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 § 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, 5-10 and 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimitriev et al (U.S.Pat. 9,658,527 B2) in view of Ditriev et al (U.S.Pat. 9,606,444 B2).
With respect to claims 1, 10 and 16, Ditriev’527 discloses a method for correcting errors of a photolithographic mask, in particular Ditriev’527 teaches determining registration error within an active area of a photolithographic mask, representing such registration errors by registration maps, and generating correction writing maps based on the determined registration error information (e.g., col.24, figures 4-6; col. 35-36, figures 33-35) Dmitriev’527 further teaches computing a correction map for locally directing a laser beam onto a photolithographic mask substrate, wherein the correction map is generated through an optimization process using registration error information and writing density information.
More specifically, Dimitriev’527 teaches obtaining registration change data resulting from writing operations and using the registration change data to compute correction writing maps and apodization writing maps that compensate registration errors. The reference further teaches that registration change data may be simulated from writing density distributions and then utilized to generate a correction map that reduces residual registration error after scanner correction. Thus, Dmitriev’517 teaches: obtaining registration error data associated with a lithographic patter; generating a correction map based on the registration error data; and applying the correction map to compensate registration errors through laser-beam writing operations. However, Dmitriev’527 does not expressly disclose that the registration error data are extracted according to beam-dose related variations, as recited in the claims. Dmitriesv’444 teaches that variations in optical transmission and optical dose across a photolithographic mask produce critical dimension variations and registration errors, and further teaches correcting such registration errors using arrangements of laser pulses having different laser beam parameter sets (col.5-6 and col.12-13). Dmitriev’444 additionally teaches that different laser beam parameter sets produce different deformation signatures and that such beam parameters are selected and controlled to correct registration errors and optical transmission variations. In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Dmitrie’527 by extracting and utilizing registration-error information according to beam-dose related variation as taught by Dmitrie’444 because Dmitriev’444 expressly recognizes that optical dose variations and laser-beam parameter variations are sources of registration error and that such information may be used when generating correction arrangements for registration-error compensation. The motivation for the combination is to improve registration-error correction accuracy by incorporating beam-dose dependent deformation behavior into the correction-map generation process, thereby obtaining more accurate registration compensation and improved mask performance.
Claim 5 is obvious because Dimitriev’527 teaches generating multiple correction maps and combining correction information across different mask regions.
Claim 6 is obvious because selecting a particular exposure-unit size represents a matter of routine optimization and design choice.
Claim 7 is obvious because correcting apparatus-included registration errors before applying subsequent registration correction constitutes a predictable preprocessing operation.
Claim 8 is obvious because EUV masks comprising a substrate, reflective multilayer, capping layer and absorber layer were well known in the art.
Claim 9 is obvious because utilizing additional mask-characterization information, such as surface roughness information, as an input parameter in a correction algorithm constitutes a predictable use of known data sources.
Claims 13 and 14 are obvious because generating local correction maps for multiple regions and combining them into a global correction map, including dose-based modulation techniques, represents known optimization techniques.
Claim 15 is obvious because employing the method with EUV mask is a known application of lithographic mask technology.
Claim 20 is obvious because processing a feature layer using a photoresist pattern as an etch mask is a conventional semiconductor fabrication step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 11-12, 17-19 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.
Claims 2-4, 11-12 and 17-19 have been found allowable since the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, neither discloses nor makes obvious a method of correcting a registration error of a mask manufactured using an exposure apparatus comprising among other features, the registration error data has a first error value caused by a first dose and a second value caused by a second dose that is different from the first dose, in a same focus condition of the E beams, as recited in the claims.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung et al (US 2019/0113838) and Welte et al (U.S.Pat. 11,914,289) disclose methods of correcting registration error of masks and have been cited for technical background.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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 Minh 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
6/15/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights