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 Objections
Claims 3, 6, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word transverse is misspelled as “transvers”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesener et al. [US 2015/0301455] in view of Franke et al. [Dual monopole exposure strategy to improve extreme ultraviolet imaging].
For claim 1, Schlesener teaches a method of operating a microlithographic projection exposure apparatus (see Figs. 1-7d) which comprises an illumination device (12) and a projection lens (20), the method comprising:
using the illumination device to illuminate a mask located in an object plane of the projection lens (illuminating the pattern of the mask, see [0144]); and
using the projection lens to image illuminated structures on the mask onto a light-sensitive material located in an image plane of the projection lens (illuminating the substrate layer 22, see [0145]); wherein:
the method comprises a scanning operation in which an illuminated region of the mask (illumination field 14 then scans over the mask 16, see [0144]) is varied (angular irradiance distribution, see Figs. 2, 4, and 6);
illuminating the mask takes place as field-dependent illumination in which different field regions of the object plane are illuminated with differing illumination settings (different illumination settings along the X direction and Y direction of the mask, see Figs 2, 4, and 6); and
during imaging of the object plane onto the image plane, a field-dependent image is produced in which differing field regions of the object plane are converted to differing image contrast (see [0156]).
Schlesener fails to explicitly teach that a field-dependent image offset is produced in which differing field regions of the object plane are converted to differing image offsets.
Franke teaches illumination settings that provide a field-dependent image offset is produced in which differing field regions of the object plane are converted to differing image offsets (dual monopole illumination to provide different image offset shifts that are then compensated for by stage position adjustment, see section 3 Dual Monopole Exposure and Fig. 1(c)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the field-dependent image offset to produce image offsets as taught by Franke into each of the field-dependent illumination settings as taught by Schlesener in order to increase contrast beyond dipole illumination.
For claim 2, In the combination, Franke teaches the field-dependent illumination and the field-dependent image offset increases an imaging contrast during imaging compared to imaging without a field-dependent image offset (increased contrast vs. dipole illumination, see Fig. 3(a)).
For claim 3, Schlesener teaches the mask is illuminated via an elongate scanning slit (slit 14 formed by field stop 80, see Fig. 8); the scanning direction is transverse to the scanning slit (slit 14 along the X direction); a plurality of field regions of the object plane are illuminated during the scanning operation (see Figs. 2, 4, and 6); and for illuminating each field region a different illumination setting is used (differing pupils for pattern of mask, see Figs. 2, 4, and 6).
For claim 4, Schlesener teaches the elongate scanning slit is in the shape of a circle segment (curved slit, see [0006]).
For claim 5, In the combination, Franke teaches at least two field regions of the object plane overlap one another (dual passes over the same field with each monopole, see section 3 Dual Monopole Exposure).
For claim 6, In the combination, Franke teaches the field-dependent image offset is produced during imaging onto the image plane depending on the transverse directional position of the radiation that is incident on the scanning slit (incident angle of energy dominant pole provides shift distance at the image plane, see Fig. 1).
For claim 7, Schlesener teaches the field-dependent illumination of the mask takes place via a facet mirror arrangement or a mirror array arrangement having micro-electromechanical systems (38, see Fig. 8); and in the combination Franke teaches the radiation from a first illumination pole causes lighting mainly in a lower region of the scanning slit (monopole optimized for vertical L/S scanning of Schlesener, see 3 Dual Monopole Exposure); and the radiation from a second illumination pole causes lighting mainly in an upper region of the scanning slit (monopole optimized for horizontal L/S scanning of Schlesener, see 3 Dual Monopole Exposure);.
For claim 18, In the combination, Franke teaches the field-dependent illumination and the field-dependent image offset increases an imaging contrast during imaging compared to imaging without a field-dependent image offset (see the rejection of claim 2); and Schlesener teaches the mask is illuminated via an elongate scanning slit; the scanning direction is transverse to the scanning slit; a plurality of field regions of the object plane are illuminated during the scanning operation; and for illuminating each field region a different illumination setting is used (see the rejection of claim 3).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesener in view of Franke as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Shigematsu et al [US 2009/0040490].
For claim 8, Schlesener fails to teach a separating dark field is between the lighting in the upper region of the scanning slit and the lighting in the lower region of the scanning slit.
Shigematsu teaches a separating dark field is between the lighting in the upper region of the scanning slit and the lighting in the lower region of the scanning slit (space between IR1 and IR2, see Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide dual slits in the scanning direction as taught by Shigematsu in the illumination arrangement as taught by Schlesener in order to scan multiple locations of the mask along the scanning direction at the same time to increase throughput.
Claims 9-11, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesener in view of Franke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lorusso et al. [US 2008/0229273].
For claims 9-11, 14, and 19, In the combination, Schlesener teaches the mask is illuminated via an elongate scanning slit; the scanning direction is transverse to the scanning slit; a plurality of field regions of the object plane are illuminated during the scanning operation; for illuminating each field region a different illumination setting is used (see the rejection of claim 3); Franke teaches the illumination of the mask with horizontally spaced-apart illumination poles (see Fig. 1(b)), a mask feed taking place during the scanning operation and/or a feed of the light-sensitive layer is modified in relation to a nominal mask feed for compensating the distortion profile (half dose scans allows for increase scan speed, see 4 Practical Considerations) during the illumination of the mask with vertically spaced-apart illumination poles; and the vertical distortion is compensated for by a feed speed between the mask and the light-sensitive layer which deviates from a nominal feed speed (half dose scans allows for increase scan speed, see 4 Practical Considerations), and the horizontal distortion is compensated for by an additional movement offset of the mask and the light-sensitive layer in the horizontal direction (correcting the δx pole-to-pole shift, see 3 Dual Monopole Exposure, a small stage offset used to compensate for the pole-to-pole image shift, see 4 Practical Considerations).
Neither Schlesener or Franke teach the field-dependent image offset is realized by the horizontally extending mask structures of the mask and/or vertically extending mask structures of the mask, each having a specified distortion profile; wherein: during the illumination of the mask with horizontally spaced-apart illumination poles, mask structures of the mask are distorted in the horizontal direction; and the horizontal distortion is compensated for by an additional movement offset of the mask and the light-sensitive layer in the horizontal direction, and mask structures of the mask are distorted in the vertical direction.
Lorusso teaches the field-dependent image offset is realized by the horizontally extending mask structures of the mask and/or vertically extending mask structures of the mask, each having a specified distortion profile (mask distortion profiles 1202-1206 shown in Fig. 12); wherein: during the illumination of the mask (off axis illumination, see [0077]), mask structures of the mask are distorted in the horizontal direction (distortion along the extension of the slit 102, see Fig. 12); and mask structures of the mask are distorted in the vertical direction (distortion in width direction of the slit 102, see Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mask distortion as taught by Lorusso in the mask used by Schlesener in order to reduce shadowing and image distortion.
For claim 20, In the combination, Franke teaches the field-dependent illumination and the field-dependent image offset increases an imaging contrast during imaging compared to imaging without a field-dependent image offset (increased contrast vs. dipole, see Fig. 3(a)).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesener in view of Franke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ota et al. [US 2002/0070355].
For claim 15, Schlesener fails to teach the field-dependent image offset is implemented by a manipulation within the projection lens carried out during the scanning operation.
Ota teaches the field-dependent image offset is implemented by a manipulation within the projection lens carried out during the scanning operation (changing unit 59 adjusts the optical characteristics of the projection optical system used to adjust image position shift, see [0175]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the claimed invention to use a projection optical system to adjust positional offset between reticle filed and image field as taught by Ota in the projection imaging as taught by Schlesener in order to ensure accurate relative position of the fields during scanning.
For claim 16, Schlesener teaches the mask is illuminated via an elongate scanning slit; the scanning direction is transverse to the scanning slit; a plurality of field regions of the object plane are illuminated during the scanning operation; and for illuminating each field region a different illumination setting is used (see the rejection of claim 3).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlesener in view of Franke and Ota as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lorusso.
For claim 17, In the combination, Franke teaches a mask feed taking place during the scanning operation and/or a feed of the light-sensitive layer is modified in relation to a nominal mask feed for compensating the distortion profile (half dose scans allows for increase scan speed, see 4 Practical Considerations).
Neither Schlesener or Franke teach the field-dependent image offset is realized by the horizontally extending mask structures of the mask and/or vertically extending mask structures of the mask, each having a specified distortion profile.
Lorusso teaches the field-dependent image offset is realized by the horizontally extending mask structures of the mask and/or vertically extending mask structures of the mask, each having a specified distortion profile (mask distortion profiles 1202-1206 shown in Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mask distortion as taught by Lorusso in the mask used by Schlesener in order to reduce shadowing and image distortion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Franke recognizes that the monopole illumination the lower contrast for P32H against P32V is due to the horizontal orientation of the L/S for which the optimum mask bias of each pole is different, but fails explicitly disclose: “the distortion of the mask structures in a ring-segment-shaped scanning slit, which extends in the horizontal direction and in which the field-dependent illumination distribution varies in the transverse direction, is implemented at least approximately according to one or more of the following transformation formulas: a) distortion of the vertical mask structures according to (x,y)->(x+dfx*(y−rfs(x)),y); b) distortion of the horizontal mask structures according to (x,y)->(x,y+dfy*(y−rfs(x))), where: rfs(x) describes a profile of the y-component of a specified distortion zero line of the scanning slit, depending on the x-position, and dfx,dfy represents a specified vertical or horizontal distortion factor,” as recited in claim 12. Claim 13 depends therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith et al. [US 2010/0053583] teaches illumination with two scan slits along the scanning direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights