Detailed Action
1. Claims 28-46 are pending in this Application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 § 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 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 28-30,33-37 and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WITTE STEFAN et al., (hereafter WITTE ), WO-2018137925, pub., 08/02/2018 ,in view of VAN DEN BRINK ARIE et al.,(hereafter VAN ), EP 3786711 A1, pub. on 03/03/2021
As to claim 28 WITTE teaches A method for detecting and/or quantifying manufacturing inaccuracies made by a lithographic process, comprising the steps of(par. 34-71, fig. 1,3-6, Also shown in Figure 1 is a metrology apparatus 140 which is provided for making measurements of parameters of the products at desired stages in the manufacturing process), comprising:
providing at least one design for fabrication of structures on a substrate using a set of lithographic processes(par. 34,40, fig. 3, Features defining the grating structure have been applied to the blank material of the substrate using the lithographic apparatus)
wherein the fabricated structures define an array of metrology sensors, wherein each metrology sensor is adapted to produce one of a known and finite set of possible distinct and discrete physical events upon application of a physical process (par. 34,40, fig. 3, 304] Also shown in Figure 1 is a metrology apparatus 140 which is provided for making measurements of parameters of the products at desired stages in the manufacturing process. A common example of a metrology apparatus in a modern lithographic production facility is a scatterometer. The metrology apparatus 140 and/or other metrology apparatuses (not shown) can be applied to measure properties of the processed substrates 132, 234, and incoming substrates 130. Figure 3A shows the condition of the substrate when a grating structure has been formed to function as an alignment mark 302. The patterning to form the grating structure may be performed as part of a first layer processing of the substrate, in which the same patterning step also applies first layer device features) wherein the produced physical event : is unknown before the application of the physical process, (par. 47, fig. 5,6, In a first step 501, the substrate 602 is illuminated with excitation radiation 604. The excitation radiation forms a spatial pattern 608 on a surface of the substrate. The excitation radiation causes a material effect 606 to propagate through the substrate. The material effect may take any suitable form and may be generated in any suitable fashion by the excitation radiation.), is dependent on manufacturing inaccuracies generated by at least one of the set of lithographic processes (par.33, par. 71, In order that the substrates that are exposed by the lithographic apparatus are exposed correctly and consistently, it is desirable to inspect exposed substrates to measure properties such as overlay errors between subsequent layers, line thicknesses, critical dimensions (CD), etc. A spatial resolution in the 10-50 nm range, making it useful for CD metrology and mask defect inspection), and , is a displaced state of the fabricated structure, or has one or more physical entities associated with the fabricated structure present that were absent before the application of the physical process, (par. 45,50,51, fig. 4-6, When the reflection R reaches the outer surface OS, as shown in Figure 4D, the surface will be displaced and/or the reflectivity of the outer surface will be changed in a pattern P corresponding to the buried mark M. The displacements and the difference in reflectivity between the displaced and not- displaced areas of the surface form effectively form a diffraction grating that diffracts the alignment beam in the same way as the mark M itself.); and is larger than the inaccuracies (par.27)
applying the set of lithographic processes to obtain the fabricated structures (par. 34,40, fig. 3, Also shown in Figure 1 is a metrology apparatus 140 which is provided for making measurements of parameters of the products at desired stages in the manufacturing process. A common example of a metrology apparatus in a modern lithographic production facility is a scatterometer);
applying the physical process, thereby producing one of the known and finite set of possible distinct and discrete physical events for each metrology sensor (par. 47-49, fig. 5,6, the spatial pattern may be generated in any suitable fashion. In some examples, the excitation radiation comprises at least a first excitation beam, and may be generated by using a radiation forming element so as to cause the spatial pattern to be formed on the surface of the substrate. In an example, the excitation radiation comprises a first excitation beam and a second excitation beam, and the spatial pattern is formed as an interference pattern between the first excitation beam and the second excitation beam);
reading out the produced physical events of all metrology sensors (par. 50,51, fig. 5,6, 5 In a second step 502, at least one effect 610 associated with a reflected material effect 612 scattered by a structure 614 is measured. The effect may be measured in any suitable fashion using a suitable detector 616 ); and
processing the produced physical events of all metrology sensors to detect and/or quantify manufacturing inaccuracies made by the lithographic process(par. 52, fig. 5,6, In a third step 503, at least one characteristic of the structure based on the at least one measured effect is derived).
It is noted that WITTE does not specifically teach “wherein, after having performed said steps, each metrology sensor contains data about the inaccuracies made by the lithographic process”
On the other hand , VAN teaches after having performed said steps, each metrology sensor contains data about the inaccuracies made by the lithographic process (Fig.5, claim 10, [0026], Figure 5b depicts a plot of non-correctable errors associated with a scribe lane and device topology; and Figure 6 depicts a flow diagram of a method for determining an offset between first and second metrology data. The second metrology data comprises total focus error data obtained using diffraction based focus).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the method of determining all or part of a non-correctable error in metrology taught by VAN into WITTE.
The motivation for doing so allows users of WITTE to understand measurement risk, while also preventing them from manufacturing parts or passing devices that fall too close to the edge of an acceptable tolerance .
As to claim 44 WITTE discloses a metrology system, comprising a lithographic apparatus configured to pattern a radiation sensitive resist (par. 34,40, fig. 3),
regarding the remaining limitation of claim 44, all the remaining limitations are similiter to the limitation of claim 28. Thus, the rejection apply to claim 28 also applied to the remaining limitation of claim 44
As to claim 29 WITTE teaches the produced physical events are visibly distinguishable from the other physical events of the set of possible distinct and discrete physical events(Fig.9,10, par. 61-65, 68, 71, , the scattered radiation 922 comprises radiation that has been directly scattered by the substrate 902 (e.g. specular reflection). The scattered radiation 922 is received at detector 916. The excitation radiation 904a, 904b is provided by a pair of laser radiation sources with a very short pulse time. The excitation radiation generates a spatial pattern on the surface of the substrate 902).)
As to claim 30 WITTE teaches the manufacturing inaccuracies originate from an edge placement error, wherein the edge placement error is smaller than 5 nm, or wherein the edge placement error is smaller than 1 nm.(par. 34, 40, fig.3, a spatial resolution in the 10-50 nm range, making it useful for CD metrology and mask defect inspection. Furthermore, more complex tasks, such as edge placement error, may be considered,)
As to claim 33 WITTE teaches the produced physical events of all metrology sensors are read out using imaging(par.64,65,Fig.9, The material effect generates an effect that is measured by illuminating the substrate with measurement radiation 920. In the present example, the effect comprises a modulation of the scattered measurement radiation signal 922 as received at the detector 916 (imaging).).
As to claim 34 WITTE teaches each metrology sensor comprises displaceable matter configured in a resting state and distributed over a local area, wherein the displaceable matter is adapted to reach a displaced state within the local area in a displacement process upon application of the physical process(par. 45 pars.50-51, Figs.4-5 ,the displacements and the difference in reflectivity between the displaced and not- displaced areas of the surface form effectively form a diffraction grating that diffracts the alignment beam in the same way as the mark M itself. In some examples, the effect comprises a change in refractive index at the surface of the substrate. In other examples, the effect comprises a physical displacement of the surface of the substrate. In yet other examples, the effect comprises both a change in refractive index and a physical displacement. )
As to claim 35 WITTE teaches the displaceable matter is in the resting state when the fabricated structure on the substrate is obtained from the lithographic process (par.63, pars.75-77, Fig.11. It is shown that, when the diffraction 1016 of the acoustic waves (AW) return, the displacement at the surface does not resemble the topography of the buried object 1014, but shows a modulation, which is the result of the diffraction 1016 of the acoustic wave (AW)).
As to claim 36 WITTE teaches the physical process is applied to each metrology sensor for a predefined period of time ( claim 12, par.40, Fig.3, In a further embodiment the step of measuring comprises illuminating the substrate with measurement radiation at one or more predetermined time interval(s) from the excitation time, and receiving scattered measurement radiation scattered by the substrate at each one of the one or more predetermined time interval(s), wherein the scattered measurement radiation is representative of the transient pattern at respective one or more predetermined time interval(s)).
As to claim 37 WITTE teaches the at least one design is configured such that one specific physical event is favored ( par.5, par.45,50, 51, Figs.4-6, Known alignment sensors use one or several radiation sources to generate a plurality of radiation beams with different wavelengths. In this fashion, a sensor may measure position using several wavelengths (e.g., colors) and polarizations of radiation (e.g., light) on the same target grating or gratings. No single color or polarization is ideal for measuring in all situations, so the system selects from a number of signals, which one provides the most reliable position information. ).
Claim 45 is rejected the same as claim 28 except claim 11 is directed to system claim . All the limitations of claim 45 are addressed in claim 28. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 28 is applicable to claim 45.
Claim 46 is rejected the same as claim 30 except claim 46 is directed to system claim . All the limitations of claim 46 are addressed in claim 30. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 30 is applicable to claim 46
4. Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WITTE, WO-2018137925,in view of VAN , EP 3786711 A1, further in view of VAN INGEN SCHENAU et al. (hereafter VAN INGEN), WO-2021165419, pub. 08/26/2021
Regarding claim 31, while the combination of WITTE and VAN teaches claim 28, but fails to teach claim 31.
On the other hand in the same field of endeavor a techniques of improving the performance of a lithographic apparatus of VAN INGEN teaches the step of processing the produced physical events comprises computationally processing the produced physical events (par. 254,255, fig. 24, Figure 24 is a flow chart of a method for determining a probability density function associated with a characteristic of a feature that will be printed on a substrate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a method of calculating a mask probability density function being associated with a mask used to print the feature on the substrate taught VAN INGEN into modified WITTE.
The motivation for doing so allows users of modified WITTE to accurately model how random defects and physical deviations on a photomask will translate into printed features on a substrate
As to claim 32, VAN INGEN teaches the step of constructing probability distributions of counts of produced physical events against one or more varied design parameters for the design (par. 254,255, fig. 24, Procedure P2401 includes obtaining (e.g., via a computer hardware system 100): (i) a dose probability density function (dose PDF) to determine a probability of dose, and (ii) a mask probability density function (mask PDF) to determine a probability in a deviation of a mask characteristic. In an embodiment, the mask characteristic (e.g., mask CD) being associated with a mask used to print the feature on the substrate).
5. Claim 38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WITTE, WO-2018137925,in view of VAN , EP 3786711 A1, further in view of DANILIN ALEXANDER ALEXANDROVICH (hereafter DANILIN) , KR 20180081588 A, pub. 07/16/2018
Regarding claim 38, while the combination of WITTE and VAN teaches claim 37, but fails to teach claim 38.
On the other hand in the same field of endeavor a method of predicting the performance of lithographic apparatus for calibration or other purposes to DANILIN teaches two or more designs are provided, wherein at least one of the designs is distinguishable from the other design by at least one edge displaced by an integer number of the smallest controllable step size of the lithographic apparatus (page 5 last two pars., page 16 par.3 , For example, the peripheral zones of the substrate may be separately classified so that the edge-related components may be added to the performance model, and the edge-related errors may be predicted and / or corrected. The wasted space on the substrate is not acceptable due to the cost of establishing and operating the production facility, so that a particular size and shape smaller than the maximum size for each product will generally be selected. In an example of a scanning mode of operation, the lithographic apparatus may be controlled to operate at a shorter scan length and / or a shorter step size to ensure that the substrate area is filled optimally with fields of a certain size and shape. Thus, minimize the cost by minimalizing the wasted space on the substrate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a method of controlling the lithographic
apparatus in order to operate at a shorter scan length and / or a shorter step size taught by DANILIN into modified WITTE
The motivation for doing so allows user of modified WITTE to ensure that the substrate area is filled optimally with fields of a certain size and shape. Thus, minimize the cost by minimizing the wasted space on the substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 39-43 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
7. Regarding dependent claim 39 no prior art is found to anticipate or render the flowing limitation obvious;
“wherein each metrology sensor comprises a plurality of mechanical actuators connected by at least one linking element in a strained state representing the resting state, wherein each mechanical actuator is adapted to trigger a mechanical actuation to reach an end state in a predefined amount of time upon initiation of an etching process, and wherein each linking element reaches an unstrained state representing the displaced state when one of the mechanical actuators reaches its end state, and wherein the step of simultaneously applying the physical process to each metrology sensor for at least a predefined period of time comprises simultaneously etching the array of metrology sensors for at least a predefined period of time.
8. Claims 40-43 are objected because they are dependent of the objected claim dependent claim 39
Prior art not used in rejections but pertinent to the claims or disclosure
“METHOD OF DETERMINING EDGE PLACEMENT ERROR, INSPECTION APPARATUS, PATTERNING DEVICE, SUBSTRATE AND DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD”,
US 20170010541 A1 1, pub. 01/12/2017, to MOSSAVAT et al., disclosed:
A method of determining edge placement error within a structure produced using a lithographic process, the method comprising the steps of: (a) receiving a substrate comprising a first structure produced using the lithographic process, the first structure comprising first and second layers, each of the layers having first areas of electrically conducting material and second areas of non-electrically conducting material; (b) receiving a target signal indicative of a first target relative position which is indicative of a target position of edges between the first areas and the second areas of the first layer relative to edges between the first areas and second areas of the second layer in the first structure during said lithographic process; (c) detecting scattered radiation while illuminating the first structure with optical radiation to obtain a first signal; and (d) ascertaining an edge placement error parameter on the basis of the first signal and the first target relative position. (Abstract, claim 1)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Mekonen Bekele whose telephone number is (469) 295-9077.The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM to 6:50 PM Eastern Time.
If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Eng, George can be reached on (571) 272-7495.The fax phone number for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-237-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished application is available through Privet PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have question on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217-919 (tool-free)
/MEKONEN T BEKELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights