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 .
The amendment filed on June 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 18-23 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15 and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frisco et al. [US 20200272059 A1, hereafter Frisco].
As per Claims 1 and 18, Frisco teaches a method for performing a lithographic
apparatus setup calibration and/or drift correction for a specific lithographic apparatus of
a population of lithographic apparatuses to be used in a manufacturing process for manufacturing an integrated circuit extending across a plurality of layers on a substrate
(Para 7), the method comprising:
determining a spatial error distribution of an apparatus parameter across spatial
coordinates on the substrate for each lithographic apparatus of the population of
lithographic apparatuses and/or each layer of the plurality of layers (wherein a method
comprising determining aberrations caused by each lithographic apparatus of a set of
lithographic apparatuses);
determining a reference distribution by aggregating each of the spatial error
distributions to optimize the reference distribution such that a spatial distribution of a
parameter of interest of the manufacturing process is co-optimized across the said
population of lithographic apparatuses and/or plurality of layers, wherein the
aggregating comprises performing a weighted average of the spatial error distributions
(Para 21, wherein the aberrations may be measured by exposing reference substrates
to patterns using the lithographic apparatuses and then measuring the exposed patterns); and using the reference distribution as a target distribution for the apparatus
parameter for each lithographic apparatus and/or layer (Para 35, wherein calculate adjustments of the lithographic apparatuses which minimize differences between the
aberrations caused by each of the lithographic apparatuses, and applying the
adjustments to the lithographic apparatuses).
As per Claims 2 and 19, Frisco teaches the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the reference distribution is common for all lithographic apparatuses and/or
layers (Para 21, measured by exposing reference substrates).
As per Claims 3 and 20, Frisco teaches the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the reference distribution is optimized to minimize an error range of the
apparatus parameter across the lithographic apparatus population and/or the plurality of
layers (Para 85).
As per Claims 4 and 21, Frisco teaches the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the spatial error distribution for each lithographic apparatus or layer used to
determine the reference distribution comprises a residual error fingerprint following an
initial or simulated setup procedure (Para 66, the projection system of the lithographic
apparatus may be adjusted to reduce such aberrations but nevertheless residual
aberrations will remain).
As per Claims 6 and 22, Frisco teaches the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the optimization of the reference distribution comprises determining weights per
lithographic apparatus and/or layer for the weighted average, the weights being
determined to optimize the parameter of interest of the manufacturing process (Para 87,
the best set of weighted parameters to achieve the best matching of KPIs across the set
of lithographic apparatuses).
As per Claim 7, Frisco teaches the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the
determining a reference distribution comprises performing an iterative optimization of
the weights till at least one convergence criterion is met (Para 98).
As per Claim 8, Frisco teaches the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the
aggregating comprises determining a mapping function which maps the spatial error
distributions weighted by respective weights to the weighted average of the spatial error
distributions (Para 83).
As per Claims 9 and 23, Frisco teaches the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the parameter of interest is overlay, edge placement error or any parameter
indicative of yield (Para 36).
As per Claim 10, Frisco teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
determining a reference distribution accounts for at least one sensitivity or weight
specific to a particular application related to one or more of the lithographic apparatuses
and/or layers and/or the integrated circuit (Para 45).
As per Claim 11, Frisco teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
reference distribution is used as a target distribution for each lithographic apparatus
and/or layer during a setup or calibration operation prior to commencing production
(Para 87).
As per Claim 12, Frisco teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
reference distribution is used as a target distribution for drift control during production,
such that any drift is corrected towards the target distribution (Para 87).
As per Claim 13, Frisco teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
apparatus parameter is aberration of a projection system of a lithographic apparatus,
and the setup comprises a lens setup for calibrating the projection system (Para 66).
As per Claim 14, Frisco teaches the method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the
determining a reference distribution further comprises an optimization of aberration or
Zernike weights in a lens model used in the lens setup (Para 67).
As per Claim 15, Frisco teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
apparatus parameter is position deviation in one or both of a reticle stage and substrate stage of the lithographic apparatus and the setup comprises a grid setup for calibrating
a measure and/or exposure grid (Para 35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remark section, with respect to claims 1-4, 6-15 and 18-23, Applicant argued that the applied prior art to Frisco [US 20200272059 A1] does not teach determining a reference distribution by aggregating each of the spatial error distributions
to optimize the reference distribution such that a spatial distribution of a parameter of interest of the manufacturing process is co-optimized across the population of lithographic apparatuses and/or plurality of layers, wherein the aggregating comprises performing a weighted average of the spatial error distributions, as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Frisco, for example in [0080], disclosed “The algorithm which is used to minimize the difference between the aberration fingerprints AFA-E of lithographic apparatuses attempts to minimize a merit function which is a measurement of an average (or cumulative) distance between the aberration fingerprints of the different lithographic apparatuses A-E.” (emphasis added by the Examiner). The above teaching shows an average or cumulative or aggregating, each of the spatial error distributions or distance between the aberration fingerprints.
As such, Frisco teaches claim 1 limitation of a spatial distribution of a parameter of interest of the manufacturing process (the aberration fingerprints) is co-optimized across the population of lithographic apparatuses and/or plurality of layers (of the different lithographic apparatuses A-E), wherein the aggregating comprises performing a weighted average of the spatial error distributions (to minimize a merit function which is a measurement of an average (or cumulative) distance between the aberration fingerprints). Therefore, Applicant’s argument on the above points is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights