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 .
The response of the applicant has been received and made of record. Rejections of the previous action, not repeated below are withdrawn based upon the amendment and arguments of the applicant. Responses to the arguments are presented after the first rejection they are directed to.
The amendment filed 5/11/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The amendment to the specification at [0018,0026] are not supported by the original text of the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1-20 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.
The claims should refer to a - - first pellicle film- - to distinguish this from the complete pellicle which includes the film and frame. There is a reasonable basis for this at [0039-0040].
It is not clear what happens in the process if the it is determined that the first pellicle does not need to be inspected.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushiyama JP H0495957, in view of Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150.
Ushiyama JP H0495957 (machine translation attached) illustrates in figure 2, a photomask (21) with an attached pellicle (22) where the pellicle has a particle (23) on the surface (page 2/lower left column to lower right column). The problem is knowing where the particle is relative to the mask/circuit pattern and if it will affect the exposure. When is above/aligned with the light shielding region, the image of the particle will not be transferred to the resist. However, when it is in an area which does not correspond to the shaded/shielding region, and of a certain size, it must be removed to prevent transfer of an image of the particle. In the example figure 1(a) shows the image of the particles, figure 1(b) shows the image of the mask pattern and figure 1(c) shows the composite. This allows the effect of the particle on the image to be evaluated, when the particles do not affect the image due to being covered by the shading part or below a certain size, there is no need for cleaning which increases productivity/production efficiency. (page 2/lower right column to page 3/upper left column). The focus position of the observation system 24 is adjusted onto the photomask 21, the pattern on the photomask 21 positioned right below the foreign matter 23 is picked up, and its image data is recorded on a different image memory from the foreign matter (abstract)
PNG
media_image1.png
510
142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
507
289
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ushiyama JP H0493752 (machine translation attached) teaches an example with respect to figure 1, a wafer (11) with a pattern (12) formed on it with foreign substances/particles (13,14) are also formed on it. This is imaged at different focal planes (15,16,17), where figure 1(a) is at focal plane (15) and shows the pattern(12) and the particles (14). Figure 1(b) is the image at focal plane (17) and shows the pattern (12) and the particle (13). Figure 1(c) shows the image at focal plane (16) which shows the pattern (12), but not the position of the particle. Figure 1(d) is the composite which shows the pattern (12) and both particles (13,14) (page 2/lower left column-page 3/upper left column)
PNG
media_image3.png
380
379
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As mentioned above, although one example of the present invention was described, when the defect on (1) photomask and a foreign substance are inspected in addition to this. (2) When applying to the device which carries out pattern comparison with the obtained image data and the design data on CAD data, and detects a defect and a foreign substance. (3) When changing the focal position of an image pick-up optical system other than a three-stage two or more times (page 3/upper right column)
Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 (machine translation attached) teaches attaching the reticle (72) and the pellicle (73) using the attachment apparatus. The composite is then evaluated using scanned laser light to determine if the debris/particles state/level is within the acceptable range [0060]. When the adhered state of foreign matter such as dust is not within the allowable range, the cam devices 75 .sub.1 and 75 .sub.2 are returned to take out the exposure reticle 72 and the pellicle 73, and the pellicle 73 is separated from the exposure reticle 72 and stored as it is. After cleaning the exposure reticle 72 to remove foreign matters and drying, the temporary adhesion of the pellicle 73, the inspection of the adhesion state of dust [0061]. Although the above-mentioned inspection of the adhered state of foreign matter such as dust is performed on the upper surface of the exposure reticle, the inspection is performed on both sides of the polymer film of the pellicle by adjusting the focus of the inspection device. However, if foreign matter such as dust that interferes with exposure adheres, the polymer film of the pellicle can be reattached [0062]. However, in recent photo processes for manufacturing highly integrated semiconductor integrated circuit devices, foreign matters such as dust and particles adhere to the exposure reticle on which a circuit pattern is formed, and the shadow of the dust and the like is generated. On the exposure reticle on which the circuit pattern is formed, about 6.3 mm from the surface of this exposure reticle in order to prevent the non-exposed portion of the circuit pattern from being clearly projected on the wafer from being exposed. An optically stable and transparent polymer thin film such as nitrocellulose is provided at a high position by straddling a frame made of aluminum or the like, and dust and the like that would otherwise fall onto the surface of the exposure reticle and adhere to this transparent high When the particle size of dust etc. received on the molecular thin film is small, the shadow of dust is not projected on the wafer by moving it out of the depth of focus of the reduction projection lens system [0003]
Brouns et al. 20180314150 teaches an EUV transparent pellicle 19 may be removed from the mask MA using the pellicle removal and attachment tool and then passed to the mask inspection tool without attaching an alternative pellicle to the mask. Following inspection of the mask MA by the mask inspection tool the pellicle frame 17 and EUV transparent pellicle 19 may be re-attached to the mask by the pellicle removal and attachment tool (or a new pellicle frame 17 and EUV transparent pellicle 19 may be attached). Although this approach allows inspection of the mask it includes the disadvantage that the mask is not protected by a pellicle during inspection of the mask, or during transfer to and from the mask inspection tool. The mask inspection tool may for example have a less closely controlled clean environment than the environment of the pellicle removal and attachment tool or the environment of a lithographic apparatus. A contamination particle could for example adhere to the mask MA after inspection and before the pellicle frame 17 and EUV transparent pellicle 19 are attached to the mask. Since this occurred after mask inspection the contamination particle would not be detected and would lead to defects in patterns projected on substrates. This disadvantage is avoided by the method shown in FIG. 4 because the mask MA is protected by a pellicle during mask inspection and during transfer to and from the mask inspection tool. The mask MA is only unprotected during swapping between the EUV transparent pellicle and the alternative (e.g. DUV-transparent) pellicle, which is a small part of the process. The environment provided in the pellicle removal and attachment tool may be closely controlled (e.g. more closely controlled than other environments) given that this is the only environment in which mask MA is unprotected [0131]. The inspection may determine the number and/or size and/or shape of particles and/or holes in the pellicle. If particles are found or if a hole is found which gives rise to an increased risk of pellicle breakage, then the pellicle assembly is removed and replaced with a new pellicle assembly. For example, if a hole is found in the pellicle then this may give rise to an unacceptable risk of pellicle breakage when pumping the mask assembly down to a vacuum or venting the mask assembly (significant pressure differences on either side of the pellicle may occur during pumping or venting). Replacing the pellicle assembly prevents such a breakage from occurring [0203]
EUV reflection measurements—EUV radiation is directed onto the pellicle and a sensor monitors for localized variations in the reflection of the pellicle. A localized variation in EUV reflection is indicative of a deterioration (or other change) of capping material on the pellicle. This deterioration or change of the capping material is indicative of a breakage risk of the pellicle. If such a deterioration or other change is found then the pellicle assembly is removed from the mask and is replaced. EUV reflection measurements may also monitor for global variations in the reflection of the pellicle. Again, a variation in EUV reflection (compared with a reference value of reflection, which may be a previously measured value) is indicative of a deterioration or other change of the capping material on the pellicle. Again, if such a variation is seen then the pellicle assembly is removed from the mask and replaced. EUV transmission measurements (pellicle in situ on mask)—an EUV radiation beam is directed onto the pellicle. EUV radiation which passes through the pellicle is reflected by the mask and passes back out through the pellicle. This reflected EUV radiation is monitored. The monitoring may be done by measuring and mapping the EUV radiation before the mask assembly is used, and then comparing a subsequently measured map with the initial map. Differences between the maps indicate either a change in the pellicle or a change in the mask. The nature of the differences may be used to discriminate a change of the pellicle from a change of the mask. If a significant change of the pellicle is seen then the pellicle assembly may be replaced. If a significant change of the mask is seen then the mask may be cleaned [0198-0199]
Inspection of the pellicle when the pellicle assembly has been removed from the mask may comprise one or more of the following methods: EUV transmission measurements, EUV reflection measurements, birefringence measurements, ellipsometry, Fourier transform infra-red spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, X-ray reflection measurements, microscope inspection, resonance measurements, measurement of pellicle displacement due to pressure difference, pellicle deflection during pumpdown or venting, scanning heat load measurements, frame deformation measurements. The majority of these are as described above. Those which have not been described above, or which may take a different form when the pellicle assembly has been removed from the mask, are described below: EUV transmission measurements (pellicle assembly removed from mask)—an EUV radiation beam is directed onto the pellicle and the amount of EUV radiation which is transmitted by the pellicle is measured using a sensor located on an opposite side of the pellicle. This allows localized changes in transmission of the pellicle to be measured. For example, a test criterion for a pellicle may be transmission of 85% plus or minus 2%. If the transmission of the pellicle is higher than this (e.g. 87% or more) then this may indicate that a loss or material (e.g. capping layer material) from the pellicle has occurred. In this situation an increased risk of pellicle failure may arise, and the pellicle assembly may therefore be replaced with a new pellicle assembly. If the transmission of the pellicle is lower than the test criterion (e.g. 83% or less) then this may indicate that oxidation of the pellicle (e.g. oxidation of the capping layer) has occurred. An increased risk of pellicle failure may arise from the oxidation, and the pellicle assembly may therefore be replaced with a new pellicle assembly. Birefringence measurements—birefringence measurements, which may also be referred to as photoelasticity measurements, may be used to measure localized changes in the stress of the pellicle film. Birefringence may for example is measured by directing a radiation beam through the pellicle and measuring changes of the polarization of the radiation beam. Measurements of the birefringence of the pellicle may be used to find changes in the stress of the pellicle and/or localized stress concentrations. When stress changes or localized stress concentrations are seen which indicate an increased risk of pellicle failure, the pellicle assembly may be replaced with a new pellicle assembly. Fourier transform infra-red spectroscopy—infra-red radiation (e.g. over a range of wavelengths) is directed towards the pellicle and the absorption of that infra-red radiation is measured. This may be used to monitor for localized changes of infra-red absorption of the pellicle film. The technique can be used to monitor for localized changes of the emissivity of the pellicle. For example, a minimum emissivity value for the pellicle may be set as 0.3. If the emissivity (e.g. localized emissivity) is lower than 0.3 then this may indicate damage of the pellicle. The lower emissivity could cause a localized temperature increase of the pellicle during use in the lithographic apparatus which in turn gives rise to an increased risk of pellicle breakage. The pellicle assembly is therefore replaced with a new pellicle assembly. ‘Measurement of pellicle displacement due to pressure difference—this involves applying a pressure on one side of the pellicle which is different to the pressure on the other side of the pellicle. The pellicle will deflect towards the lower pressure side. The degree of deflection is dependent upon the stress of the pellicle, and a deflection which falls outside of predetermined threshold values may indicate an increased risk of pellicle failure. In one example, a maximum threshold deflection of 500 μm for a pressure difference of 2 Pascals may be set. If the deflection is larger than 500 μm then this indicates a significant risk of pellicle breakage (e.g. during pumpdown or venting), and the pellicle assembly is therefore replaced with a new pellicle assembly. In another example, if the deflection is less than 400 μm then this may indicate that the stress in the pellicle is significantly higher than the stress in the pellicle as originally fabricated (i.e. as attached to the pellicle frame but before use in the lithographic apparatus). A significant increase of the stress in the pellicle may mean an increased risk of pellicle breakage during use by the lithographic apparatus. The pellicle assembly is therefore replaced with a new pellicle assembly. Frame deformation measurements—this involves applying force to the pellicle frame to cause a deformation of the pellicle frame, and then monitoring wrinkles of the pellicle which occur during the pellicle frame deformation. The positions of wrinkles in the pellicle are indicative of the stress in the pellicle. An initial measurement of the positions of the wrinkles may be performed before the pellicle is used in order to provide a reference measurement. Following use, a change of position of the wrinkles compared with that seen in the reference measurement indicates a change in the stress of the pellicle. If a significant change of the stress of the pellicle is seen which is associated with an increased risk of pellicle breakage, then the pellicle assembly is replaced with a new pellicle assembly [0207-0211]. As mentioned further above, inspection of the pellicle after removal from the mask may be performed in parallel with inspection and/or cleaning of the mask [0212] Monitoring the pellicle, for example using one or more of the above techniques, allows damage of the pellicle to be identified early, and therefore allows the pellicle assembly to be replaced before failure of the pellicle occurs. If failure of the pellicle were to occur in the lithographic apparatus, e.g. during exposure of a substrate, then this could cause problematic contamination of the lithographic apparatus. This issue is avoided by monitoring for damage of the pellicle which is associated with an increased risk of pellicle failure, and replacing the pellicle as necessary when such damage is found. Inspection of the pellicle for contamination may be performed at the same time as inspecting for pellicle damage [0213-0214]
Ushiyama JP H0495957 does not exemplify a process describing when to inspect a pellicle, the evaluation of particles on the interior/lower surface of the pellicle film, the stepping of successive images from the pellicle film toward the mask or replacing the pellicle.
With respect to claims 1-7, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the multipole process of Ushiyama JP H0495957 which captures images of particles and the image pattern at different focal planes by including multiple focal planes beginning near the pellicle and extending toward the photomask including imaging a focal plane adjacent to the interior surface of the pellicle membrane based upon the teaching of the number of levels (15,16,17) near the patterns in Ushiyama JP H0493752 with respect to figure 1(a) which are applicable to photomasks (Ushiyama JP H0493752 at page 3/upper right column) and the disclosure of the evaluation of both sides of the pellicle film/membrane for particles in Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 by routinely inspecting the pellicle/photomask composite after adhering them based upon the teachings of Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 [0062] and Brouns et al. 20180314150 at [0131]. Further, if the particle contamination is determined to be above an acceptable level, it would have been obvious to replace the pellicle as taught at [0060-0061] of Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and if it is within an acceptable level to use the pellicle/photomask composite in exposure processes such as disclosed in Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 at [0003] and Brouns et al. 20180314150. The issue of the size of particles affecting the exposure is addressed in the references applied in the cited sections and is based upon if they are of sufficient size to affect the image formed/transferred into the photoresist based upon previous experience (history)
In response of 5/11/2026, the applicant argues that Brouns et al. 20180314150 does not teach the claimed invention, repeating the claim language. The examiner had never contended that Brouns et al. 20180314150 did, noting that the rejection was dependent upon Brouns et al. 20180314150 in combination with other references in an obviousness rejection. The new basis for rejection addresses the claims including the added limitation.
Claims 1-7 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushiyama JP H0495957, in view of Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150, further in view of Kim et al. KR 101738887 and Tanaka JP 2021015027
Kim et al. KR 101738887 (machine translation attached) teaches an apparatus for inspecting EUV pellicles including an EUV source, a mirror for directing the EUV toward the pellicle, a beam splitter which reflects a portion of the EUV light to a first detector (40), the pellicle (10), which can be shifted in the vertical (Z) direction as shown in the figure and a second detector which measures the light transmitted by the pellicle [0022-0028].
PNG
media_image4.png
775
494
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
246
344
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Tanaka JP 2021015027 (machine translation attached) teaches an inspection process which can determine which surface of an EUV pellicle a defect or foreign matter is on (abstract). In the exposure process before the EUVL process, even if foreign matter adheres to the surface of the pellicle film, the image of the foreign matter is not projected on the wafer, so the foreign matter inspection on the pellicle film has not been regarded as important. However, in the EUVL process, when foreign matter adheres to the surface of the pellicle film, EUV light is absorbed by the foreign matter, so that there is a problem that an error occurs in the pattern projected on the wafer. Therefore, in the EUVL process, it is strongly desired to inspect and analyze defects such as foreign substances in the pellicle film (called EUV pellicle) used for the EUV mask [0002]./.
Next, as shown in step S18 of FIG. 2, the defect position is detected. Specifically, the processing unit 60 detects the position of a defect formed in the thin film 71 based on the luminance distribution of the converted spatial frequency and the time change of the displacement of the thin film 71. For example, the processing unit 60 compares the luminance distribution of the spatial frequency when the illumination light L3 focuses on the thin film 71 and when the defect is focused with the time change of the displacement of the thin film 71, so that the defect is formed in the thin film. It detects whether it is above or below 71. As shown in FIG. 12, the processing unit 60 acquires the luminance distribution of the spatial frequency when the defect is in focus, and then, as shown in FIG. 14, the luminance distribution of the spatial frequency when the thin film 71 is in focus. Is obtained. At that time, it is assumed that the processing unit 60 has acquired that the thin film 71 has been displaced in the + Z axis direction from the time change of the displacement of the thin film 71. In such a case, the processing unit 60 determines that the defect is above the thin film 71. That is, the processing unit 60 detects that a defect such as a foreign substance is on the surface side of the thin film 71 such as the EUV pellicle. On the other hand, as shown in FIG. 12, the processing unit 60 acquires the luminance distribution of the spatial frequency when the defect is in focus, and then, as shown in FIG. 14, the spatial frequency when the thin film 71 is in focus. It is assumed that the brightness distribution is acquired. At that time, it is assumed that the processing unit 60 has acquired that the thin film 71 has been displaced in the −Z axis direction from the time change of the displacement of the thin film 71. In such a case, the processing unit 60 determines that the defect is below the thin film 71. That is, the processing unit 60 detects that a defect such as a foreign substance is on the back surface side of the thin film 71 such as the EUV pellicle. Further, as shown in FIG. 14, the processing unit 60 acquires the luminance distribution of the spatial frequency when the thin film 71 is in focus, and then, as shown in FIG. 12, the spatial frequency when the defect is in focus. It is assumed that the brightness distribution is acquired. At that time, it is assumed that the processing unit 60 has acquired that the thin film 71 has been displaced in the + Z axis direction from the time change of the displacement of the thin film 71. In such a case, the processing unit 60 determines that the defect is below the thin film 71. That is, the processing unit 60 detects that a defect such as a foreign substance is on the back surface side of the thin film 71 such as the EUV pellicle. Further, as shown in FIG. 14, the processing unit 60 acquires the luminance distribution of the spatial frequency when the thin film 71 is in focus, and then, as shown in FIG. 12, the spatial frequency when the defect is in focus. It is assumed that the brightness distribution is acquired. At that time, it is assumed that the processing unit 60 has acquired that the thin film 71 has been displaced in the −Z axis direction from the time change of the displacement of the thin film 71. In such a case, the processing unit 60 determines that the defect is above the thin film 71. That is, the processing unit 60 detects that a defect such as a foreign substance is on the surface side of the thin film 71 such as the EUV pellicle. In this way, the inspection device 1 can determine whether the defect of the thin film 71 exists on the front surface or the back surface of the thin film 71 [0069-0075].
The combination of Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150 does not teaches the imaging of various focal planes between pellicle and EUV photomasks.
With respect to claims 1-7 and 15-18, it would have been obvious to modify processes rendered obvious by the combination of Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150 to EUV mask/pellicle composites such as those taught by Brouns et al. 20180314150 to evaluate contamination from particles based upon these being described as contaminants at [0131] and the description of the inspection of the mask/pellicle assembly for contaminants in the lithographic apparatus at [0150,0159,0161] of Brouns et al. 20180314150 and using it to determine if the mask/pellicle assembly can be used or needs to be replaced as discussed at [0203] of Brouns et al. 20180314150 and to include a shifting of the relative positions of the focal plane and the pellicle as taught by Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296, Tanaka JP 2021015027 and Kim et al. KR 101738887 to allow the size and location of the particles to be determined as well as any tears/defects in the pellicle membrane as discussed in Tanaka JP 2021015027 and if no particles are detected continue using the mask pellicle in lithographic exposure processing, if the particles are detected only on the outside of the pellicle, removing the particles and continue using the mask pellicle in lithographic exposure processing and if particles are detected on the inside of the pellicle or defects in the pellicle are detected, removing the mask/pellicle from the exposure device, replacing the pellicle with a new (second) and using the new pellicle/mask in lithographic exposure processing as taught by Brouns et al. 20180314150 at [0163-0164,0195,0198-0199,0203,0214] with a reasonable expectation of being able to detect the location of any particles on the outer or interior surfaces of the mask/pellicle composite.
Claims 1-7 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushiyama JP H0495957, in view of Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150, Kim et al. KR 101738887 and Tanaka JP 2021015027, further in view of Badger et al. 6635390, Cullins 20210302827 and/or Van Der Muellen et al. WO 2016079052.
Badger et al. 6635390 teaches Accordingly, the lithographic process typically comprises using a thin transparent membrane referred to as a pellicle to shield or seal off the photomask surface from the surrounding environment. The pellicle membrane is offset from the photomask surface, typically by a thin-walled rectangular pellicle frame which is adhered to the reticle. The pellicle membrane and frame create an enclosed air space above the photomask which ideally is free of foreign particles. Particles which subsequently settle on the outer surface of the pellicle membrane do not affect the printing result because they are offset from the focal plane of the lithographic optics. In view of the importance of keeping the photomask particle-free, great efforts are undertaken to provide an environment for the reticles which is free of contaminants to the extent possible. Nevertheless, in spite of the precautions taken, even after the pellicle frame and pellicle membrane have been adhered to the reticle, foreign particles will be present on the photomask surface within the air space provided by the pellicle frame. Once the pellicle frame is assembled and adhered to the reticle, an inspection process may be performed in which optical equipment is used to look through the pellicle membrane at the surface of the reticle to detect particles. If particles are detected, the pellicle assembly must be removed, which may damage the reticle and cause additional foreign matter to be introduced (1/38-65)
Van Der Muellen et al. WO 2016079052 discloses that the useful lifetime of a pellicle 19 may be less than the useful lifetime of a patterning device MA. It may therefore be desirable to remove a pellicle assembly 16 from patterning device MA and replace the pellicle assembly with a new pellicle assembly so as to allow for continued use of the patterning device MA [000166]. In some embodiments the patterning device MA and/or the pellicle 19 may be inspected for particles and/or defects in the pellicle frame attachment apparatus 857 whilst the components are held in a vacuum. The patterning device MA and/or the pellicle 19 are therefore advantageously inspected under similar pressure conditions to those to which they are exposed during use in the lithographic apparatus LA. This is advantageous since any particles which may be deposited onto patterning device MA and/or the pellicle during pumping down to vacuum conditions may be detected in the pellicle frame attachment apparatus 857 [000163]. It may be desired to remove the pellicle assembly 16 from the patterning device MA (e.g. if contamination has been detected on the pellicle) [000217]
Cullins 20210302827 teaches that the photomask is removed from the lithography chamber. In the context of FIG. 1, the photomask 22 and pellicle 32 are removed from the interior space 12 of the lithography chamber 10 through the chamber door 18 by an automated transfer robot and/or by a person manually removing the photomask 22 and pellicle 32. A visual or automated inspection of the photomask 22 may be implemented to determine when the photomask 22 should to be removed for performance of subsequent operations (e.g., when particulates are present on the photomask 22), which may or may not require the removal of the pellicle 32 from being attached to the photomask 22. Additionally, a pre-determined number of performances of the lithography process of operation 104 may be performed and/or a pre-determined amount of time may pass to determine when the photomask 22 should to be removed for performance of subsequent operations [0038].
In addition to the basis above, the examiner cites Badger et al. 6635390 and Van Der Muellen et al. WO 2016079052 to support the obviousness of the process claimed. Noting that the Badger et al. 6635390 at (1/38-65) teaches that particles can be trapped in the interior volume of the pellicle after attachment and that this requires that the pellicle be removed and the mask cleaned and Van Der Muellen et al. WO 2016079052 establishes that the useful lifetime of the photomask is longer than that of the pellicle or the teaching that inspection for particles is routinely performed after a certain number of exposures or certain amount of time, so it is reasonably expected that at some time in the processes rendered obvious by the combination of Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296, Brouns et al. 20180314150, Kim et al. KR 101738887 and Tanaka JP 2021015027, the pellicle would be removed, the mask cleaned, a new(second) pellicle adhered to the mask and the result used in lithographic processing.
8. Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushiyama JP H0495957, in view of Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150, Kim et al. KR 101738887 and Tanaka JP 2021015027, further in view of Kato EP 1536289 and Oouchi JP 2008198799.
Kato EP 1536289 teaches a method of measuring an optical aberration of an optical system comprising: (a) generating an optical wavefront;(b) passing the optical wavefront through the optical system (18);(c) passing the optical wavefront through a mask (20); and(d) analyzing the light that has passed through the optical system and the mask to derive a measure of the optical aberration of the optical system, characterized by: (e) analyzing the light that has passed through the mask to determine whether the mask is at least one of (i) misaligned relative to the optical wavefront and (ii) at least partially obstructed by a contaminant; and, if it is so determined,(f) taking remedial action (claim 12)
Oouchi JP 2008198799 (machine translation attached) discloses a projection optical system 150 has a function of projecting the mask pattern onto the wafer 160, and is a test optical system for the wavefront aberration measuring apparatus. The projection optical system 150 applied to EUV light is extremely sensitive to positional accuracy and thermal deformation, and it is necessary to measure wavefront aberration between exposures and adjust the mirror position based on the measurement results to provide feedback. There is. Further, impurities adhere to the multilayer mirror of the projection optical system 150 and cause a chemical change, so that a phase change due to a so-called contaminant also occurs. For this reason, it is necessary to measure the wavefront aberration of the projection optical system 150 due to the exposure wavelength on the exposure apparatus main body, but the exposure apparatus 100 is equipped with the wavefront aberration measuring apparatus described in the first and second embodiments, and this requirement is satisfied [0106].
PNG
media_image6.png
336
354
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1-7 and 15-18, it would have been obvious to modify processes rendered obvious by the combination of Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150 to EUV mask/pellicle composites such as those taught by Brouns et al. 20180314150 to evaluate contamination from particles based upon these being described as contaminants at [0131] and the description of the inspection of the mask/pellicle assembly for contaminants in the lithographic apparatus at [0150,0159,0161] of Brouns et al. 20180314150 and using it to determine if the mask/pellicle assembly can be used or needs to be replaced as discussed at [0203] of Brouns et al. 20180314150 and to include a shifting of the relative positions of the focal plane and the pellicle as taught by Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296, Tanaka JP 2021015027 and Kim et al. KR 101738887 to allow the size and location of the particles to be determined as well as any tears/defects in the pellicle membrane as discussed in Tanaka JP 2021015027 and the use a wavefront image detector (camera) in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Oouchi JP 2008198799 to determine the presence of the particles/contaminants as taught by Kato EP 1536289 and Oouchi JP 2008198799 and if no particles are detected continue using the mask pellicle in lithographic exposure processing, if the particles are detected only on the outside of the pellicle, removing the particles and continue using the mask pellicle in lithographic exposure processing and if particles are detected on the inside of the pellicle or defects in the pellicle are detected, removing the mask/pellicle from the exposure device, replacing the pellicle with a new (second) and using the new pellicle/mask in lithographic exposure processing as taught by Brouns et al. 20180314150 at [0163-0164,0195,0198-0199,0203,0214] with a reasonable expectation of being able to detect the location of any particles on the outer or interior surfaces of the mask/pellicle composite.
Claims 1-9,12,13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushiyama JP H0495957, in view of Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150, Kim et al. KR 101738887 and Tanaka JP 2021015027, further in view of Yang et al. 20220357662 and Patra DE 102017221420
Yang et al. 20220357662 teaches with respect to figure 4A, that in some embodiments, pressure is exerted by actuator 351 on one or more facets of the mirrors (625A and/or 625B) to change the curvature and focal length of the one or more facets to adjust the width of the EUV radiation beam on the reticle (205) [0043]
PNG
media_image7.png
669
422
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Patra DE 102017221420 (machine translation attached) teaches with respect to figures 3A and 3B, The 3A shows the field facet 202c in the position P2 , wherein a curvature of the reflection surface 203c was not changed and in particular not to the position P2 was adjusted. Like in the 3A includes the EUV light source 106A a plasma source 208 for generating the EUV radiations 108A and a collector 209 for bundling the EUV radiations 108A , The field facet 202c projects an image of the intermediate focus 201 with the picture light bunch 212 on the pupil facet 205d , The pupil facet surface 206d the pupil facet 205d however, does not exactly correspond to one imaging area 210 in which the image of the intermediate focus 201 is perfectly focused. Instead, the pupil facet surface is 206d in the 3A closer to the field facet 202c as the picture surface 210 so that the picture of the intermediate focus 201 with the picture light bunch 212 on the pupil facet 205d not focused. Between the pupil facet surface 206d and the picture surface 210 there is a gap d , This unfocused image is characterized in that one through the imaging light beam 212 irradiated area 211 by the in the 3A each two adjacent lines is limited, is large. This is because the curvature of the reflection surface 203c the field facet 202c was not optimized. The through the picture light bundle 212 irradiated area 211 is in the 3C shown. The 3C shows a plan view of the pupil facet surface 206d the pupil facet 205d which is substantially rectangular and one length L .sub.1 and a width B .sub.1 Has. The through the picture light bundle 212 Irradiated area of the pupil facet surface 206d that of the irradiated area 211 corresponds, is in the 3C hatched shown. Like in the 3C is the irradiated area 211 big: the irradiated area 211 covers almost the entire pupil facet surface 206d from. The 3B shows the field facet 202c in the position P2 after a change in the curvature of the reflection surface 203c , in particular after an optimization of the curvature of the reflection surface 203c the field facet 202c , In the 3B became the curvature of the reflection surface 203c changed so that they are the distance d between the pupil facet surface 206d and the picture surface 210 to reduce. In the 3B is the distance d null, so that the pupil facet surface 206d and the picture surface 210 lie one above the other. The picture of the intermediate focus 201 with the picture light bunch 212 on the pupil facet 205d is in the 3B perfectly focused and the irradiated area 211 is opposite the irradiated area 211 in the 3A significantly reduced [0077-0080].
PNG
media_image8.png
297
427
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
265
445
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
400
418
media_image10.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1-9,12,13 and 15-18, it would have been obvious to modify processes rendered obvious by the combination of Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150 to EUV mask/pellicle composites such as those taught by Brouns et al. 20180314150 to evaluate contamination from particles based upon these being described as contaminants at [0131] and the description of the inspection of the mask/pellicle assembly for contaminants in the lithographic apparatus at [0150,0159,0161] of Brouns et al. 20180314150 and using it to determine if the mask/pellicle assembly can be used or needs to be replaced as discussed at [0203] of Brouns et al. 20180314150 and to include a shifting of the relative positions of the focal plane and the pellicle as taught by Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296, Tanaka JP 2021015027 and Kim et al. KR 101738887 to allow the size and location of the particles to be determined as well as any tears/defects in the pellicle membrane as discussed in Tanaka JP 2021015027 using changes in the position/shape of the reflectors illuminating the EUV pellicle/mask composite to change the focal plane location to detect contaminants as is known in the art from Yang et al. 20220357662 at [0043] and Patra DE 102017221420 at [0077-0080] and the use a wavefront image detector (camera) in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Oouchi JP 2008198799 to determine the presence of the particles/contaminants as taught by Kato EP 1536289 and Oouchi JP 2008198799 and if no particles are detected continue using the mask pellicle in lithographic exposure processing, if the particles are detected only on the outside of the pellicle, removing the particles and continue using the mask pellicle in lithographic exposure processing and if particles are detected on the inside of the pellicle or defects in the pellicle are detected, removing the mask/pellicle from the exposure device, replacing the pellicle with a new (second) and using the new pellicle/mask in lithographic exposure processing as taught by Brouns et al. 20180314150 at [0163-0164,0195,0198-0199,0203,0214] with a reasonable expectation of being able to detect the location of any particles on the outer or interior surfaces of the mask/pellicle composite.
Claims 1-9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushiyama JP H0495957, in view of Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150, Kim et al. KR 101738887 and Tanaka JP 2021015027, further in view of Yang et al. 20220357662, Patra DE 102017221420 and Van Dijsseldonk et al. 20120147349.
Van Dijsseldonk et al. 20120147349 teaches One of the mirrors M1, M2 and M3 of the optical system 65, preferably mirror M3 which is the furthest downstream in the beam path may further be mounted so as to be rotatable with respect to the rest of the optical system 65 in order to be able to shift the location of the focal point. In an embodiment, the rotatable mirror, e.g. mirror M3, is adjusted during calibration and/or maintenance of the apparatus to set the focal point of the optical system to a predetermined point. In another embodiment, the rotatable mirror is adjustable dynamically during operation to ensure that the beam is incident on the target material. In this embodiment a sensor 81 senses the position of particles or droplets of target material 72. An actuator 82 drives the mirror M3 to adjust the position of the focal point to coincide with a particle or droplet of target material 72. The actuator 82 is controlled by a controller 83 which is responsive to the position sensed by the sensor 81 [0053].
PNG
media_image11.png
223
399
media_image11.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1-9 and 12-18, it would have been obvious to modify processes rendered obvious by the combination of Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150 to EUV mask/pellicle composites such as those taught by Brouns et al. 20180314150 to evaluate contamination from particles based upon these being described as contaminants at [0131] and the description of the inspection of the mask/pellicle assembly for contaminants in the lithographic apparatus at [0150,0159,0161] of Brouns et al. 20180314150 and using it to determine if the mask/pellicle assembly can be used or needs to be replaced as discussed at [0203] of Brouns et al. 20180314150 and to include a shifting of the relative positions of the focal plane and the pellicle as taught by Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296, Tanaka JP 2021015027 and Kim et al. KR 101738887 to allow the size and location of the particles to be determined as well as any tears/defects in the pellicle membrane as discussed in Tanaka JP 2021015027 using changes in the position/shape of the reflectors illuminating the EUV pellicle/mask composite to change the focal plane location to detect contaminants as is known in the art from Yang et al. 20220357662 at [0043] and Patra DE 102017221420 at [0077-0080] using rotation of the reflector/mirror to adjust the focusing as taught by Van Dijsseldonk et al. 20120147349 noting that the use of changes in the position/shape of the reflectors illuminating the EUV pellicle/mask composite to change the focal plane location and detect contaminants as is known in the art from Yang et al. 20220357662 at [0043] and Patra DE 102017221420 at [0077-0080] and if no particles are detected continue using the mask pellicle in lithographic exposure processing, if the particles are detected only on the outside of the pellicle, removing the particles and continue using the mask pellicle in lithographic exposure processing and if particles are detected on the inside of the pellicle or defects in the pellicle are detected, removing the mask/pellicle from the exposure device, replacing the pellicle with a new (second) and using the new pellicle/mask in lithographic exposure processing as taught by Brouns et al. 20180314150 at [0163-0164,0195,0198-0199,0203,0214] with a reasonable expectation of being able to detect the location of any particles on the outer or interior surfaces of the mask/pellicle composite.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushiyama JP H0495957, in view of Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150, Kim et al. KR 101738887, Tanaka JP 2021015027, Kato EP 1536289 and Oouchi JP 2008198799, further in view of Yang et al. 20220357662 and Patra DE 102017221420
With respect to claims 1-13 and 15-20, it would have been obvious to modify processes rendered obvious by the combination of Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150 to EUV mask/pellicle composites such as those taught by Brouns et al. 20180314150 to evaluate contamination from particles based upon these being described as contaminants at [0131] and the description of the inspection of the mask/pellicle assembly for contaminants in the lithographic apparatus at [0150,0159,0161] of Brouns et al. 20180314150 and using it to determine if the mask/pellicle assembly can be used or needs to be replaced as discussed at [0203] of Brouns et al. 20180314150 and to include a shifting of the relative positions of the focal plane and the pellicle as taught by Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296, Tanaka JP 2021015027 and Kim et al. KR 101738887 to allow the size and location of the particles to be determined as well as any tears/defects in the pellicle membrane as discussed in Tanaka JP 2021015027 and the use a wavefront image detector (camera) in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Oouchi JP 2008198799 to determine the presence of the particles/contaminants as taught by Kato EP 1536289 and Oouchi JP 200819879 using changes in the position/shape of the reflectors illuminating the EUV pellicle/mask composite to change the focal plane location to detect contaminants as is known in the art from Yang et al. 20220357662 at [0043] and Patra DE 102017221420 at [0077-0080] and if no particles are detected continue using the mask pellicle in lithographic exposure processing, if the particles are detected only on the outside of the pellicle, removing the particles and continue using the mask pellicle in lithographic exposure processing and if particles are detected on the inside of the pellicle or defects in the pellicle are detected, removing the mask/pellicle from the exposure device, replacing the pellicle with a new (second) and using the new pellicle/mask in lithographic exposure processing as taught by Brouns et al. 20180314150 at [0163-0164,0195,0198-0199,0203,0214] with a reasonable expectation of being able to detect the location of any particles on the outer or interior surfaces of the mask/pellicle composite.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ushiyama JP H0495957, in view of Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150, Kim et al. KR 101738887 Tanaka JP 2021015027, Kato EP 1536289 and Oouchi JP 2008198799, further in view of Yang et al. 20220357662, Patra DE 102017221420 and Van Dijsseldonk et al. 20120147349
With respect to claims 1-20, it would have been obvious to modify processes rendered obvious by the combination of Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296 and Brouns et al. 20180314150 to EUV mask/pellicle composites such as those taught by Brouns et al. 20180314150 to evaluate contamination from particles based upon these being described as contaminants at [0131] and the description of the inspection of the mask/pellicle assembly for contaminants in the lithographic apparatus at [0150,0159,0161] of Brouns et al. 20180314150 and using it to determine if the mask/pellicle assembly can be used or needs to be replaced as discussed at [0203] of Brouns et al. 20180314150 and to include a shifting of the relative positions of the focal plane and the pellicle as taught by Ushiyama JP H0495957, Ushiyama JP H0493752, Takizawa et al. JP H07263296, Tanaka JP 2021015027 and Kim et al. KR 101738887 to allow the size and location of the particles to be determined as well as any tears/defects in the pellicle membrane as discussed in Tanaka JP 2021015027 and the use a wavefront image detector (camera) in the lithographic apparatus as taught by Oouchi JP 2008198799 to determine the presence of the particles/contaminants as taught by Kato EP 1536289 and Oouchi JP 200819879 using rotation of the reflector/mirror to adjust the focusing as taught by Van Dijsseldonk et al. 20120147349 noting that the use of changes in the position/shape of the reflectors illuminating the EUV pellicle/mask composite to change the focal plane location and detect contaminants as is known in the art from Yang et al. 20220357662 at [0043] and Patra DE 102017221420 at [0077-0080] and if no particles are detected continue using the mask pellicle in lithographic exposure processing, if the particles are detected only on the outside of the pellicle, removing the particles and continue using the mask pellicle in lithographic exposure processing and if particles are detected on the inside of the pellicle or defects in the pellicle are detected, removing the mask/pellicle from the exposure device, replacing the pellicle with a new (second) and using the new pellicle/mask in lithographic exposure processing as taught by Brouns et al. 20180314150 at [0163-0164,0195,0198-0199,0203,0214] with a reasonable expectation of being able to detect the location of any particles on the outer or interior surfaces of the mask/pellicle composite.
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 Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 pm EST.
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, Ching-Yu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights