Y 2DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on February 23rd, 2026. Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 20-22 pending, with claims 21-22 being new and claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-13, 15, and 20-22 being directed to the elected invention.
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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 & 22 both recite “displacing the sample stage in a direction perpendicular to the chuck surface in response the determined alignment of the photomask on the sample stage.” Examiner can find no recitation of a method involving a step of displacing the sample stage in the z direction in response the determined alignment of the photomask on the sample stage in the original disclosure. It is disclosed numerous times that the stage is “displaceable” in a direction perpendicular to the chuck surface, but never a recitation of any particular method involving actually displacing the stage in this manner “in response the determined alignment of the photomask on the sample stage”.
With regard to claim 22, this claim states that the displacement is done to maintain a safe distance between a scanning probe and a surface of the photomask. According to the original disclosure this is done by lowering the chuck of the sample stage *prior to* determining the alignment (see “Since, at the time of the rotation of the photomask 700, a possible wobble movement owing to the rotation is not yet known, it is advantageous, before carrying out the rotation, to increase the distance between the output of the column 445 of the SEM 440 and, if present, between the probe(s) or micromanipulator(s) of one or more scanning probe microscope(s), in order to prevent damage to the photomask 700, the SEM 440 or the scanning probe microscope(s) and/or a gas injection system. This can be done for example by lowering the chuck 260 of the sample stage 100.”). This would clearly not constitute displacing “in response the determined alignment of the photomask on the sample stage.”
Alternatively, translational movements that cause collisions can be prevented once alignment is known (“As soon as the oblique position of the photomask 410 is known, this can be taken into account when translational movements are carried out by the sample stage 100. As a result, it is possible reliably to prevent translational movements of the sample stage 100 from resulting in unintended damage to a skew mounted photomask 410 and/or the SEM 440.”). However, this is the prevention of a displacement, not a step of “displacing the sample stage in a direction perpendicular to the chuck surface”.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22 recites “operating a scanning probe microscope to examine a photomask on a sample stage”. No disclosure of a method of examining a photomask by operating a scanning probe microscope is present in the original disclosure. The original disclosure does recite that a scanning probe can be used as a height sensor for measuring height change as a result of rotation, but this is for determining alignment, not for examination (see “The height sensor can furthermore comprise at least one element from the group: an optical microscope, a capacitive distance sensor, an interferometer and a scanning probe microscope.”). It is also disclosed that a scanning probe microscope can be operated to repair a photomask, but again this is not related to examination (see “Furthermore, it is possible to use a micromanipulator, for example in the form of a scanning probe microscope, in order to remove excess material, for instance particles present on the mask, from the photomask by use of mechanical processing of the particle.” And “Furthermore, the repair tool can comprise one or more scanning probe microscopes that can be used as manipulators or micromanipulators for processing a defect.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
Claim 21 recite “displacing the sample stage in a direction perpendicular to the chuck surface in response the determined alignment of the photomask on the sample stage.” It is unclear how the sample stage is being displaced in response to the determined alignment of the photomask.
The most obvious way to displace a sample stage in response to a determined alignment is to correct any misalignment. However, the determined alignment is with respect to a rotation axis and the displacement is in a direction perpendicular to the chuck surface, which is an entirely different direction. Hence the displacement cannot be for that purpose. At best, the sample stage could be displaced to correct the height at a specific location on the photomask, but claim 21 does not suggest displacing the stage in relation to a specific location. If the displacement is not to correct the alignment, what purpose does it serve and how is the displacement done as a response to the determined alignment?
It is noted that claim 22 also recites the same step, but in that case the displacement is claimed as being for maintaining a safe distance between a scanning probe and a surface of the mask, which does suggest displacement based on a particular location of the photomask (the portion directly beneath the scanning probe), so the intended meaning is clear.
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim 22 recites “operating a scanning probe microscope to examine a photomask on a sample stage”. It is unclear what process is being claimed as an “operation” of the scanning probe microscope to examine a photomask on a sample stage. There is no clear action being claimed that relates to examination or operation of a scanning probe microscope.
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) 1-2, 5-7, 11-13, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,672,885 (Allen et al.) in view of US 2019/0056674 (Solowan).
Regarding claim 1, Allen et al. discloses a method for determining an alignment of a photomask on a sample stage which is displaceable along at least one axis that is parallel to a chuck surface of the sample stage, and is rotatable about at least one axis that is perpendicular to the chuck surface (‘Photolithographic mask inspection system 5, FIG. 1, includes mask holder 12 supporting photolithographic mask 10. Holder 12 is rotated by air spindle 18’), wherein the method comprises the following step:
rotating the sample stage by a predefined angle and measuring a height change of the photomask during rotation (‘The photolithographic mask is rotated on a spindle at 1800 rpm and inspected by a sharply focussed laser beam trace directed to the surface by a parabolic mirror.’) at a predetermined, non-vanishing distance with respect to the rotation axis for the purpose of determining the alignment of the photomask on the sample stage (‘A spiral pattern is formed on the surface of mask 10 as shown at 22, FIG. 2, as laser beam 24, FIG. 1, from beam forming optics 26 is directed to the rotating and translating surface of photolithographic mask 10 via parabolic minor 28.’).
Allen et al. does not disclose determining coordinates of the rotation axis on a surface of the photomask. Solowan discloses a method of determining coordinates of a rotation axis on a surface of a photomask (‘To this end, the offset of the origin of the mask coordinate system in relation to the origin of the mask holder coordinate system is determined’ P 37). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the method Allen et al. to include a step of determining the coordinates of the rotation axis on the surface of the photomask as in Solowan so that any positioning errors introduced by the center of rotation not being located at the center of the mask could be accounted for, as discussed in Solowan (‘Hence, the determination of the position of the mask holder on the measuring table overall becomes more reproducible which, as illustrated above, also opens up the possibility of determining the systematic error when establishing the position of the mask holder 1.’ P 37).
Regarding claim 2, Allen et al. in view of Solowan discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the sample stage is rotated by an angle that is greater than or equal to: 60°, preferably 90°, more preferably 180°, and most preferably 360° (‘A spiral pattern is formed on the surface of mask 10 as shown at 22, FIG. 2, as laser beam 24, FIG. 1, from beam forming optics 26 is directed to the rotating and translating surface of photolithographic mask 10 via parabolic minor 28.’).
Regarding claim 5, Allen et al. in view of Solowan discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein determining the coordinates of the rotation axis comprises:
a. measuring a first set of coordinates for at least two markings of the photomask by use of a particle beam of a particle beam source, without rotating the photomask (‘geometric parameters of the mask can be measured’ P 35, Solowan);
b. rotating the photomask by an angle 0° < θ < 180° or 180° < θ < 360° (‘four rotational positions, respectively offset by 90°;’ P 36, Solowan); and
c. measuring a second set of coordinates for the at least two markings of the rotated photomask by use of the particle beam of the particle beam source (‘measured in different rotational positions’ P 35, Solowan).
Regarding claim 6, Allen et al. in view of Solowan discloses the method of Claim 5, wherein determining the coordinates of the rotation axis comprises: determining the coordinates of the rotation axis from the first and second sets of measured coordinates of the at least two markings (‘To this end, the offset of the origin of the mask coordinate system in relation to the origin of the mask holder coordinate system is determined by way of the mentioned rotation of the mask.’ P 37).
Regarding claim 7, Allen et al. in view of Solowan discloses the method of Claim 5, wherein measuring the at least two markings is effected by use of at least one particle beam source configured to generate at least one focused particle beam from the following group: a photon beam, an electron beam, an ion beam, an atomic beam and a molecular beam (‘measuring of the mask holder 1 by use of a light microscope’ P 43).
Regarding claim 11, Allen et al. in view of Solowan discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein measuring the height change comprises: displacing the rotation axis under a point of incidence of a particle beam of a particle beam source on the photomask (‘Air spindle 18 is translated in the direction shown by arrow 19 by translation stage 17.’).
Regarding claim 12, Allen et al. in view of Solowan discloses the claimed invention except for interpolating and/or extrapolating the measured height change of the photomask for a value deviating from the predetermined, non-vanishing distance. Interpolating and extrapolating are common data analysis steps in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to interpolate and/or extrapolate the height change to make predictions about what the upcoming height changes will be and/or to predict the height changes to except on another pass over different areas.
Regarding claim 13, Allen et al. in view of Solowan discloses the claimed invention except for measuring the z-coordinate on the rotation axis. Including the rotation axis in the spiral pattern is a simple matter, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to do so if desired.
Regarding claim 15, Allen et al. in view of Solowan discloses the method of Claim 5, furthermore comprising the following step: determining an transformation between a coordinate system of the photomask and a coordinate system of the sample stage from the first set of coordinates (‘If the positions of the edges of the mask holder are now known in the coordinate system of the measurement system, it is possible to determine the positions of the edges of the mask body by way of a suitable transformation and hence ultimately determine the centrality, inter alia.’ P 4, Solowan).
Solowan does not specify that the transformation is an affine transformation, but affine transformations are known in the art and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed because affine transformations can map the two coordinate systems to each other with a single relatively simple matrix.
Regarding claim 20, Allen et al. in view of Solowan discloses a computer program comprising instructions which, when they are executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to carry out the method steps of Claim 1 (‘software program disclosed below that provides information about the vertical position of the surface.’).
Regarding claim 21, Allen et al. in view of Solowan discloses a method comprising: determining an alignment of a photomask on a sample stage according to the method of claim 1 (see above). Allen et al. in view of Solowan does not disclose displacing the sample stage in a direction perpendicular to the chuck surface in response the determined alignment of the photomask on the sample stage. Allen et al. does disclose displacing the beam focus in response the determined alignment of the photomask on the sample stage (“A surface displacement detection and adjustment system for automatically focusing a laser beam on a rotating surface (e,g, a photolithographic mask), and more particularly to such a system that automatically adjusts itself to account for surface warpage and/or displacement thereby maintaining the focus of the laser beam as the surface rotates.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute displacing the sample stage for displacing the beam focus because they amount to the same relative movement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that determining the offset of the origin of the mask coordinate system in relation to the origin of the mask holder coordinate system, which is different from determining coordinates of the rotation axis.
The origin is located on the rotation axis, because the mask holder rotates about this central axis in both Allen and Solowan. Solowan even uses the distance from the center of the rotational arc to find the offset, which inherently finds the location of the rotation axis (see “In those cases in which this offset is not equal to zero, a different value will arise for each different angle position of the rotation in the (co-rotating) mask holder coordinate system, and so four points lying on a circular arc are obtained in the coordinate system of the mask holder in the case of four rotational positions. Then, the absolute error when determining the position of the mask holder on the measuring table, i.e., in the machine coordinate system, can be deduced from the radius of the circle.”).
Applicant further argues that Solowan does not disclose the elements of claim 5, but fails to point out any differences. Examiner sees no differences between the claimed limitations and the cited passages.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights