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:
Claim 1:
“a beam forming mechanism configured to form multiple charged particle beams”;
The corresponding structure of this limitation is “a shaping aperture array substrate 203, including a plurality of holes 22” (see Spec. para. [0019]).
“a writing mechanism configured to perform writing a pattern on the target object using the multiple charged particle beams”)
The corresponding structure of this limitation is “an electron beam column 102 (multiple electron beam column) and a writing chamber 103” (see Spec. para. [0013]).
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 § 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 1-10 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.
Claims 1 and 9 each recites “generate dose-data-for-defect which defines a dose for a defect at the defect position.” It is unclear whether the claimed does is assigned to the defective beam, to the defect position as dummy pattern data, or to a correction amount used in another writing pass. The claim also does not clearly specify how this does-data-for-defect generated for each processing region is used in the later pattern-existence determination for each unit region and the correction performed at another writing pass. In addition, claims 1 and 9 each recites the limitation “in the case of performing the writing…” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. it is not specifically tied to the writing mechanism, therefore it is unclear whether this step is performed by the writing mechanism or by some other elements. As such, it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the writing mechanism in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. Claims 2-8 and 10 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on respective rejected claims 1 and 9.
Claim 3 recites “the pattern existence determination circuit determines that a pattern to be arranged in the each unit region exists.” The scope of claim 3 is unclear because it is uncertain whether the claim requires the circuit to actually determine pattern existence for each unit region, or instead to deem every unit region as having a pattern regardless of the does data. This creates ambiguity when read with claim 1, which requires skipping a unit region in which no pattern was determined to exist.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by determining “whether a size of a region where only a dose of zero is defined is one of being 1/n and being one of less than and equal to n times of a rectangular region.” The claim does not clearly identity the rectangular region used for comparison, the meaning of the 1/n and n-time relationship, or the relationship between the zero-does-only region and the vicinal region including the defect position. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed size determination and the condition for performing the does determination are unclear. In addition, it is uncertain whether the “region where only a does of zero is defined” is the same as, overlaps with, contains, or is separate from the “vicinal region including the defect position.” If the regions are the same, the claim appears internally inconsistent because nonzero-does position cannot exist in a region where only zero does is defined. If the regions are different, the claim does not explain why the size of the zero-does-only region determines whether the vicinal-region nonzero does determination is performed subsequently.
Claims 2-8 and 10 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies on respective claims 1 and 9.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20200043701 [hereinafter Matsumoto].
Regarding Claim 1:
Matsumoto teaches a multiple charged particle beam writing apparatus (fig. 1) comprising:
a beam forming mechanism configured to form multiple charged particle beams (203/204 forming beams 20a-20d);
a dose data generation circuit (dose map creation unit 52) configured to generate, for each processing region of a plurality of processing regions obtained by dividing a writing region on a surface of a target object ([0072]), dose data which defines an individual dose of each position in a processing region concerned ([0075]);
a dose determination circuit (fig. 9, s118 via determination unit 63 of figure 1) configured to perform, for the each processing region (A-D, see paragraph [0081]), a determination of whether a position where a dose of a nonzero value is defined exists in a vicinal region including a defect position to be irradiated with a defective beam whose dose is excessive in the multiple charged particle beams ([0081] defines cases A-D (fig. 11), where the determination unit determines whether the irradiation position of the defect beam is outside the pattern or on the edge or inside. Paragraph [0082] teaches peripheral beam group of the defect beam is zero when outside the pattern and nonzero when inside. Thus determining whether the position whether a dose is non-zero exists in a vicinal region (i.e. position of defective beam relative to the peripheral beams, that is the defective beam position is interpreted as the vicinal region to the peripheral beams) including a defect position (defective beam position [0081]) to be irradiated with a defective beam whose dose is excessive in the multiple beams ([0081]));
a dose-data-for-defect-position generation circuit (s122 via 67 or S134 via 69) configured to generate dose-data-for-defect which defines a dose for a defect at the defect position in a case where the dose of the nonzero value is defined in the vicinal region (as seen in figure 9 if pattern in center s122, wherein paragraph [0081]-[0082] teach center is non-zero, if in the vicinity of edge or on edge s134, see paragraph [0086] for calculating shared doses which are shared with the defect beam, thus determining dose of defect beam);
a pattern existence determination circuit (fig. 9, s116 via 62 of figure 1) configured to perform, for each unit region on the surface of the target object where an irradiation region of the multiple charged particle beams is set, a determination of whether a pattern to be arranged in a unit region concerned exists, using dose data of each position to be irradiated in the unit region concerned ([0080] determine whether the defect beam is inside or outside the pattern and the distance from the defect beam to the pattern edge, paragraph [0080] discusses cases A-D which are each unit region. It is interpreted that if beams are outside the pattern (case A) the pattern does not exist (i.e. outside the pattern), note paragraph [0082] teaches for case A the dose is zero. This is based on dose data (i.e. position of the beams providing the dose)); and
a writing mechanism configured to perform writing a pattern on the target object using the multiple charged particle beams (fig. 1, optics within lens barrel), wherein, in a case of performing the writing, a unit region in which writing processing is to be performed is moved to a next unit region in which a pattern was determined to exist ([0111]), skipping a unit region in which no pattern was determined to exist by the pattern existence determination circuit ([0082] teaches in case A the peripheral beams are located outside of the pattern (determined as discussed above) so that the dose is zero. Therefore, this region is skipped as a zero dose suggests no irradiation), and correction is performed to reduce an excessive dose, resulting from the defective beam at any writing pass in a plurality of writing passes of multiple writing, at another writing pass (via steps s136-s150 or s140 after s122 through s150).
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 is a method claim includes indistinguishable subject matters from the apparatus claim 1. Matsumoto teaches the multiple charged particle beam writing apparatus of claim 1, and thus Matsumoto also teaches the multiple charged particle beam writing method of claim 9.
Regarding Claims 2 and 10:
Matsumoto teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and method of claim 9, respectively. Matsumoto further teaches:
a stage (XY stage 105) configured to be movable and place thereon the target object (paragraph [0048]: XY stage 105 supports the target object 101 and is moveable and adjustable); and
a tracking deflector configured to perform a tracking deflection of the multiple charged particle beams so that the irradiation region of the multiple charged particle beams follows movement of the stage (paragraph [0050]: deflector 308 performs tracking control by deflecting the entire multiple beam so that during writing the irradiation region follows the movement of the XY stage 105), wherein
the unit region is set for each tracking control by the tracking deflection (para. [0052]: each control grid 27 is controlled by the deflector).
Regarding Claim 3:
Matsumoto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Matsumoto further teaches wherein the pattern existence determination circuit (Fig. 1- defect beam position calculation unit 62) determines that a pattern to be arranged in each unit region exists.
Regarding Claim 5:
Matsumoto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Matsumoto further teaches wherein the determination of whether a pattern to be arranged in the each unit region exists is performed as preprocessing before starting writing processing (Fig. 9 and para. [0081]: a position determination step (S118) is performed before the writing step (S156)).
Regarding Claim 6:
Matsumoto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Matsumoto further teaches a specification circuit configured to specify, for each writing pass, a position irradiated with an excessive dose defective beam including an “always ON” defective beam, with respect to each position in the unit region on the surface of the target object where the irradiation region of the multiple charged particle beams is set (para. [0076]: “In the ON defect beam detection step (S110 ) , the detection unit 56 detects an alway -ON defect beam from the multiple beams 20. In the always - ON defect beam, irradiation of the beam of the maximum beam irradiation time Ttr in one shot is always performed regardless of the control dose”).
Regarding Claim 7:
Matsumoto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Matsumoto further teaches a defect correction circuit configured to perform correction for each writing pass by distributing an excessive dose, which has become excessive due to irradiation of an excessive dose defective beam at a writing pass other than a writing pass concerned, to peripheral beams (paras. [0081-0082]: the excessive does correction is performed based on the relative location of the pattern and the defective beam, and thus the writing pass caused the excessive does can by a writing pass other than a writing pass concerned).
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.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto.
Regarding Claim 4:
Matsumoto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Matsumoto further teaches wherein in a second and subsequent writing passes in the plurality of writing passes of the multiple writing, a determination is performed whether to correct, in a writing pass concerned, the excessive dose resulting from the defective beam, based on a result of a determination of whether a pattern to be arranged in the each unit region in a preceding writing pass exists (paras. [0081-0082]: based on a determination that whether the defect beam is located inside, outside, or on the edge/vicinity of the pattern (case A-D), correct excessive does in cases B, C, D).
Although Matsumoto does not expressly teach using a storage device to store such a determination results, Matsumoto teaches storing dose ma and writing data in one or more storage device with the system, therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled person in the art to store the intermediate determination results in one of the disclosed storage device or another similar storage device.
Regarding Claim 8:
Matsumoto teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Matsumoto further teaches the dose determination circuit determines whether the position where the dose of the nonzero value is defined exists in the vicinal region including the defect position to be irradiated with the defective beam.
Although Matsumoto does not expressly teach such a determination is be made also based on whether the size of the region includes the dose of zero exceeds a predetermined threshold, since Matsumoto already determines no-pattern/zero-does regions for skipping and performs additional defective-beam correction processing only when needed, it would have been obvious to further determine whether the zero-does-only regions has a threshold size before performing the vicinal-region nonzero does determination, to avoid unnecessary processing for insignificant blank regions and to limit the extra defective beam correction processing to blank regions large enough to affect the skip/no-skip determination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights