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the light source comprises a broadband light source.
Ota discloses wherein the light source comprises a broadband light source (Figs. 1-2, 6, paras. [0065], [0068]-[0073], [0096], [0099], [0107], [0110], [0112], [0114], [0130], the light source device 12 emits light in the EUV, UV, and visible ranges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the light source comprises a broadband light source as taught by Ota in the lithography apparatus as taught by Prosyentsov since including wherein the light source comprises a broadband light source is commonly used to adjust the positions of the projection system mirrors to improve exposure imaging quickly and efficiently (Ota, paras. [0013]-[0014], [0017], [0099], [0110]).
Regarding claim 19, Prosyentsov does not appear to explicitly describe wherein a peak wavelength of the alignment light is different from a peak wavelength of the exposure light.
Ota discloses wherein a peak wavelength of the alignment light is different from a peak wavelength of the exposure light (Figs. 1-2, 6, paras. [0065], [0068]-[0073], [0096], [0099], [0107], [0110], [0112], [0114], [0130], the light source device 12 emits exposure light EL1 in the EUV range and emits measurement light in the ultraviolet range UV and visible range AL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a peak wavelength of the alignment light is different from a peak wavelength of the exposure light as taught by Ota in the method as taught by Prosyentsov since including wherein a peak wavelength of the alignment light is different from a peak wavelength of the exposure light is commonly used to adjust the positions of the projection system mirrors to improve exposure imaging quickly and efficiently (Ota, paras. [0013]-[0014], [0017], [0099], [0110]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosyentsov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiraishi (US PGPub 2007/0008509).
Regarding claim 8, Prosyentsov does not appear to explicitly describe further comprising: a wall surrounding the substrate stage, the light receiver structure, the light source, the mask stage, and the optical module.
Shiraishi discloses further comprising: a wall surrounding the substrate stage, the light receiver structure, the light source, the mask stage, and the optical module (Figs. 1, 8, paras. [0047]-[0048], [0096]-[0098], [0101], vacuum chamber surrounds the entirety of the optical path of the exposure apparatus, including the wafer stage WS, the EUV light source, the light quantity sensors 12’, 13’, the reticle stage RS, and the projection optical system 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a wall surrounding the substrate stage, the light receiver structure, the light source, the mask stage, and the optical module as taught by Shiraishi in the lithography apparatus as taught by Prosyentsov since including a wall surrounding the substrate stage, the light receiver structure, the light source, the mask stage, and the optical module is commonly used to maintain a vacuum for the optical path (Shiraishi, para. [0047]).
Claims 9-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosyentsov et al. (US PGPub 2013/0050674, Prosyentsov hereinafter) in view of Goodwin et al. (US PGPub 2013/0208104, Goodwin hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Prosyentsov discloses a lithography apparatus (Figs. 1-7, para. [0043], lithographic apparatus 100), comprising:
a substrate stage configured to hold a semiconductor substrate (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0043], [0061]-[0065], substrate table WT supports a substrate in a central region and includes an outer region surrounding the substate (Fig. 2));
a light receiver structure over the substrate stage (Figs. 1-7, paras. [0062]-[0065], the alignment sensor AS is formed over the substrate table WT), wherein the light receiver structure comprises:
a photosensitive device layer comprising a plurality of photosensitive areas (Figs. 1-7, paras. [0062]-[0065], [0085], the semiconductor chip of the alignment sensor AS comprises detectors or CCD array 16a-e); and
a mask stage configured to secure a mask (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0043], [0045], support structure MT supports a patterning device MA); and
an optical module configured to direct an exposure light from the mask onto the semiconductor substrate (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0043], [0054], [0059]-[0060], [0100], projection system PS projects the exposure light from the patterning device MA to the substrate W). Although Prosyentsov discloses a color filter layer having a plurality of portions respectively over the photosensitive areas, wherein the portions of the color filter have different transmittance spectrums (Figs. 2-7, paras. [0061]-[0065], [0085]-[0087], [0095]-[0097], [0128]-[0132], the waveguides in the alignment sensor AS include different wavelength filters to select a different wavelength of radiation for each wavelength for the detector array), Prosyentsov does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the photosensitive device layer comprising a plurality of photosensitive pixels, wherein color filter layer has a plurality of portions respectively over the photosensitive pixels.
Goodwin discloses a photosensitive device layer comprising a plurality of photosensitive pixels (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0032], [0034]-[0035], CCD detector component 102a comprises pixels sensing wavelengths); and
a color filter layer having a plurality of portions respectively over the photosensitive pixels, wherein the portions of the color filter layer have different transmittance spectrums (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0029], [0032], [0034], [0035], [0038]-[0039], a material layer is applied on the pixels of the CCD component to change the spectral response for different pixels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a color filter layer having a plurality of portions respectively over the photosensitive pixels, wherein the portions of the color filter layer have different transmittance spectrums as taught by Goodwin in the light receiver structure of the lithography apparatus as taught by Prosyentsov since including a color filter layer having a plurality of portions respectively over the photosensitive pixels, wherein the portions of the color filter layer have different transmittance spectrums is commonly used to provide a CCD detector that is capable of facilitating the simplification of the illumination system and optics (Goodwin, para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 10, Prosyentsov as modified by Goodwin discloses wherein the light receiver structure further comprises: a light shielding plate over the color filter layer, wherein the light shielding plate has an opening exposing the color filter layer (Prosyentsov, Figs. 2-7, paras. [0064]-[0065], [0069], [0086], [0128]-[0132], the alignment sensor AS includes an opaque material layer 8, 208 on top of the semiconductor chip 2 around and above the detector array 16a-16e and waveguides 5. The opaque material includes windows 9, and as modified by Goodwin, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0029], [0038]-[0039], a material layer is applied on the pixels of the CCD component to change the spectral response for different pixels).
Regarding claim 11, Prosyentsov as modified by Goodwin discloses wherein the light receiver structure further comprises: a light shielding box surrounding the color filter layer and the photosensitive device layer, wherein the light shielding box has an opening exposing the color filter layer (Prosyentsov, Figs. 2-7, paras. [0064]-[0065], [0069], [0086], [0107]-[0109], [0128]-[0132], the alignment sensor AS includes an opaque material 8, 208 surrounding the wavelength conversion materials 4 and filters above detector array 16a-e, and the opaque material 8, 208 includes windows exposing wavelength conversion materials 4 and the waveguides 5, and as modified by Goodwin, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0029], [0038]-[0039], a material layer is applied on the pixels of the CCD component to change the spectral response for different pixels).
Regarding claim 14, Prosyentsov as modified by Goodwin discloses wherein the color filter layer is a linear variable color filter (Goodwin, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0029], [0032], [0034], [0035], [0038]-[0039], [0044]-[0045], the material layer is applied on the pixels of the CCD component to linearly change the spectral response for different pixels).
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosyentsov as modified by Goodwin as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (US PGPub 2002/0041368, Ota hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Prosyentsov as modified by Goodwin does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the photosensitive pixels of the photosensitive device layer are arranged along a plane substantially parallel with a top surface of the substrate stage.
Ota discloses wherein the photosensitive pixels of the photosensitive device layer are arranged along a plane substantially parallel with a top surface of the substrate stage (Fig. 6, para. [0099], the 2D imaging device 86 is CCD arranged in a plane parallel to the top surface of the stage WST).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the photosensitive pixels of the photosensitive device layer are arranged along a plane substantially parallel with a top surface of the substrate stage as taught by Ota as the arrangement of the photosensitive pixels of the photosensitive device layer in the lithography apparatus as taught by Prosyentsov as modified by Goodwin since including wherein the photosensitive pixels of the photosensitive device layer are arranged along a plane substantially parallel with a top surface of the substrate stage is commonly used to effectively produce imaging signals used to adjust the positions of the projection system mirrors to improve exposure imaging quickly and efficiently (Ota, paras. [0013]-[0014], [0017], [0099], [0110]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosyentsov as modified by Goodwin as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Shiraishi (US PGPub 2007/0008509).
Regarding claim 13, Prosyentsov as modified by Goodwin does not appear to explicitly describe further comprising: a wall surrounding the substrate stage, the light receiver structure, the mask stage, and the optical module.
Shiraishi discloses further comprising: a wall surrounding the substrate stage, the light receiver structure, the mask stage, and the optical module (Figs. 1, 8, paras. [0047]-[0048], [0096]-[0098], [0101], vacuum chamber surrounds the entirety of the optical path of the exposure apparatus, including the wafer stage WS, the EUV light source, the light quantity sensors 12’, 13’, the reticle stage RS, and the projection optical system 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a wall surrounding the substrate stage, the light receiver structure, the mask stage, and the optical module as taught by Shiraishi in the lithography apparatus as taught by Prosyentsov as modified by Goodwin since including a wall surrounding the substrate stage, the light receiver structure, the mask stage, and the optical module is commonly used to maintain a vacuum for the optical path (Shiraishi, para. [0047]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosyentsov as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Nishinaga et al. (US PGPub 2006/0170891, Nishinaga hereinafter).
Regarding claim 17, although Prosyentsov discloses further comprising: determining whether a z-direction position of the substrate stage is acceptable based on a result of detecting the alignment light (Figs. 1-7, paras. [0043], [0054], [0055], [0057]-[0065], [0085]-[0087], [0092]-[0098], [0111]-[0116], [0127]-[0132], the alignment sensor AS determines the position of the substrate table WT relative to the mask MA and image focal plane of the projection system PS to achieve substrate table alignment), and in response the determination determines that the z-direction position of the substrate stage is not acceptable, adjusting a position and z-direction position of the substrate stage, wherein directing the exposure light to the semiconductor substrate is performed in response the determination determines that the z-direction position of the substrate stage is acceptable (the limitation “in response the determination determines that the tilt of the substrate stage is not acceptable, adjusting a position and a tilt angle of the substrate stage, wherein directing the exposure light to the semiconductor substrate is performed in response the determination determines that the tilt of the substrate stage is acceptable” recites a contingent limitation in a method claim. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” See MPEP 2111.04, subsection II. For instance, the claim language does not require “adjusting a position and a tilt angle of the substrate stage” when the determination determines the tilt of the substrate stage is acceptable. Figs. 1-7, paras. [0043], [0054], [0055], [0057]-[0065], [0085]-[0087], [0092]-[0098], [0111]-[0116], [0127]-[0132], the alignment sensor AS determines the position of the substrate table WT relative to the mask MA and the image focal plane of the projection system PS to achieve alignment between the mask MA and the substrate table WT and the image focal plane and the substrate table WT and exposes the substrate W on the aligned substrate table WT). Prosyentsov does not appear to explicitly describe determining a tilt of the substrate stage and in response to determining that the tilt of the substrate stage is not acceptable or is acceptable.
Nishinaga discloses further comprising: determining whether a tilt of the substrate stage is acceptable based on a result of detecting the alignment light (Figs. Figs. 21, 23, 24, 25, 32, 33, paras. [0223], [0233], [0241], [0262]-[0264], [0277]-[0281], [0318], the control unit CONT determines the best focus position using the spatial image-measuring unit 270 while scanning the substrate stage PST, and controls the tilt of the substrate stage PST based on the measurement); and
in response the determination determines that the tilt of the substrate stage is not acceptable, adjusting a position and a tilt angle of the substrate stage, wherein directing the exposure light to the semiconductor substrate is performed in response the determination determines that the tilt of the substrate stage is acceptable (the limitation “in response the determination determines that the tilt of the substrate stage is not acceptable, adjusting a position and a tilt angle of the substrate stage, wherein directing the exposure light to the semiconductor substrate is performed in response the determination determines that the tilt of the substrate stage is acceptable” recites a contingent limitation in a method claim. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” See MPEP 2111.04, subsection II. For instance, the claim language does not require “adjusting a position and a tilt angle of the substrate stage” when the determination determines the tilt of the substrate stage is acceptable. Figs. 21, 23, 24, 25, 32, 33, paras. [0223], [0233], [0241], [0262]-[0264], [0277]-[0281], [0318], the control unit CONT determines the best focus position using the spatial image-measuring unit 270 while scanning the substrate stage PST, and controls the tilt of the substrate stage PST based on the measurement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included determining whether a tilt of the substrate stage is acceptable based on a result of detecting the alignment light; and in response the determination determines that the tilt of the substrate stage is not acceptable, adjusting a position and a tilt angle of the substrate stage, wherein directing the exposure light to the semiconductor substrate is performed in response the determination determines that the tilt of the substrate stage is acceptable as taught by Nishinaga in the method as taught by Prosyentsov since including determining whether a tilt of the substrate stage is acceptable based on a result of detecting the alignment light; and in response the determination determines that the tilt of the substrate stage is not acceptable, adjusting a position and a tilt angle of the substrate stage, wherein directing the exposure light to the semiconductor substrate is performed in response the determination determines that the tilt of the substrate stage is acceptable is commonly used to quickly control the position of the substrate stage to arrange the substrate at the best focus position of the projection optical system to improve exposure (Nishinaga, para. [0262]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sato et al. (US PGPub 2010/0055584) discloses an exposure apparatus with an alignment light source that emits light incident to a light receiving element on a wafer stage and an exposure light source that emits exposure light incident to a wafer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-5PM.
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, Minh-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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882