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, 13 and 17, the claims recite broad functional steps such as: “searching for a combination using a fitness value”; “partially changing the EUV mappings”; “transition repeatedly performed a number of times” and “configuring the EUV illumination system”. However, the terms of “fitness value”, “restricted condition”, “partial changing”, “transition” lack clear definition and objective boundaries. Clearly, these terms are subjective, result-oriented or undefined, rendering the scope of the claims unclear. The claims recite “fitness value” without specifying: what parameters are included, how the value is computed, how different metrics are weighted.
As to claim 8, the claim recites that the fitness value “includes at least one of” several metrics, which fails to cure the indefiniteness because the fitness value may include any arbitrary combination.
Claims 10, 16 and 20 recite mathematical expressions but fail to specify: how the equations are applied across all embodiments, how constraints are enforced during optimization and how results translate to physical system configuration. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be reasonably determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 13 and 17 are directed to methods of configuring an EUV illumination by: generating aerial images via optical simulation; summing aerial images
searching for a combination of EUV point sources using a fitness value; and selecting/configuring a combination having a maximum fitness values. The dependent claims further recite use of: generic algorithms, Lagrange multiplier methods, normalized image log slops (NILS), mathematical constraints (e.g., Itot =10), repeated transitions and iterations. It appears that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely: mathematical optimization and data analysis for selecting an optimal combination based on a fitness function. Specifically, the claims recite: evaluating simulated data, calculating a fitness value, ranking combinations, iteratively modifying parameters and selecting an optimal result. These steps constitute mental processes, mathematic relationships and optimization algorithms, which are recognized abstract ideas under MPEP §2106.04(a). Clearly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not recite any specific optical structure, mirror geometry, pupil arrangement, coherence control mechanism or physical constraint that is modified by the optimization. The “configuring” step merely states a result of the optimization, without reciting how the physical illumination system is structurally changed. The claims therefore use the abstract idea as a tool to select an optimal configuration, rather than applying it in a specific technological matter. Finally, genetic algorithms and Lagrange multipliers are well-known mathematical techniques for optimization. Optical simulation, aerial image calculation and fitness evaluation are conventional in lithography modeling. Thus, claims do not recite any non-conventional or non-genetic technological improvement to EUV illumination hardware or imaging physics.
For purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Under this interpretation, the recited steps of “generating aerial images”, “summing up the aerial images”, “searching for a combination of EUV point sources using a fitness value” and “configuring the EUV illumination system using a combination having a maximum fitness values” are understood as data generation, mathematical evaluation, optimization, and selection steps respectively. Because the claims do not recite specific physical structures, optical geometries, mirror configurations, coherence control mechanisms that are modified by the searching or optimization steps. Accordingly, the claims are interpreted as encompassing any implementation in which simulated image data is evaluated using a fitness function to determine an optical combination, including implementations that rely solely on mathematical calculations, iterative optimization techniques and abstract decision-making processes. Also, “fitness value” can be considered as CD, CDC ration, aerial image slope or combination between illumination settings.
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 Dmitriev et al (U.S.Pat. 11,366,382) in view of Waldis et al (EP 2815277).
With respect to claims 1, 5, 8, 11-15 and 17-18, Dmitriev discloses a method of configuring an extreme ultraviolet (EUV illumination system and comprising substantially all of the limitations of the instant claims such as: generating aerial images by performing an optical simulation with respect to each of a plurality of EUV point sources (see figure 4: Aerial image simulation block; Figure 5: flowchart shows perform an aerial image simulation; see col.4, lines 25-48); searching for a combination of the EUV point sources using a fitness value ( such as CD, CDC ration, aerial image slope) with respect to the summed aerial images (see col.13, lines 1-54) and configuring the EUV illumination system (for example: changing the illumination setting) as a combination of the EUV point sources which has a maximum fitness value (determining optimal illumination system based on simulation outcome). Dmitriev does not expressly disclose summing up the aerial images based on EUV mapping as recited. Waldis teaches a practical EUV illumination system in which illumination conditions are controlled by assignments between field facet mirrors and pupil facet mirrors, thereby defining multiple illumination channel. In other words, Waldis teaches an EUV illumination system employing mappings between field facet mirrors and pupil facet mirrors to define illumination channels (see paragraphs [0036-0039]). 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 teaching of Waldis and Dmitriev to obtain the claimed invention as recited in the mentioned claims. It would have been obvious to apply the metric-based illumination evaluation and selection technique of Dmitriev to the EUV illumination system of Waldis in order to optimize EUV lithographic imaging performance and proving the quality of the printed images.
As to claim 2, the claim recites each of the plurality of EUV point sources is a minimum unit configured to be individually turned on/off and EUV light from the plurality of EUV point sources at different locations is incoherent with each other. Waldis teaches an EUV illumination system having multiple illumination channels, each defined by an assignment between a field facet mirror and a pupil facet mirror. Each illumination channel can be selectively activated, deactivated or adjusted to control the illumination distribution. Therefore, each such illumination channel corresponds to a minimum illumination unit that can be individually turned on or off. Thus, the combination of Waldis and Dmitriev renders obvious the limitation of claim 2.
As to claim 3, the claim further recites that the aerial images are represented as graphs of an intensity of a cutline with respect to a mask patter. Dmitriev teaches generating aerial image intensity distribution through optical simulation and evaluating imaging performance metrics, such as CD and aerial image slope which are commonly derived from intensity profiles along cutlines across a simulated image (see figure 13).
As to claim 4, the claim recites that the EUV mapping corresponds to a restricted condition of selecting optical paths from M field facet mirrors (FFMs0 to N pupil facet mirrors (PFMs) where N is greater than M. Waldis meets this limitation since Waldis teaches an EUV illumination system having a field facet mirror (FFM) and a pupil facet mirror (PFM) wherein illumination is guided through multiple illumination channels, each channel being defined by a mapping or assignment between a field facet mirror and a pupil facet mirror. Waldis meets the limitation since such assignments can be selectively chosen or restricted to define the illumination configuration, thereby corresponding to a restricted condition of selecting optical paths from a set of field facet mirrors to a larger set of pupil facet mirrors.
With respect to claims 6-7, 9-10, 16, 19-20, recite that the searching for a combination of EUV point sources is performed using a genetic algorithm, as well as using a Lagrange multiplier method for performing the searching for a combination of EUV point sources. It is the Examiner’s position that genetic algorithms and the Lagrange multiplier method are well-known optimization techniques commonly used to search large parameter spaces. Dmitriev teaches iteratively evaluating multiple illumination configurations using imaging metrics to identify improved illumination conditions. Therefore, applying a genetic algorithm and the Lagrange multiplier method as a specific search technique to perform such evaluation represents a routine and predictable design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art and does not impart patentable distinction.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ye et al (U.S.Pat. 8,542,340) and Chen et al (U.S.Pat. 11,042,687) disclose illumination optimization methods for EUV illuminations systems 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
1/19/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882