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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
At p. 11 para 3-5 that “…Kahira and Mase utilize different detection methodologies based on localized contrast rather than absolute intensity values…”.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The images produced in the device of Servatius (col 25 para 2) are similar to Kahira and Mase due to the optical properties of light when it interacts with matter. The point of utilizing the references of Kahira and Mase is to explicitly show that the images are “determining whether a dark region or a bright region is present in the image, wherein a particle is determined as on the pellicle membrane when a dark region is determined as present in the image, and a pin hole is determined as in the pellicle membrane when a bright region is determined as present in the image, wherein the dark region is darker than a background of the image and the bright region is brighter than the background of the image” not on the techniques on how they obtained the images.
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 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(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servatius, D., et al., US10571800 B2 (hereinafter Servatius), in view of Hayano, F., et al., US 4966457 A (hereinafter Hayano), in view of Tanimoto, A. et al., US 4610541 A (hereinafter Tanimoto), and further in view of KR 20070038706 A (hereinafter Hoon).
Regarding claim 1, Servatius teaches a method, comprising: performing a lithography process using a mask and a pellicle membrane (fig. 1 mask MA and pellicle 19), wherein during performing the lithography process the pellicle membrane has a first side facing away from the mask and a second side facing the mask (this is shown in fig. 1 inner side of pellicle 19 is facing mask MA and the outer side of 19 is facing away); detaching the pellicle membrane from the mask after the lithography process is completed (fig. 10; col 5 lines 38-42); performing an inspection process to the pellicle membrane (col 5 lines 43-53), the inspection process comprising: generating an image by receiving the laser beam passing through the pellicle membrane using an image sensor (col 5 lines 43-53); and determining whether a particle is present on the pellicle membrane or a pin hole is present in the pellicle membrane based on the image (col 25 lines 5-20).
Servatius is silent with respect to generating a laser beam toward the pellicle membrane from a laser source, such that the laser beam passes through the pellicle membrane; and determining whether a size of the particle is lower than a first predetermined value if the particle is on the first side of the pellicle membrane; and determining whether a number of the particle is greater than a second predetermined value if the particle is on the second side of the pellicle membrane, cleaning the pellicle membrane when the size of the particle on the first side of the pellicle membrane is lower than the first predetermined value and when the number of the particle on the second side of the pellicle membrane is greater than the second predetermined value.
Hayano, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches generating a laser beam toward the pellicle membrane from a laser source (fig. 3 laser source 4; col 7 lines 60-66;), such that the laser beam passes through the pellicle membrane (this is shown in fig. 3; col 7 lines 60-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Hayano to Servatius to have generating a laser beam toward the pellicle membrane from a laser source, such that the laser beam passes through the pellicle membrane in order to inspect the upper and lower surfaces of the pellicle (col 2 lines 28-36).
Servatius, when modified by Hayano, does not teach determining whether a size of the particle is lower than a first predetermined value if the particle is on the first side of the pellicle membrane; and determining whether a number of the particle is greater than a second predetermined value if the particle is on the second side of the pellicle membrane, cleaning the pellicle membrane when the size of the particle on the first side of the pellicle membrane is lower than the first predetermined value and when the number of the particle on the second side of the pellicle membrane is greater than the second predetermined value.
Tanimoto, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches determining whether a size of the particle is lower than a first predetermined value if the particle is on the first side of the pellicle membrane (this is shown in figs. 3 and 4A-B; Ak is the signal of the upper particle, the size can be obtained from Ak; see evidentiary reference US6597448B1: figs. 3A-B and 13-14, where the size of the particles are lower than the first predetermined value); and determining whether a number of the particle is greater than a second predetermined value if the particle is on the second side of the pellicle membrane (these are Ai and Bk in figs. 4A-B, the presence of Ai and Bk indicates the “number of the particle is greater than a second predetermined value”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Tanimoto to Servatius, when modified by Hayano, to have determining whether a size of the particle is lower than a first predetermined value if the particle is on the first side of the pellicle membrane; and determining whether a number of the particle is greater than a second predetermined value if the particle is on the second side of the pellicle membrane in order to detect the foreign substances present in both faces of the surface (col 2 lines 17-22).
Servatius, when modified by Hayano and Tanimoto, does not teach cleaning the pellicle membrane when the size of the particle on the first side of the pellicle membrane is lower than the first predetermined value and when the number of the particle on the second side of the pellicle membrane is greater than the second predetermined value.
Hoon, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches cleaning the pellicle membrane when the size of the particle on the first side of the pellicle membrane is lower than the first predetermined value (fig. 2 pellicle 10a is the first side; p. 4 para 3; p. 5 last para to p. 6 para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Hoon to Servatius, when modified by Hayano and Tanimoto, to have cleaning the pellicle membrane when the size of the particle on the first side of the pellicle membrane is lower than the first predetermined value in order to effectively remove the foreign substances present on the pellicle of the reticle (p. 2 para 10).
Servatius, when modified by Hayano, Tanimoto, and Hoon, does not teach explicitly teach cleaning the pellicle membrane when the number of the particle on the second side of the pellicle membrane is greater than the second predetermined value.
Hoon teaches cleaning both sides of element 10 (p. 4 para 3). Therefore, it would be obvious to try to apply the teaching of Hoon to the pellicle of Servatius which is cleaning the pellicle membrane when the number of the particle on the second side of the pellicle membrane is greater than the second predetermined value in order to effectively remove the foreign substances present on the second side of the pellicle of Servatius.
Regarding claim 3, Servatius teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent to wherein the laser source and the image sensor are disposed on opposite sides of the pellicle membrane during performing the inspection process.
Hayano, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the laser source and the image sensor are disposed on opposite sides of the pellicle membrane during performing the inspection process (this is shown in fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Hayano to Servatius to have the method of claim 1, wherein the laser source and the image sensor are disposed on opposite sides of the pellicle membrane during performing the inspection process in order to inspect the upper and lower surfaces of the pellicle (col 2 lines 28-36).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servatius, Hayano, Tanimoto, and Hoon as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Ahn, J. et al., US 20200174376 A1 (hereinafter Ahn).
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Servatius does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the inspection process further comprises: reflecting the laser beam passing through the pellicle membrane by a reflector, such that the reflected laser beam passes through the pellicle membrane again and is received by the image sensor.
Ahn, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the inspection process further comprises: reflecting the laser beam fig. 1, para [0049]) passing through the pellicle membrane by a reflector (fig. 1 the reflector is the mask M, para [0070]), such that the reflected laser beam passes through the pellicle membrane again (mask M reflect back the light to the pellicle) and is received by the image sensor (the image is shown in fig. 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ahn to the modified device of Servatius to have the method of claim 1, wherein the inspection process further comprises: reflecting the laser beam passing through the pellicle membrane by a reflector, such that the reflected laser beam passes through the pellicle membrane again and is received by the image sensor in order to detect a defect of a pellicle in a simplified process (para [0009]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servatius, Hayano, Tanimoto, and Hoon as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Kahira, H., US 5691811 A (hereinafter Kahira).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Servatius does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein a particle is determined as on the pellicle membrane when a dark region is present in the image, the dark region being darker than a background of the image.
Kahira, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a particle is determined as on the pellicle membrane when a dark region is present in the image, the dark region being darker than a background of the image (fig. 4B, col 3 lines 27-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kahira to the modified device of Servatius to have the method of claim 1, wherein a particle is determined as on the pellicle membrane when a dark region is present in the image, the dark region being darker than a background of the image in order to distinguish a defect caused by distortion from a defect caused by a particle of dust or dirt adhered to the transparent sheet, with assuredness and at low cost (col 2 lines 55-60).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servatius, Hayano, Tanimoto, and Hoon as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Mase, K., JP 2005134218 A (hereinafter Mase).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Servatius does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein a pin hole is determined as in the pellicle membrane when a bright region is present in the image, the bright region being brighter than a background of the image.
Mase, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a pin hole is determined as in the pellicle membrane when a bright region is present in the image, the bright region being brighter than a background of the image (fig. 4 para [0025] lines 1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mase to the modified device of Servatius to have the method of claim 1, wherein a pin hole is determined as in the pellicle membrane when a bright region is present in the image, the bright region being brighter than a background of the image in order to accurately detect the pin hole in the transparent film (para [0013]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servatius, Hayano, Tanimoto, and Hoon as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Nagasaki, T. et al., JP 2005181013 A (hereinafter Nagasaki2).
Regarding claim 9, Servatius teaches 1he method of claim 1, further comprising: performing another lithography using a new pellicle membrane when the size of the pin hole is determined as greater than the predetermined value (col 25 lines 10-20; this means the hole is unacceptable).
The modified device of Servatius does not teach determining whether a size of the pin hole is lower than a predetermined value when a pin hole is determined as in the pellicle membrane.
Nagasaki2, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches determining whether a size of the pin hole is lower than a predetermined value when a pin hole is determined as in the pellicle membrane (from the specification, para [0094], greater than about 0.4 μm is unacceptable; Nagasaki discloses this limitation in para [0024] lines 5-11, holes or pores several nanometers are acceptable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Nagasaki to the modified device of Servatius to have determining whether a size of the pin hole is lower than a predetermined value when a pin hole is determined as in the pellicle membrane in order to inspect a gas leak from a pinhole having a diameter of several μm or more at high speed, high accuracy, non-destructive and non-contact with respect to a polymer film for a fuel cell having an infinite number of holes having a diameter of several nm (para [0016]).
Claim(s) 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servatius, Kahira, and Mase.
Regarding claim 10, Servatius teaches a method, comprising: performing a lithography process using a mask and a pellicle membrane (fig. 1 shows a lithographic system with mask MA and pellicle 19; col 6 lines 20-27; col 8 lines 25-31); detaching the pellicle membrane from the mask after the lithography process is completed (fig. 10; col 5 lines 38-42); generating an image of the pellicle membrane using an inspection tool (col 25 lines 5-20), comprising: generate a laser beam from a laser source of the inspection tool toward the pellicle membrane (col 25 lines 13; the microscope provides the laser beam; it is well known in the arts that a microscope uses a laser source, see US 5621532 A fig. 1); and receiving the laser beam passing through the pellicle membrane by an image sensor of the inspection tool (col 25 lines 5-6) and determining whether a dark region or a bright region is present in the image (col 25 para 2; dark region is the particle and bright region is the hole).
Servatius does not teach wherein a particle is determined as on the pellicle membrane when a dark region is determined as present in the image, and a pin hole is determined as in the pellicle membrane when a bright region is determined as present in the image, wherein the dark region is darker than a background of the image and the bright region is brighter than the background of the image.
Kahira, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches wherein a particle is determined as on the pellicle membrane when a dark region is determined as present in the image, wherein the dark region is darker than a background of the image (fig. 4B, col 3 lines 27-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kahira to Servatius to have wherein a particle is determined as on the pellicle membrane when a dark region is determined as present in the image, wherein the dark region is darker than a background of the image in order to distinguish a defect caused by distortion from a defect caused by a particle of dust or dirt adhered to the transparent sheet (col 2 lines 55-60).
Servatius, when modified by Kahira, fails to teach a pin hole is determined as in the pellicle membrane when a bright region is determined as present in the image, wherein the bright region is brighter than the background of the image.
Mase, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches a pin hole is determined as in the pellicle membrane when a bright region is determined as present in the image, wherein the bright region is brighter than the background of the image (fig. 4 para [0025] lines 1-5; Mase’s film can be transparent or translucent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mase to Servatius, when modified by Kahira, to have a pin hole is determined as in the pellicle membrane when a bright region is determined as present in the image, wherein the bright region is brighter than the background of the image in order to accurately detect the pin hole in the transparent film (para [0013]).
Regarding claim 15, Servatius teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising: cleaning the pellicle membrane when the size of the dark region is determined as greater than the predetermined value (col 29 claim 18; cleaning means removing the particle on the pellicle, col 23 para 5, wherein the particle size is unacceptable).
Servatius does not teach determining whether a size of the dark region is lower than a predetermined value when a dark region is determined as in the image.
Kahira, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches determining whether a size of the dark region is lower than a predetermined value when a dark region is determined as in the image (the predetermined value is based on the waveform as shown in fig. 5C as a defect, col 5 lines 33-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kahira to Servatius to have determining whether a size of the dark region is lower than a predetermined value when a dark region is determined as in the image in order to distinguish a defect caused by distortion from a defect caused by a particle of dust or dirt adhered to the transparent sheet, with assuredness and at low cost (col 2 lines 55-60).
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servatius, Kahira, and Mase, as applied to claim(s) 10 above, and further in view of Ahn.
Regarding claim 13, the modified apparatus of Servatius does not teach the method of claim 10, further comprising placing the pellicle membrane on a pellicle holder connected to the metal prior to generating the image of the pellicle membrane.
Ahn, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising placing the pellicle membrane on a pellicle holder (fig. 100 para [0050-0051]) connected to the reflector (fig. 1 mask M is the reflector, para [0070], Mo is a metal) prior to generating the image of the pellicle membrane (this mask M is placed before taking measurements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ahn to the modified apparatus of Servatius to have the method of claim 12, further comprising placing the pellicle membrane on a pellicle holder connected to the metal prior to generating the image of the pellicle membrane in order to provide easy mounting pellicles of various sizes (para [0008]).
Regarding claim 14, the modified apparatus of Servatius does not teach the method of claim 13, wherein during performing the lithography process the pellicle membrane has a first side facing the mask and a second side facing the mask, and the pellicle membrane is placed on the pellicle holder such that the first side of the pellicle membrane faces the metal.
Ahn, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches the method of claim 13, wherein during performing the lithography process the pellicle membrane has a first side facing the mask and a second side facing the mask (fig. 1 the pellicle in the pellicle holder 100 has two sides), and the pellicle membrane is placed on the pellicle holder such that the first side of the pellicle membrane faces the metal (one side of the pellicle is facing the mask M as shown in fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ahn to the modified apparatus of Servatius to have the method of claim 13, wherein during performing the lithography process the pellicle membrane has a first side facing the mask and a second side facing the mask, and the pellicle membrane is placed on the pellicle holder such that the first side of the pellicle membrane faces the metal in order to detect a defect of a pellicle in a simplified process (para [0009]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servatius, Kahira, and Mase, as applied to claim(s) 10 above, and further in view of Nagasaki2.
Regarding claim 16, Servatius teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising: performing another lithography using a new pellicle membrane when the size of the bright region is determined as greater than the predetermined value (col 25 lines 10-20, the size of the hole is unacceptable).
Servatius fails to disclose determining whether a size of the bright region is lower than a predetermined value when a bright region is determined as in the image.
Nagasaki2, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches determining whether a size of the bright region is lower than a predetermined value when a bright region is determined as in the image (the bright region is 121 in fig. 1 which is unacceptable, holes or pores several nanometers are acceptable, para [0024] lines 5-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Nagasaki to the modified apparatus of Servatius to have determining whether a size of the bright region is lower than a predetermined value when a bright region is determined as in the image in order to inspect a gas leak from a pinhole having a diameter of several μm or more at high speed, high accuracy, non-destructive and non-contact with respect to a polymer film for a fuel cell having an infinite number of holes having a diameter of several nm (para [0016]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn and in view of Servatius.
Regarding claim 17, Ahn teaches a method, comprising: placing a pellicle membrane on a pellicle holder (fig. 1 pellicle holder 100 holds a pellicle membrane); performing an inspection process to the pellicle membrane (inspection is shown in fig. 1), the inspection process comprising: generating a laser beam toward the pellicle membrane from a laser source (fig. 1 element 200 is the laser), such that the laser beam passes through the pellicle membrane (fig. 1 shows laser passed through element 100); reflecting the laser beam passing through the pellicle membrane by a metal (fig. 1 mask M), such that the reflected laser beam passes through the pellicle membrane (this is shown in fig. 1), wherein the metal is placed on and interfaces with a plate (fig. 1 mask M is placed on and interfaces with a stage S), and the pellicle holder is placed on and interfaces with the metal (element 100 is positioned so close to the mask M; note that even if the pellicle holder is not on top of the mask M, the mask M has the same function as the metal M of the application); and “generating, using an image sensor, an image by receiving the reflected laser beam passing through the pellicle membrane” (images are shown in fig. 15).
Ahn does not teach determining whether an inspection result is acceptable; and performing a lithography process using the pellicle membrane when the inspection result is determined as acceptable.
Servatius, from the same field of endeavor as Ahn, teaches determining whether an inspection result is acceptable (col 25 lines 10-20, replacing the pellicle means the result is not acceptable); and performing a lithography process using the pellicle membrane when the inspection result is determined as acceptable (this is shown in fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Servatius to Ahn to have determining whether an inspection result is acceptable; and performing a lithography process using the pellicle membrane when the inspection result is determined as acceptable in order to prevent breakage from occurring (col 25 lines 10-20).
Claim(s) 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn and Servatius, as applied to claim(s) 17 above, and further in view of Kahira.
Regarding claim 18, the modified tool of Ahn fails to teach the method of claim 17, wherein the inspection result is determined as acceptable when a size of a dark region in the image is less than a predetermined value. Regarding claim 20, the modified tool of Ahn does not teach the method of claim 17, wherein the inspection result is determined as acceptable when there is no dark region in the image.
Kahira, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the inspection result is determined as acceptable when a size of a dark region in the image is less than a predetermined value (this is fig. 4a and fig. 5a, the waveform in 5a is less than a predetermined value) and the method of claim 17, wherein the inspection result is determined as acceptable when there is no dark region in the image (fig. 4a has no dark region which mean no defect).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kahira to the modified the modified tool of Ahn to have the method of claim 17, wherein the inspection result is determined as acceptable when a size of a dark region in the image is less than a predetermined value and the method of claim 17, wherein the inspection result is determined as acceptable when there is no dark region in the image in order to distinguish a defect caused by distortion from a defect caused by a particle of dust or dirt adhered to the transparent sheet, with assuredness and at low cost (col 2 lines 55-60).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn and Servatius, as applied to claim(s) 17 above, and further in view of Nagasaki2.
Regarding claim 19, the modified tool of Ahn does not teach the method of claim 17, wherein the inspection result is determined as acceptable when a size of a bright region in the image is less than a predetermined value.
Nagasaki2, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the inspection result is determined as acceptable when a size of a bright region in the image is less than a predetermined value (the bright region is 121 in fig. 1 which is unacceptable, holes or pores several nanometers are acceptable, para [0024] lines 5-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Nagasaki2 to the modified tool to have the method of claim 17, wherein the inspection result is determined as acceptable when a size of a bright region in the image is less than a predetermined value in order to inspect a gas leak from a pinhole having a diameter of several μm or more at high speed, high accuracy, non-destructive and non-contact with respect to a polymer film for a fuel cell having an infinite number of holes having a diameter of several nm (para [0016]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servatius, Hayano, and Tanimoto as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Mishiro, H. et al., JP 2006039407 A (hereinafter Mishiro).
Regarding claim 21, Servatius does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first predetermined value is about 8 µm, and the second predetermined value is 0.
Mishiro, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first predetermined value is about 8 µm (p. 2 para 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mishiro to Servatius to have the method of claim 1, wherein the first predetermined value is about 8 µm in order to prevent obstacle to the exposure of the pellicle (p. 2 para 3).
Servatius, when modified by Mishiro, does not teach the second predetermined value is 0.
Tanimoto, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches the second predetermined value is 0 (figs. 4A-B, if there are no Ai and Bk signals, it means the value is 0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Tanimoto to Servatius, when modified by Mishiro, to have second predetermined value is 0 in order to detect the foreign substances present in both faces of the surface (col 2 lines 17-22).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servatius, Hayano, Tanimoto, and Hoon as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Lin, Y. et al., US 20180173092 A1 (hereinafter Lin).
Regarding claim 23, Servatius does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the pellicle membrane comprises: a first dielectric layer; a semiconductor layer over the first dielectric layer, a second dielectric layer over the semiconductor layer; a first metal layer over the second dielectric layer; and a second metal layer over the first metal layer, wherein the pin hole is vertically between the first dielectric layer and the second metal layer, and top and bottom ends of the pin hole are defined by the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer.
Lin, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pellicle membrane comprises: a first dielectric layer (fig. 7G element 704A, para [0042] line 17); a semiconductor layer over the first dielectric layer (fig. 7G element 702, para [0039] lines 11-12), a second dielectric layer over the semiconductor layer (fig. 7G element 704, para [0042] line 17); a first metal layer over the second dielectric layer (fig. 7G element 710, para [0040] line 4); and wherein the pin hole is vertically between the first dielectric layer and the first metal layer (there is a cavity formed in fig. 7G), and top and bottom ends of the pin hole are defined by the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (this is fig. 7F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Servatius to Lin to have the method of claim 1, wherein the pellicle membrane comprises: a first dielectric layer; a semiconductor layer over the first dielectric layer, a second dielectric layer over the semiconductor layer; a first metal layer over the second dielectric layer; and wherein the pin hole is vertically between the first dielectric layer and the first metal layer, and top and bottom ends of the pin hole are defined by the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer in order to a pellicle membrane over an EUV mask , to serve as a protective cover which protects the EUV mask from damage and / or contaminant particles (para [0002] lines 17-20).
Servatius, when modified by Lin, does not explicitly teach a second metal layer over the first metal layer.
The additional of a second metal layer over the first metal layer is just duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI-B, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See evidentiary reference US20200073230A1 para [0055] lines 1-5
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add another metallic layer to Servatius, when modified by Lin, in order to make the pellicle structure strong.
Claim(s) 26, 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servatius, Hayano, Tanimoto, and Hoon as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of US 20190384163 A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 26, Servatius does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the pellicle membrane comprises graphene, and wherein the pin hole is inside the graphene, and top and bottom sides of the pin hole are covered by the graphene. Regarding claim 27, Servatius does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein two pin holes are present on opposite sides of the pellicle membrane, and the two pin holes are vertically aligned with each other. Regarding claim 28, Servatius does not teach the method of claim 27, wherein the pellicle membrane comprises carbon nanotube.
Kim, from the same field of endeavor as Servatius, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pellicle membrane comprises graphene (para [0031] lines 1-6), and “wherein the pin hole is inside the graphene, and top and bottom sides of the pin hole are covered by the graphene” (this is shown in fig. 2), the method of claim 1, wherein two pin holes are present on opposite sides of the pellicle membrane (figs. 2 and 20), and the two pin holes are vertically aligned with each other (since two pinholes can be formed in 1a and 1b, this means the two pin holes can be vertically aligned with each other), and the method of claim 27, wherein the pellicle membrane comprises carbon nanotube (para [0053] lines 8-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kim to Servatius to have the method of claim 1, wherein the pellicle membrane comprises graphene, and wherein the pin hole is inside the graphene, and top and bottom sides of the pin hole are covered by the graphene, the method of claim 1, wherein two pin holes are present on opposite sides of the pellicle membrane, and the two pin holes are vertically aligned with each other, and the method of claim 27, wherein the pellicle membrane comprises carbon nanotube in order to have pellicles having superior optical characteristics, durability, and mechanical strength (para [0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights