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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 7, 14-15, 19, and 25, as well as the addition of claims 39-43 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 12 June 2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended paragraph 0214 of the instant application’s specification to describe reference character S in Fig. 5B. Accordingly, the objection to the drawings has been overcome and therefore the objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 12 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20220155675 A1 (hereby referred to as Malakhovsky).
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to specify that the support is configured to contact the pellicle such that the pellicle is located between the point of contact and the reticle. This is best shown by Fig. 2 of the instant application, which shows the pellicle membrane supported on a shelf, wherein the pellicle membrane is positioned between the shelf and the reticle. Applicant argues that the previously cited art (Schultz) fails to disclose or teach such a feature. Fig. 1A of Schultz depicts the configuration of the reticle and pellicle assembly. It is clear from Fig. 1A of Schultz that the pellicle is not positioned between the contact point of the pellicle with the support and the reticle. Instead, the contact point is between the pellicle and the reticle. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are considered persuasive and the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented in view of US 20220155675 A1 (hereby referred to as Malakhovsky), as explained below.
Applicant presents arguments in regards to claim 17, wherein the Applicant argues that the additionally cited art (Jeong) fails to overcome the deficiencies of Schultz. The Applicant argues that claim 1 is nonobvious in view of Schultz and Jeong, and therefore the rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn. Upon review of Jeong (in addition to Schultz), the Applicant’s arguments are found to be persuasive. However, as mentioned above, a new rejection is presented below.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 12 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 26 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20080266534 A1 (hereby referred to as Yoo).
Applicant has also amended independent claim 26 to recite that the hydrogen flows across a major surface of the reticle and/or the pellicle. Applicant argues that Schultz fails to disclose the method of claim 26, due to Schultz failing to disclose or suggest a flow of hydrogen over the surface of either the reticle and/or the pellicle. Applicant argues that Schultz does not describe a flow of any gas, and therefore cannot describe a flow of hydrogen. Upon review of Schultz, the Examiner finds this argument persuasive. Schultz discloses that the space between the pellicle and the reticle may be occupied by hydrogen gas (Schultz, paragraph 0054). However, there is a lack of disclosure by Schultz to indicate that the hydrogen gas is actively flowing. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are found to be persuasive and the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented in view of US 20080266534 A1 (hereby referred to as Yoo), as explained below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160225582 A1 (hereby referred to as Schultz) in view of US 20220155675 A1 (hereby referred to as Malakhovsky).
The applied reference (Malakhovsky) has a common applicant and at least one common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 1, Schultz teaches a method and a system for imaging a photomask through a pellicle. The system comprises a sample stage that secures a photomask and a pellicle (Schultz, paragraph 0029 and Fig. 1A). The sample stage is analogous to the claimed support. The pellicle is disposed above the photomask and secured with a frame (Schultz, paragraph 0029). The system further includes an electron beam source (Schultz, paragraph 0028 and Fig. 1A). The electron beam source may include, for instance, one or more electron guns (Schultz, paragraph 0028). The electron beam is directed to pass through the pellicle (Schultz, paragraph 0031 and Fig. 1A). Thus, the electron source is configured to direct electrons to be incident on the pellicle whilst the pellicle and photomask are supported by the sample stage. Schultz further teaches that a pressurized gas medium is maintain with the volume between the pellicle and the photomask (Schultz, paragraph 0054). Schultz teaches that the pressurized gas includes species such as H2O, O2, H2, O3, or N2 (Schultz, paragraph 0054). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to supply hydrogen gas (H2) between the pellicle and photomask (e.g. reticle) because Schultz teaches a finite number of possible gases to supply in the volume between the pellicle and the photomask, and therefore the choice of hydrogen gas would have been ”obvious to try”, per MPEP 2143 I. E.
However, Schultz fails to teach or suggest a support that contacts the pellicle such that the pellicle is located between the point of contact and the reticle. Malakhovsky teaches an apparatus for a reticle assembly. The apparatus comprises a mask assembly including a pellicle provided adjacent to the patterning device (i.e. a reticle) (Malakhovsky, paragraph 0111). The pellicle is supported via a pellicle frame (Malakhovksy, paragraph 0159 and Fig. 3). As can be seen in Fig. 3 of Malakhovsky, the pellicle contacts the frame. As can be seen in Fig. 6 of Malakhovsky, the pellicle assembly (16) is positioned between the frame (17) and the reticle (MA). Thus, Malakhovsky teaches a support according to instant claim 1.
Schultz and Malakhovsky are analogous art because both references pertain to reticle and pellicle assemblies. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use the pellicle support configuration taught by Malakhovsky in the apparatus disclosed by Schultz because such a configuration provides a secure connection of the pellicle assembly (Malakhovsky, paragraph 0161-0162).
Regarding Claim 3, Schultz teaches that the pressurized gas between the pellicle and the photomask is held at a pressure between 0.1 and 10 Torr (Schultz, paragraph 0054). 0.1 Torr is equivalent to approximately 13 Pa, and 10 Torr is equivalent to approximately 1333 Pa. The claimed hydrogen gas pressure overlaps with the range taught by Schultz and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists, per MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 8, Schultz teaches that the pellicle may be grounded whilst the photomask is held at a negative potential (Schultz, paragraph 0040). Conversely, the photomask may be grounded whilst the pellicle is held at a positive potential (Schultz, paragraph 0055). The method of grounding either element of the reticle assembly relies on electrically connecting the sample stage and the pellicle and/or the photomask (Schultz, paragraph 0055). Thus, the sample stage comprises an electron sink.
Regarding Claim 9, Schultz teaches that the photomask and the pellicle may be electrically connected to each other, as well as the sample stage (Schultz, paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 10, Schultz teaches that the electrons emitted by the photomask have a low energy (approx. 3-5 eV) (Schultz, paragraph 0053). Schultz further teaches that the charge on the photomask may be controlled in order to control the landing energy of electrons incident on the photomask (Schultz, paragraph 0026).
Regarding Claims 11 and 16, Schultz teaches that the system includes an electron-optical column that includes one or more electron beam scanning elements, such as electromagnetic scanning coils, that direct an electron beam across the surface of the photomask through the pellicle (Schultz, paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 12, Schultz teaches that a pressurized gas medium maintained with the volume between the pellicle and the photomask amplifies weak initial secondary electrons emitted by the surface of the photomask (Schultz, paragraph 0054). The secondary electron signal is amplified by a factor of up to 10,000 (Schultz, paragraph 0054).
Regarding Claim 13, Schultz teaches that the components of the system are disposed within a vacuum chamber (Schultz, paragraph 0038), thus indicating that all the components are within an enclosure.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160225582 A1 (hereby referred to as Schultz) in view of US 20220155675 A1 (hereby referred to as Malakhovsky) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20190033704 A1 (hereby referred to as Jeong).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Schultz and Malakhovsky renders obvious the apparatus according to instant claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a support configured to support a reticle and pellicle assembly, a hydrogen gas supply, and an electron source. However, Schultz is silent in regards to the use of the apparatus in a lithographic apparatus.
Jeong teaches a pellicle forming method, a reticle including the pellicle, and an exposure apparatus for lithography. The exposure apparatus comprises a reticle including a pellicle (Jeong, paragraph 0098). The reticle comprises a photomask and the pellicle, wherein the pellicle is supported with a pellicle frame (Jeong, paragraph 0094-0096 and Fig. 6). The lithography apparatus utilizes an electromagnetic radiation source to pattern a resist layer formed on a substrate using the reticle including the pellicle as a patterning mask (Jeong, paragraph 0099 and Fig. 7).
Schultz, Malakhovsky, and Jeong are analogous art because each reference pertains to reticle assemblies comprising pellicles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use the assembly rendered obvious by Schultz and Malakhovsky in a lithography apparatus, as taught by Jeong, because the assembly rendered obvious by Schultz and Malakhovsky produces an ionizing medium created by electron-gas interactions that may serve as a cleaning agent to clean and/or maintain the cleanliness of the photomask (Schultz, paragraph 0054), which, combined with the pellicle, prevents or reduces the likelihood of contamination on the photomask (Jeong, paragraph 0104), which mitigates the formation of defects during patterning.
Claim(s) 26, 30, 32-33, 35, and 39-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160225582 A1 (hereby referred to as Schultz) in view of US 20080266534 A1 (hereby referred to as Yoo).
Regarding Claims 26 and 39, Schultz teaches a method and a system for imaging a photomask through a pellicle. The system comprises a sample stage that secures a photomask and a pellicle (Schultz, paragraph 0029 and Fig. 1A). The sample stage is analogous to the claimed support. The pellicle is disposed above the photomask and secured with a frame (Schultz, paragraph 0029). The system further includes an electron beam source (Schultz, paragraph 0028 and Fig. 1A). The electron beam source may include, for instance, one or more electron guns (Schultz, paragraph 0028). The electron beam is directed to pass through the pellicle (Schultz, paragraph 0031 and Fig. 1A). Thus, the electron source is configured to direct electrons to be incident on the pellicle whilst the pellicle and photomask are supported by the sample stage. Schultz further teaches that a pressurized gas medium is maintain with the volume between the pellicle and the photomask (Schultz, paragraph 0054). Schultz teaches that the pressurized gas includes species such as H2O, O2, H2, O3, or N2 (Schultz, paragraph 0054). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to supply hydrogen gas (H2) between the pellicle and photomask (e.g. reticle) because Schultz teaches a finite number of possible gases to supply in the volume between the pellicle and the photomask, and therefore the choice of hydrogen gas would have been ”obvious to try”, per MPEP 2143 I. E.
However, Schultz is silent in regards to a flow of hydrogen across a major surface of the reticle and/or pellicle. Yoo teaches a photomask haze reduction method. The method provides an exposure apparatus comprising a photomask substrate and a framed pellicle comprising a pellicle membrane (Yoo, paragraph 0021). A gas source is provided to direct a gas through the space between the photomask and the pellicle membrane (Yoo, paragraph 0022). Refer to Fig. 5 of Yoo, which shows the gas flow is in a direction across a major surface of the pellicle and/or reticle. Providing a gas flow in such a way prevents active chemical species from residing in the volume for a long enough time to settle on the photomask (Yoo, paragraph 0022).
Schultz and Yoo are analogous art because both references pertain to reticle assemblies including pellicles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to provide a continuous gas flow, as taught by Yoo, to provide hydrogen in the process disclosed by Schultz because providing a gas flow as taught by Yoo reduces active species settling on the photomask, reduces haze on the photomask, and/or mitigates adverse effects during exposure (Yoo, paragraph 0022). The Examiner notes that when the positive pressure source taught by Yoo is provided to the assembly disclosed by Schultz, the apparatus according to instant claim 39 is obtained.
Regarding Claim 30, Schultz teaches that the pressurized gas between the pellicle and the photomask is held at a pressure between 0.1 and 10 Torr (Schultz, paragraph 0054). 0.1 Torr is equivalent to approximately 13 Pa, and 10 Torr is equivalent to approximately 1333 Pa. The claimed hydrogen gas pressure overlaps with the range taught by Schultz and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists, per MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 32, Schultz teaches that the pellicle may be grounded whilst the photomask is held at a negative potential (Schultz, paragraph 0040). Conversely, the photomask may be grounded whilst the pellicle is held at a positive potential (Schultz, paragraph 0055). The method of grounding either element of the reticle assembly relies on electrically connecting the sample stage and the pellicle and/or the photomask (Schultz, paragraph 0055). Thus, the sample stage comprises an electron sink.
Regarding Claim 33, Schultz teaches that the photomask and the pellicle may be electrically connected to each other, as well as the sample stage (Schultz, paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claims 35 and 41, Schultz teaches that the system includes an electron-optical column that includes one or more electron beam scanning elements, such as electromagnetic scanning coils, that direct an electron beam across the surface of the photomask through the pellicle (Schultz, paragraph 0033).
Regarding Claim 40, Schultz teaches that the electrons emitted by the photomask have a low energy (approx. 3-5 eV) (Schultz, paragraph 0053). Schultz further teaches that the charge on the photomask may be controlled in order to control the landing energy of electrons incident on the photomask (Schultz, paragraph 0026).
Regarding Claim 42, Schultz teaches that a pressurized gas medium maintained with the volume between the pellicle and the photomask amplifies weak initial secondary electrons emitted by the surface of the photomask (Schultz, paragraph 0054). The secondary electron signal is amplified by a factor of up to 10,000 (Schultz, paragraph 0054).
Regarding Claim 43, Schultz teaches that the pellicle may be grounded whilst the photomask is held at a negative potential (Schultz, paragraph 0040). Conversely, the photomask may be grounded whilst the pellicle is held at a positive potential (Schultz, paragraph 0055). The method of grounding either element of the reticle assembly relies on electrically connecting the sample stage and the pellicle and/or the photomask (Schultz, paragraph 0055). Thus, the sample stage comprises an electron sink.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights