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
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fouquet et al. [US 20110276935 A1, hereafter Fouquet].
As per Claims 1, 11 and 15, Fouquet teaches a method of characterizing a process window of a patterning process (Para 12), the method comprising:
obtaining a set of inspection locations for a pattern (Para 12, wherein the computer subsystem is configured to determine locations on the wafer at which the images are to be acquired), the pattern defining features to be applied to a substrate with a patterning process (an image of a die in the design), the set of inspection locations corresponding to a subset of the features, the subset of features being selected from among the features according to sensitivity of the respective features to variation in one or more process characteristics of the patterning process; patterning one or more substrates under varying process characteristics of the patterning process (Para 169); and
determining, for each of the variations in the process characteristics, whether at least some of the subset of features yielded unacceptable patterned structures on the one or more substrates at corresponding inspection locations (Para 152).
As per Claims 2 and 12, Fouquet teaches the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the set of inspection locations comprises: simulating, with one or more computers, the patterning process with a plurality of different simulations, each under different process characteristics; for each of the different simulations, detecting features that the respective simulation indicates are unacceptable in a respective simulation result; and selecting the subset of the features based on the detected features (Para 152-153).
As per Claim 3, Fouquet teaches the method of claim 2, wherein selecting the subset of the features based on the detected features comprises: selecting features based on sensitivity of the respective features to changes in a process characteristic of the patterning process in the simulated result, or selecting at least some of the detected features based on an amount of change in a process characteristic in the simulations that yields an unacceptable simulated result for the respective feature (Para 57).
As per Claims 4 and 13, Fouquet teaches the method of claim 2, wherein simulating comprises: obtaining a design layout of a reticle corresponding to the pattern; obtaining parameters of a lithographic apparatus; selecting a set of the process characteristics of the patterning process to simulate; and estimating, with one or more computers, dimensions of a patterned structure on a substrate under the selected set of process characteristics with a lithographic apparatus having the obtained parameters (Para 16).
As per Claims 5 and 14, Fouquet teaches the method of claim 1, comprising determining a process window for at least some of the varied process characteristics based on the determination of whether at least some of the subset of the features yielded unacceptable patterned structures on the one or more substrates (Para 88 and 152).
As per Claim 6, Fouquet teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether at least some of the subset of features yielded unacceptable pattern structures comprises measuring the at least some of the subset of features at the respective locations with an electron-beam inspection tool (Para 88 and 152).
As per Claim 7, Fouquet teaches the method of claim 1, wherein different inspection locations are specified for different exposure fields based on process conditions corresponding to the respective exposure fields (Para 169).
As per Claim 8, Fouquet teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: ranking the features based on sensitivity to variations in one or more process characteristics; and selecting the subset of features based on the ranking (Para 57).
As per Claim 9, Fouquet teaches the method of claim 1, comprising specifying an inspection metric based on sensitivity of at least some of the features to variation in a process characteristic (Para 57).
As per Claim 10, Fouquet teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: determining ranges of the process characteristics that produce acceptable results; and monitoring a patterning process by sensing whether the patterning process remains within ranges of the process characteristics (Para 18).
As per Claim 15, Fouquet teaches a tangible, non-transitory, machine readable media storing instructions that when executed by a data processing apparatus effectuate operations comprising: obtaining, with one or more computers, a set of inspection locations for a pattern, the pattern defining features to be applied to a substrate with a patterning process, the set of inspection locations corresponding to a subset of the features, the subset of features being selected from among the features according to sensitivity of the respective features to variation in one or more process characteristics of the patterning process; simulating, with one or more computers, a patterning process with a plurality of different simulations, each under different process characteristics, and each with at least some of the same features in a pattern; determining, for each of the variations in the process characteristics, whether at least some of the subset of features yielded unacceptable patterned structures on the one or more substrates at corresponding inspection locations.
Conclusion
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