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 § 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 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brouns et al. [US 2020/0341366 A1].
Regarding claim 18, Brouns et al. discloses a photolithography apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
a vacuum lithography system comprising an exposure tool (paragraphs [0129], see also Fig. 1), comprising:
a reticle stage (MT) operable to secure a reticle assembly (15), wherein the reticle assembly (15) comprises a reticle protected by a pellicle membrane (19), and the reticle stage (MT) is operable to move the reticle assembly in a first direction (paragraph [0140]);
a substrate stage (WT) operable to secure a substrate (W), wherein the substrate stage is operable to move the substrate relative to the reticle assembly (15); and
a control unit electrically coupled to the reticle stage (paragraph [0108] teaches the controller); and
an inspection tool (26) disposed in the vacuum lithography system (paragraph [0152] teaches within the vacuum sealed housing of the lithographic apparatus) and configured to acquire a deformation level of the pellicle membrane before the reticle assembly is secured on the reticle stage (paragraphs [0007] and [0192]),
wherein the vacuum lithography system is configured to maintain a vacuum atmosphere between acquisition of the deformation level by the inspection tool and (paragraph [0152] teaches within the vacuum sealed housing of the lithographic apparatus) securing of the reticle assembly (15) on the reticle stage (MT), and wherein the control unit is configured to determine a scanning speed profile of the reticle stage at least based on the deformation level of the pellicle membrane (paragraph [0188] teaches real time, in situ, adjustment of the scan speed during the exposure operation).
Regarding claim 19, Brouns et al. discloses further comprising: a radiation source (1) configured to generate an electromagnetic radiation having a radiation energy (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the electromagnetic radiation is guided to the reticle (MA), and the reticle reflects and patterns the electromagnetic radiation to form a patterned electromagnetic radiation; and a detector configured to acquire an exposure energy of the patterned electromagnetic radiation and generate a detection result (as shown in Figs. 1-3 and 6).
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 1-3, 5-17, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brouns et al. in view of Van damme et al. [US 2020/0174381 A1].
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 11, Brouns et al. discloses a method (paragraph [0002]), comprising:
receiving a reticle assembly (as shown in Figs. 1-3 and 6, item 15) comprising a reticle (MA) and a pellicle membrane (19);
transporting the reticle assembly (15) to an exposure tool (LA) and securing the reticle assembly (15) on a reticle stage (MT) of the exposure tool (LA);
acquiring pellicle quality indices comprising a deformation level of the pellicle membrane (paragraphs [0157]-[0158] teaches acquiring deformation of the pellicle) and an adjustment level of radiation energy associated with exposure through the pellicle membrane (paragraph [0181] teaches actively control exposure radiation power (i.e. the power of the radiation beam B);
determining, from the pellicle quality indices, a rupture-risk level of the pellicle membrane (paragraphs [0157]-[0158] teaches acquiring rupture-risk level of the pellicle);
determining a scanning speed profile based on the rupture-risk level; and performing an exposure operation by driving the reticle stage according to the scanning speed profile (paragraph [0188] teaches real time, in situ, adjustment of the scan speed during the exposure operation).
Brouns et al. does not teach wherein the scanning speed profile including an initial section, a scanning section, and a final section and wherein at least one of an acceleration rate in the initial section or a deceleration rate in the final section is reduced from a respective baseline value in response to the rupture- risk level.
However, Van damme et al. discloses a control system configured to control the lithographic apparatus so as to at least partly compensate for the deformation of the transparent layer during the scanning movement of the lithographic apparatus (paragraph [0056]), wherein the different scan profiles includes different constant scan speed or different accelerations /deceleration (paragraph [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide scanning speed profiles, as taught by Van damme et al. in the method of Brouns et al. wherein the scanning speed profile including an initial section, a scanning section, and a final section and wherein at least one of an acceleration rate in the initial section or a deceleration rate in the final section is reduced from a respective baseline value in response to the rupture- risk level, because such a modification provides a system capable of projecting the pattern as accurately and/or quickly on the target portion as possible (paragraph [0054] of Van damme et al.).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Brouns et al. discloses further comprising: measuring the deformation level of the pellicle membrane to determine a sag value, and wherein determining the rupture-risk level comprises determining the rupture- risk level based at least in part on the sag value (paragraphs [0158] and [0162]).
Regarding claim 5, Brouns et al. discloses wherein the reticle comprises a feature region and a border region surrounding the feature region, and the scanning path begins at a lower boundary of the border region and terminates at an upper boundary of the border region (as shown in Fig. 11).
Regarding claims 6, 8, 12 and 13, Brouns et al. in view of Van damme et al. discloses wherein the pellicle quality indices further comprise at least one of a composition of the pellicle membrane, a number of substrates processed, and a movement speed of a substrate stage for supporting a substrate to be exposed (paragraph [0061] of Van damme et al.) and in response to determining that the rupture-risk level indicates the pellicle membrane being at a high risk of rupture, replacing the pellicle membrane with a qualified pellicle membrane (paragraph [0191] of Brouns et al.).
Regarding claim 7, Brouns et al. discloses further comprising issuing an alarm signal when the adjustment level in the radiation energy is greater than a tolerable level (paragraph [0241]).
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 17, Brouns et al. discloses further comprising: detaching the reticle assembly from the reticle stage and transporting the reticle assembly to an inspection tool; irradiating an inspection beam onto the pellicle membrane and detecting scattered beams after the irradiation; and determining a deformation level of the pellicle membrane based on the detected scattered beams, wherein the rupture-risk level is determined using the deformation level, wherein the irradiating the inspection beam is performed during a polarity switch period of a reticle stage (paragraphs [0007] and [0192]).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Brouns et al. discloses wherein the pellicle quality indices includes measuring the deformation of the pellicle membrane prior to the securing the reticle assembly on the reticle stage, wherein a vacuum atmosphere is maintained between measuring the deformation and the securing the securing the reticle assembly on the reticle stage (as shown in Figs. 1-3 and 6 and paragraphs [0007] and [0192]).
Regarding claim 21, Brouns et al. discloses wherein the inspection tool disposed in the vacuum lithography system is configured to acquire a sag value indicative of the deformation level of the pellicle membrane (as shown in Figs. 1-3 and 6 and paragraphs [0158] and [0162]).
Regarding claim 22, Brouns et al. discloses wherein determining the rupture-risk level comprises determining that the pellicle membrane has a high rupture-risk level in response to the deformation level being above a predetermined deformation and the adjustment level of radiation energy exceeding a predetermined energy-adjustment threshold (paragraphs [0157]-[0158] and [0181]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-19, 21 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights