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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 2, 11 and 16, the “maximum overlap region” is defined as a region having a illumination efficiency of 1, but can also have a contradictory illumination efficiency of less than 1. The definition of a “maximum overlap region” is unclear.
In claims 11 and 16, the “illumination efficiency 1” is not defined, the definition of claim 2 will be used.
In claims 2, 11 and 16, it is unclear how there can be “an area of illumination efficiency 1” when the ratio is a dimensionless.
In claims 2, 11 and 16, the “next maximum overlap region” is unclear because the maximum overlap region is defined as the area which is equal to or greater than an area of illumination efficiency 1.
In claims 2, 11, and 16, the “number of beams” in “a largest number of beams” lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of examining, these are understood to be beams within the pupil (features not recited in claims 11 and 16).
In claim 2, The “field facet mirrors” lack antecedent basis. Claim 1 and 2 both recite “the plurality of mirrors” earlier in the claim. It is uncertain as to the mirrors to which the reference is made. It appears that the plurality of mirrors are the pupil mirrors.
Claims 3-10, 12-15, 17-20 depend therefrom.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. [US 2025/0264808] in view of Hsu et al. [US 2017/0184979, hereinafter Hsu2].
For claim 1, Hsu teaches a method of configuring an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) source (see Figs. 5B and 11), the method comprising: generating an object spectrum map for a layout of a mask pattern (560 with applied mask model, see [0076]); generating a pupil map corresponding to the object spectrum map (diffraction patterns DP1 and DP2 formed by convolution with pupil 576); and configuring an EUV illumination mode by:
selecting a first region of the pupil map based on a first condition being satisfied (identifying region of the based on overlap value, see [0079]-[0081] and [0099]).
Hsu also teaches a illumination pupil that comprises a plurality of mirrors (see [0134] and [0144]) that implicitly generate the illumination pupil.
Hsu fails to teach selecting a plurality of mirrors, and applying perturbation of a pole balance to the plurality of mirrors.
Hsu2 teaches selecting a plurality of mirrors, and applying perturbation of a pole balance to the plurality of mirrors (configuration of the field and pupil facet mirror to provide unbalanced poles 3110 and 3120, see Figs. 3 and 20 and [0112] and [0197]).
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 unbalanced pole as taught by Hsu2 in the configuration method as taught by Hsu in order to compensate for pattern shift introduced by asymmetric off axis illumination in EUV systems using reflective reticles.
Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Hsu2 and Lippoldt et al. [US 2025/0199422].
For claims 2, 11, and 16, Hsu teaches an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) exposure method (see Figs. 5B and 11) comprising:
obtaining a target pattern (560, see Fig. 1);
configuring an EUV mask and an EUV source corresponding to the target pattern (560 with applied mask model and SMO 590, see Fig. 5B); and
performing EUV exposure on a wafer using the EUV source and the EUV mask (determining a pupil for optimization of a source and/or mask as used in lithographic manufacturing and patterning processes, see [0009]), wherein the configuring of the EUV source comprises:
generating an object spectrum map for a layout of a mask pattern on the EUV mask (560 with applied mask model, see [0076]);
generating a pupil map corresponding to the object spectrum map (diffraction patterns DP1 and DP2 formed by convolution with pupil 576);
based on a maximum overlap region in which a largest number of beams overlap in the pupil map being equal to or greater than an area of a pupil fill threshold, configuring a EUV illumination mode to a first mode in which the maximum overlap region corresponds to a first region of the pupil map (generating a first pupil based on overlapping regions pupil fill ratio that meets or exceeds the pupil fill ratio threshold, see [0100]);
based on the maximum overlap region being smaller than the area of the pupil fill threshold, and based on a sum of the maximum overlap region and a next maximum overlap region being equal to or greater than the area of the pupil fill threshold, configuring the EUV illumination mode to a second mode in which the maximum overlap region and the next maximum overlap region correspond to the first region of the pupil map (iteratively add next most overlapped regions until threshold is met, see [0101]);
wherein, in the first region, a maximum overlap region in which a largest number of beams overlap by the plurality of mirrors in the pupil map is defined as a corresponding maximum overlap region which is equal to or greater than an area of a pupil fill threshold (generating a first pupil based on overlapping regions pupil fill ratio that meets or exceeds the pupil fill ratio threshold, see [0100]), and based on the maximum overlap region being smaller than the area of the pupil fill threshold, the first region comprises a next maximum overlap region in which a next largest number of beams overlap, and which has an area equal to or larger than the area of the pupil fill threshold iteratively add next most overlapped regions until threshold is met, see [0101]).
Hsu also teaches a illumination pupil that comprises a plurality of mirrors (see [00134] and [0144]) that implicitly generate the illumination pupil.
Hsu fails to teach selecting a plurality of mirrors in the first region; and applying perturbation of a pole balance to introduce asymmetry of the pupil map.
Hsu2 teaches selecting a plurality of mirrors in the first region; and applying perturbation of a pole balance to introduce asymmetry of the pupil map (configuration of the field and pupil facet mirror to provide and unbalanced poles 3110 and 3120, see Figs. 3 and 20 and [0112] and [0197]).
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 unbalanced pole as taught by Hsu2 in the configuration method as taught by Hsu in order to compensate for pattern shift introduced by off axis illumination in EUV systems using reflective reticles.
Hsu fails to teach the maximum overlap region is corresponds to an area associated with an illumination efficiency of 1.
Lippoldt teaches the maximum overlap region is corresponds to an area associated with an illumination efficiency of 1, the illumination efficiency 1 referring to a state in which all field facet mirrors corresponding to EUV point sources are selected, (an illuminator efficiency of 100%, see [0021]), and that illuminator efficiency is generally a function of the setting pupil filling degree of an illumination system and that an optimization of the illumination pupil provides the highest possible illumination efficiency (see [0020]-[0025]).
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 illumination efficiency metric as taught by Lippoldt in the configuration method as taught by Hsu because illumination efficiency is a function of pupil fill and also provides a correlation with scanner throughput.
For claim 3, in the combination, Hsu2 teaches the configuring the EUV illumination mode comprises arranging the plurality of mirrors in a manner in which the pole balance is broken (configuration of the field and pupil facet mirror to provide and unbalanced poles 3110 and 3120, see Figs. 3 and 20 and [0112] and [0197]).
For claims 4, 12, and 17, in the combination, Hsu2 teaches the configuring the EUV illumination mode comprises arranging the mirrors to form a dipole-like illumination mode (unbalanced poles 3110 and 3120, see Fig. 3).
For claims 5, 6, 13, and 18, in the combination, Hsu2 teaches applying a mask (design layout 300A, see [0134] and Fig. 15)), using a tool for optimizing the EUV source (SMO method performed by computer, see Fig. 18), to search for combinations of the plurality of mirrors in which the pole balance is broken (adjusting the illumination pupil variables iteratively, see [0134], illumination pupil optimization includes asymmetric dipoles, see [0112]), wherein the combination of the plurality of mirrors is searched for in at least one of a freeform source (FFS) and mask optimization process (SMO, see [0134]), an EUV source rendering process, or an individual mirror and mask optimization process included in the tool, and in the combinations of the plurality of mirrors, an arrangement ratio of the plurality of mirrors selected for each pole position is determined through a parameter (asymmetric illumination pupil optimization with pupil mirrors, see [0112]).
For claim 7, in the combination, Hsu2 teaches searching for a combination of the plurality of mirrors in which the pole balance is broken, wherein, in the combination of the plurality of mirrors, an arrangement ratio of the plurality of mirrors selected for each pole position is determined through a parameter (asymmetric illumination pupil optimization with pupil mirrors, see [0112]).
For claims 8, 14, and 19, in the combination, Hsu teaches based on the pupil map being in a shape of a circle, 0-th order diffraction light is located at a center of the circle and pieces of first order diffraction light are located inside or outside the circle, the first region is defined by the 0-th order diffraction light and the pieces of first order diffraction light within the circle, and in the configuring of the EUV illumination mode (diffraction orders shown in 570, see Fig. 5B), and Hsu2 teaches the plurality of mirrors are selected to reflect various pole ratios in the first region (asymmetric illumination pupil optimization with pupil mirrors, see [0112]).
Claims 9, 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Hsu2 and Lippoldt and as applied to claims 2, 11 and 16 above, and further in view of Hsu et al. [US 2022/0179325, hereinafter Hsu3].
For claims 9, 10, 15, and 20, Hsu fails to teach the plurality of mirrors are selected so that an aspect ratio of a critical dimension (CD) of after-development inspection (ADI) corresponding to the mask pattern is targeted and normalized image log slope (NILS) increases.
Hsu3 teaches the plurality of mirrors are selected so that an aspect ratio of a critical dimension (CD) of after-development inspection (ADI) corresponding to the mask pattern is targeted and normalized image log slope (NILS) increases (CD and NILS used in cost function for optimization , see [0073], and [0107] and [0108]).
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 selection criteria as taught by Hsu3 in the pupil generation as taught by Hsu in order to ensure a performance parameters are maintained at acceptable levels.
Conclusion
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