DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed on 4/29/2026, which amended claims 21, 39, and 41. Claims 21-24, 26-27, 29-42 are currently pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,906,907 in view of Anonymous (RD 639010, “Split exposure to reduce peak pellicle temperature,” Anonymous 639 hereinafter; included with 7/5/2024 Office Action) in view of Van De Kerkhof et al. (US PGPub 2008/0220345, Van De Kerkhof hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, claim 6 of patent 907 recites an apparatus for determining a condition associated with a pellicle for use in a lithographic apparatus, the apparatus comprising a sensor, wherein the sensor is configured to measure a property associated with the pellicle, the property being indicative of the pellicle condition, wherein the condition associated with the pellicle is one or more selected from: lifetime of the pellicle, integrity of the pellicle, a defect in the pellicle, a local transmission change of the pellicle, a stain on the pellicle, a deformation of the pellicle, an impending rupture of the pellicle, a rupture of the pellicle, and/or the presence of the pellicle within a frame (claim 1, col. 36, lines 55-67, claim 6, col. 37, lines 14-21). Claim 6 of patent 907 does not recite a controller a controller or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors, to cause active control of power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature.
Anonymous 639 discloses active control of power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature (Figure 1, page 2, third paragraph, page 3, split exposure operation controls the radiating beam power and is employed to limit the measured temperature increase of the pellicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included active control of power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature as taught by Anonymous 639 in the apparatus as recited by patent 907 since including active control of power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature is commonly used to avoid pellicle damage due to heating during EUV exposure while maintaining the desired throughput (Anonymous 639, page 2, second paragraph, third paragraph, page 3).
Patent 907 as modified by Anonymous 639 does not appear to explicitly recite a controller or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors, to cause the active control of power of the radiation beam.
Van De Kerkhof discloses a controller or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors to cause the active control of power of the radiation beam (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0008], [0036]-[0040], [0047], the control unit CU controls the output of source SO or controls the width of the illumination slit or scan speed or setting of variable attenuator to control the dose based on heating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a controller or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors to cause the active control of power of the radiation beam as taught by Van De Kerkhof in the apparatus as recited by patent 907 as modified by Anonymous 639 since including a controller or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors to cause the active control of power of the radiation beam is commonly used to automatically control operations in an apparatus to reduce the effects of non-uniform heating (Van De Kerkhof, para. [0006]) with improved throughput.
Claims 21, 23, 24, 26, 29-36, and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,906,907 in view of Sato (US PGPub 2002/0126269) in view of Anonymous (RD 639010, “Split exposure to reduce peak pellicle temperature,” Anonymous 639 hereinafter; included with 7/5/2024 Office Action) in view of Van De Kerkhof et al. (US PGPub 2008/0220345, Van De Kerkhof hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, claim 1 of patent 907 recites an apparatus for determining a condition associated with a pellicle for use in a lithographic apparatus, the apparatus comprising a sensor, wherein the sensor is configured to measure a property associated with the pellicle, the property being indicative of the pellicle condition (claim 1, col. 36, lines 55-67). Claim 1 does not appear to recite the condition associated with the pellicle is one or more selected from: lifetime of the pellicle, integrity of the pellicle, a defect in the pellicle, a local transmission change of the pellicle, a stain on the pellicle, a deformation of the pellicle, an impending rupture of the pellicle, a rupture of the pellicle, and/or the presence of the pellicle within a frame, and a controller a controller or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors, to cause active control of power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature.
Sato discloses the apparatus comprising a sensor (Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91), wherein the sensor is configured to measure a property associated with the pellicle, the property being indicative of the pellicle condition, wherein the condition associated with the pellicle is one or more selected from: lifetime of the pellicle, integrity of the pellicle, a defect in the pellicle, a local transmission change of the pellicle, a stain on the pellicle, a deformation of the pellicle, an impending rupture of the pellicle, a rupture of the pellicle, and/or the presence of the pellicle within a frame (Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 inspects the pellicle to determine deformation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the condition associated with the pellicle is one or more selected from: lifetime of the pellicle, integrity of the pellicle, a defect in the pellicle, a local transmission change of the pellicle, a stain on the pellicle, a deformation of the pellicle, an impending rupture of the pellicle, a rupture of the pellicle, and/or the presence of the pellicle within a frame as taught by Sato as the condition associated with the pellicle in the apparatus as recited by claim 1 of patent 907 since including the condition associated with the pellicle is one or more selected from: lifetime of the pellicle, integrity of the pellicle, a defect in the pellicle, a local transmission change of the pellicle, a stain on the pellicle, a deformation of the pellicle, an impending rupture of the pellicle, a rupture of the pellicle, and/or the presence of the pellicle within a frame is commonly used to determine whether the pellicle deformation is within an predetermined range to avoid damaging the pellicle (Sato, abstract, paras. [0006]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 23, see claim 3 of patent 907.
Regarding claim 24, see claim 11 of patent 907.
Regarding claim 26, claim 12 of patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof recites wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to cause activation of a split exposure scheme based on a temperature measurement (claim 12, col. 38, lines 1-3 as modified by Van De Kerkhof, Figs. 1-5, paras. [0008], [0036]-[0040], [0047], the control unit CU).
Regarding claim 29, claim 8 of patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof recites wherein the sensor is configured to be located at an angle of incidence with respect to the pellicle of at least 45° (claim 8, col. 37, lines 32-36, and Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 inspects the pellicle and is arranged with an angle of incidence of at least 45° as the deformation measuring device 85, 91 faces the pellicle PE).
Regarding claim 30, patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof recites configured such that the pellicle is illuminated with radiation over a predefined pellicle area and the sensor is configured to measure the radiation reflected from the pellicle (the limitation “configured such that the pellicle is illuminated with radiation over a predefined pellicle area” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the device that does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the apparatus disclosed by Sato. See MPEP 2114. Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], the deformation measuring device 85, 91 measures the deformation of the pellicle PE by projecting light and receiving the light reflected from the surface of the pellicle PE at a detector).
Regarding claim 31, patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof recites configured to successively illuminate predefined pellicle areas with radiation (the limitation “configured to successively illuminate predefined pellicle areas with radiation” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the device that does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the apparatus disclosed by Sato. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], the deformation measuring device 85, 91 measures the deformation of the pellicle PE by projecting light and receiving the light reflected from the surface of the pellicle PE at a detector, and the deformation of the pellicle PE is stored and compared with later measurements).
Regarding claim 32, patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof recites wherein the predefined pellicle areas are an illumination line (Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], the deformation measuring device 85, 91 measures the deformation of the pellicle PE by projecting light to the pellicle).
Regarding claim 33, patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof recites wherein the illumination line is formed from a plane of illumination intersecting with the pellicle (Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], the deformation measuring device 85, 91 project light to the pellicle).
Regarding claim 34, claim 8 of patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof recites configured to illuminate the pellicle at an angle of incidence with respect to the pellicle of at least 45° (claim 8, col. 37, lines 32-36, and Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 inspects the pellicle and is arranged with an angle of incidence of at least 45° as the deformation measuring device 85, 91 faces the pellicle PE).
Regarding claim 35, patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof recites wherein the sensor is orientated so as to not be in the path of specular reflection from the pellicle (Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 inspects the pellicle and is arranged facing the pellicle PE).
Regarding claim 36, patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof recites wherein the sensor is orientated perpendicularly to an illuminating plane (Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 is arranged perpendicular to the illumination plane of the pellicle PE).
Regarding claim 38, claim 7 of patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof recites an assembly comprising the apparatus according to claim 21 (see claim 21 rejection above) and a lithographic apparatus (claim 7, col. 37, lines 22-31), the lithographic apparatus comprising: an illumination system configured to condition a radiation beam (claim 7, col. 37, lines 23-31, the lithographic apparatus necessarily includes an illumination system to condition the beam that illuminates the patterning device. Sato, Fig. 1, para. [0036], [0038], [0054]); a support structure constructed to support a patterning device, the patterning device being capable of imparting the radiation beam with a pattern in its cross-section to form a patterned radiation beam (claim 7, col. 37, lines 25-28); a substrate table constructed to hold a substrate (claim 7, col. 37, line 29); and a projection system configured to project the patterned radiation beam onto the substrate (claim 7, col. 37, lines 30-31).
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,906,907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof and further in view of Prejean et al. (US PGPub 2010/0012828, Prejean hereinafter).
Regarding claim 22, although patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof recites wherein the sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission (claim 1, col. 36, lines 57-59), patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the wavelength band is 2-8 µm.
Prejean discloses a sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band of 2-8 µm (para. [0022], the CCD senses infrared radiation in the 1.0 to 5.0 micron range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band of 2-8 µm as taught by Prejean as the wavelength band of infrared emission detected by the sensor in the apparatus as recited by patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof since including a sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band of 2-8 µm is commonly used to provide the desired infrared spectrum detection for thermal imaging to determine failure analysis (Prejean, para. [0004]).
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,906,907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof and further in view of Ookawa (US Patent No. 6,353,223).
Regarding claim 27, patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof does not appear to recite comprising at least one transparent layer that allows infrared (IR) radiation to pass.
Ookawa discloses at least one transparent layer that allows infrared (IR) radiation to pass (Figs. 1, 3, 5, 8, col. 1, lines 34-37, col. 2, lines 40-49, col. 4, lines 56-62, infrared window 21 permits the passage of infrared radiation to an infrared detector 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included at least one transparent layer that allows infrared (IR) radiation to pass as taught by Ookawa in the apparatus as recited by patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof since including at least one transparent layer that allows infrared (IR) radiation to pass is commonly used to protect the sensor while permitting infrared detection.
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,906,907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof and further in view of Takehisa et al. (US PGPub 2015/0293460, Takehisa hereinafter).
Regarding claim 37, patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof does not appear to recite wherein the sensor is not in direct line of sight of the pellicle.
Takehisa discloses wherein the sensor is not in direct line of sight of the pellicle (Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0064]-[0067], detector 99 is not in direct line of sight of the pellicle 95a since the illumination beam reflected by the pellicle is reflected by polygon mirror 93 and quarter wave plate 92 to light detector 99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the sensor is not in direct line of sight of the pellicle as taught by Takehisa as the arrangement of the sensor in the assembly as recited by patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and Van De Kerkhof since including wherein the sensor is not in direct line of sight of the pellicle is commonly used to inspect a pellicle at a high speed (Takehisa, para. [0067]).
Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,906,907 in view of Anonymous (RD 639010, “Split exposure to reduce peak pellicle temperature,” Anonymous 639 hereinafter; included with 7/5/2024 Office Action).
Regarding claim 39, claim 16 of patent 907 recites a method of determining a condition associated with a pellicle for use in a lithographic apparatus, the method comprising measuring a property associated with the pellicle using a sensor, the property being indicative of the pellicle condition, wherein the condition associated with the pellicle is one or more selected from: lifetime of the pellicle, integrity of the pellicle, a defect in the pellicle, a local transmission change of the pellicle, a stain on the pellicle, a deformation of the pellicle, an impending rupture of the pellicle, a rupture of the pellicle, and/or the presence of the pellicle within a frame (claim 13, col. 38, lines 4-17, claim 16, col. 38, lines 24-31). Claim 16 of patent 907 does not appear to recite actively controlling power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature.
Anonymous 639 discloses actively controlling power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature (Figure 1, page 2, third paragraph, page 3, split exposure operation controls the radiating beam power and is employed to limit the measured temperature increase of the pellicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included actively controlling power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature as taught by Anonymous 639 in the method as recited by patent 907 since including actively controlling power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature is commonly used to avoid pellicle damage due to heating during EUV exposure while maintaining the desired throughput (Anonymous 639, page 2, second paragraph, third paragraph, page 3).
Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,906,907 in view of Sato in view of Anonymous (RD 639010, “Split exposure to reduce peak pellicle temperature,” Anonymous 639 hereinafter; included with 7/5/2024 Office Action).
Regarding claim 39, claim 13 of patent 907 recites a method of determining a condition associated with a pellicle for use in a lithographic apparatus, the method comprising measuring a property associated with the pellicle using a sensor, the property being indicative of the pellicle condition (claim 13, col. 38, lines 4-16). Claim 13 of patent 907 does not appear to recite wherein the condition associated with the pellicle is one or more selected from: lifetime of the pellicle, integrity of the pellicle, a defect in the pellicle, a local transmission change of the pellicle, a stain on the pellicle, a deformation of the pellicle, an impending rupture of the pellicle, a rupture of the pellicle, and/or the presence of the pellicle within a frame, and actively controlling power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature.
Sato discloses measuring a property associated with the pellicle using a sensor (Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91), the property being indicative of the pellicle condition, wherein the condition associated with the pellicle is one or more selected from: lifetime of the pellicle, integrity of the pellicle, a defect in the pellicle, a local transmission change of the pellicle, a stain on the pellicle, a deformation of the pellicle, an impending rupture of the pellicle, a rupture of the pellicle, and/or the presence of the pellicle within a frame (Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 inspects the pellicle to determine deformation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the condition associated with the pellicle is one or more selected from: lifetime of the pellicle, integrity of the pellicle, a defect in the pellicle, a local transmission change of the pellicle, a stain on the pellicle, a deformation of the pellicle, an impending rupture of the pellicle, a rupture of the pellicle, and/or the presence of the pellicle within a frame as taught by Sato as the condition associated with the pellicle in the method as recited by patent 907 since including wherein the condition associated with the pellicle is one or more selected from: lifetime of the pellicle, integrity of the pellicle, a defect in the pellicle, a local transmission change of the pellicle, a stain on the pellicle, a deformation of the pellicle, an impending rupture of the pellicle, a rupture of the pellicle, and/or the presence of the pellicle within a frame is commonly used to determine whether the pellicle deformation is within an predetermined range to avoid damaging the pellicle (Sato, abstract, paras. [0006]-[0018]).
Patent 907 as modified by Sato does not appear to recite actively controlling power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature.
Anonymous 639 discloses actively controlling power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature (Figure 1, page 2, third paragraph, page 3, split exposure operation controls the radiating beam power and is employed to limit the measured temperature increase of the pellicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included actively controlling power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature as taught by Anonymous 639 in the method as recited by patent 907 as modified by Sato since including actively controlling power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature is commonly used to avoid pellicle damage due to heating during EUV exposure while maintaining the desired throughput (Anonymous 639, page 2, second paragraph, third paragraph, page 3).
Claim 40 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,906,907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 and further in view of Prejean et al. (US PGPub 2010/0012828, Prejean hereinafter).
Regarding claim 40, although patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 recites wherein the sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission (claim 13, col. 38, lines 6-10), Sato does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the wavelength band is 2-8 µm.
Prejean discloses a sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band of 2-8 µm (para. [0022], the CCD senses infrared radiation in the 1.0 to 5.0 micron range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band of 2-8 µm as taught by Prejean as the wavelength band of infrared emission detected by the sensor in the apparatus as recited by patent 907 as modified by Sato in view of Anonymous 639 since including a sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band of 2-8 µm is commonly used to provide the desired infrared spectrum detection for thermal imaging to determine failure analysis (Prejean, para. [0004]).
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.
Claims 21, 26, 29-36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US PGPub 2002/0126269) in view of Anonymous (RD 639010, “Split exposure to reduce peak pellicle temperature,” Anonymous 639 hereinafter; included with 7/5/2024 Office Action) in view of Van De Kerkhof et al. (US PGPub 2008/0220345, Van De Kerkhof hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, Sato discloses an apparatus for determining a condition associated with a pellicle for use in a lithographic apparatus (Figs. 1-4, 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089]-[0095], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], the exposure apparatus 1 includes a deformation measuring device 85, 91 for measuring the pellicle PE), the apparatus comprising:
a sensor (Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91), wherein the sensor is configured to measure a property associated with the pellicle, the property being indicative of the pellicle condition (Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 inspects the pellicle), wherein the condition associated with the pellicle is one or more selected from: lifetime of the pellicle, integrity of the pellicle, a defect in the pellicle, a local transmission change of the pellicle, a stain on the pellicle, a deformation of the pellicle, an impending rupture of the pellicle, a rupture of the pellicle, and/or the presence of the pellicle (Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 inspects the pellicle to determine deformation). Sato does not appear to explicitly describe a controller or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors, to cause active control of power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature.
Anonymous 639 discloses active control of power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature (Figure 1, page 2, third paragraph-page 3, split exposure operation controls the radiating beam power and is employed to limit the measured temperature increase of the pellicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included active control of power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature as taught by Anonymous 639 in the apparatus as taught by Sato since including active control of power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature is commonly used to avoid pellicle damage due to heating during EUV exposure while maintaining the desired throughput (Anonymous 639, page 2, second paragraph, third paragraph, page 3).
Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 does not appear to explicitly describe a controller or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors, to cause the active control of power of the radiation beam.
Van De Kerkhof discloses a controller or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors to cause the active control of power of the radiation beam (Figs. 1-5, paras. [0008], [0036]-[0040], [0047], the control unit CU controls the output of source SO, or controls the width of the illumination slit, or scan speed or setting of variable attenuator to control the dose based on heating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a controller or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors to cause the active control of power of the radiation beam as taught by Van De Kerkhof in the apparatus as taught by Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 since including a controller or a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, when executed by one or more processors, configured to cause the one or more processors to cause the active control of power of the radiation beam is commonly used to automatically control operations in an apparatus to reduce the effects of non-uniform heating (Van De Kerkhof, para. [0006]) with improved throughput.
Regarding claim 26, Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view of Van De Kerkhof discloses wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the one or more processors to cause activation of a split exposure scheme based on a temperature measurement (Anonymous 639, Figure 1, page 2, third paragraph, page 3, split exposure operation is employed to limit the measured temperature increase of the pellicle, and as modified by Van De Kerkhof, Figs. 1-5, paras. [0008], [0036]-[0040], [0047], the control unit CU).
Regarding claim 29, Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view of Van De Kerkhof discloses wherein the sensor is configured to be located at an angle of incidence with respect to the pellicle of at least 45° (Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 inspects the pellicle and is arranged with an angle of incidence of at least 45° as the deformation measuring device 85, 91 faces the pellicle PE).
Regarding claim 30, Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view of Van De Kerkhof discloses configured such that the pellicle is illuminated with radiation over a predefined pellicle area and the sensor is configured to measure the radiation reflected from the pellicle (the limitation “configured such that the pellicle is illuminated with radiation over a predefined pellicle area” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the device that does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the apparatus disclosed by Sato. See MPEP 2114. Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], the deformation measuring device 85, 91 measures the deformation of the pellicle PE by projecting light and receiving the light reflected from the surface of the pellicle PE at a detector).
Regarding claim 31, Sato as modified by Anonymous by 639 in view of Van De Kerkhof discloses configured to successively illuminate predefined pellicle areas with radiation (the limitation “configured to successively illuminate predefined pellicle areas with radiation” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the device that does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the apparatus disclosed by Sato. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], the deformation measuring device 85, 91 measures the deformation of the pellicle PE by projecting light and receiving the light reflected from the surface of the pellicle PE at a detector, and the deformation of the pellicle PE is stored and compared with later measurements).
Regarding claim 32, Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view of Van De Kerkhof discloses wherein the predefined pellicle areas are an illumination line (Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], the deformation measuring device 85, 91 measures the deformation of the pellicle PE by projecting light to the pellicle).
Regarding claim 33, Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view of Van De Kerkhof discloses wherein the illumination line is formed from a plane of illumination intersecting with the pellicle (Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], the deformation measuring device 85, 91 project light to the pellicle in a line formed from a plane of illumination intersecting the surface of the pellicle PE).
Regarding claim 34, Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view of Van De Kerkhof discloses configured to illuminate the pellicle at an angle of incidence with respect to the pellicle of at least 45° (Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 inspects the pellicle and is arranged with an angle of incidence of at least 45° as the deformation measuring device 85, 91 faces the pellicle PE).
Regarding claim 35, Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view of Van De Kerkhof discloses wherein the sensor is orientated so as to not be in the path of specular reflection from the pellicle (Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 inspects the pellicle and is arranged facing the pellicle PE).
Regarding claim 36, Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view of Van De Kerkhof discloses wherein the sensor is orientated perpendicularly to an illuminating plane (Sato, Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 is arranged perpendicular to the illumination plane of the pellicle PE).
Regarding claim 38, Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view of Van De Kerkhof discloses an assembly comprising an apparatus according to claim 21 (see claim 21 rejection above, Figs. 1-4, 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089]-[0095], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], the exposure apparatus 1 with deformation measuring device 85, 91) and a lithographic apparatus (Figs. 1-4, 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089]-[0095], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], the exposure apparatus 1), the lithographic apparatus comprising:
an illumination system configured to condition a radiation beam (Sato, Fig. 1, paras. [0034]-[0038], [0054], the exposure apparatus 1 includes an illumination optical system 2 that illuminates mask M with a light beam LB);
a support structure constructed to support a patterning device, the patterning device being capable of imparting the radiation beam with a pattern in its cross-section to form a patterned radiation beam (Sato, Fig. 1, paras. [0035]-[0038], [0040]-[0042], [0064], the mask holder 51 holds mask M, and the mask M patterns the light beam);
a substrate table constructed to hold a substrate (Sato, Fig. 1, paras. [0046]-[0047], [0049]-[0050], [0106]-[0107], wafer holder 61 holds wafer W); and
a projection system configured to project the patterned radiation beam onto the substrate (Sato, Fig. 1, paras. [0036], [0044]-[0045], [0054], projection optical system 3 projects the beam patterned by mask M onto the wafer W).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Prejean et al. (US PGPub 2010/0012828, Prejean hereinafter).
Regarding claim 22, Sato as modified Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band is 2-8 µm.
Prejean discloses a sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band of 2-8 µm (para. [0022], the CCD senses infrared radiation in the 1.0 to 5.0 micron range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band of 2-8 µm as taught by Prejean as the wavelength band of infrared emission detected by the sensor in the apparatus as taught by Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof since including a sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band of 2-8 µm is commonly used to provide the desired infrared spectrum detection for thermal imaging to determine failure analysis (Prejean, para. [0004]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Anonymous (RD 618001, “Reticle-pellicle cooling, conditioning and monitoring for high-power absorption,” published October 2015; copy included with the 7/5/2024 Office Action).
Regarding claim 23, Sato as by modified Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the sensor is configured to measure an infrared (IR) emission differential.
Anonymous discloses wherein the sensor is configured to measure an infrared (IR) emission differential (Fig. 3, page 4, the infrared camera measures the infrared emission by the pellicle, and the illuminated regions of the pellicle increase in temperature while the non-illuminated regions adapt to the temperature of the reticle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the sensor is configured to measure an infrared (IR) emission differential as taught by Anonymous in the apparatus as taught by Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof since including wherein the sensor is configured to measure an infrared (IR) emission differential is used to control the temperature variation of the pellicle and to infer the temperature of the reticle and control reticle temperature over the surface area of the reticle to reduce errors (Anonymous, page 2, paragraphs 1-2, page 4).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Jimenez et al. (US Patent No. 6,211,560, Jimenez hereinafter).
Regarding claim 24, Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the sensor comprises a photodiode configured to provide a bias voltage that is scannable to establish an infrared emission spectrum.
Jimenez discloses wherein the sensor comprises a photodiode configured to provide a bias voltage that is scannable to establish an infrared emission spectrum (Fig. 3, 7, abstract, col. 2, lines 1-22, 59-67, col. 3, lines 1-9, col. 4, line 65-col. 5, line 22, col. 7, lines 25-51, col. 9, lines 54-64, the voltage is tunable in the Schottky diode infrared detector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the sensor comprises a photodiode configured to provide a bias voltage that is scannable to establish an infrared emission spectrum as taught by Jimenez as the sensor in the apparatus as taught by Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof since including wherein the sensor comprises a photodiode configured to provide a bias voltage that is scannable to establish an infrared emission spectrum is commonly used to provide a tunable detector responsive to different wavelength bands without additional external connections (Jimenez, col. 1, lines 54-67, col. 2, lines 1-27), thereby simplifying the apparatus.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ookawa (US Patent No. 6,353,223).
Regarding claim 27, Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof does not appear to explicitly describe comprising at least one transparent layer that allows infrared (IR) radiation to pass.
Ookawa discloses at least one transparent layer that allows infrared (IR) radiation to pass (Figs. 1, 3, 5, 8, col. 1, lines 34-37, col. 2, lines 40-49, col. 4, lines 56-62, infrared window 21 permits the passage of infrared radiation to an infrared detector 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included at least one transparent layer that allows infrared (IR) radiation to pass as taught by Ookawa in the apparatus as taught by Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof since including at least one transparent layer that allows infrared (IR) radiation to pass is commonly used to protect the sensor while permitting infrared detection.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Takehisa et al. (US PGPub 2015/0293460, Takehisa hereinafter).
Regarding claim 37, Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof does not appear to recite wherein the sensor is not in direct line of sight of the pellicle.
Takehisa discloses wherein the sensor is not in direct line of sight of the pellicle (Figs. 1, 8-9, paras. [0064]-[0067], detector 99 is not in direct line of sight of the pellicle 95a since the illumination beam reflected by the pellicle is reflected by polygon mirror 93 and quarter wave plate 92 to light detector 99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the sensor is not in direct line of sight of the pellicle as taught by Takehisa as the arrangement of the sensor in the assembly as taught by Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 in view Van De Kerkhof and Van De Kerkhof since including wherein the sensor is not in direct line of sight of the pellicle is commonly used to inspect a pellicle at a high speed (Takehisa, para. [0067]).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US PGPub 2002/0126269) in view of Anonymous (RD 639010, “Split exposure to reduce peak pellicle temperature,” Anonymous 639 hereinafter; included with 7/5/2024 Office Action).
Regarding claim 39, Sato discloses a method of determining a condition associated with a pellicle for use in a lithographic apparatus (Figs. 1-4, 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089]-[0095], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], the exposure apparatus 1 includes a deformation measuring device 85, 91 for measuring the pellicle PE), the method comprising:
measuring a property associated with the pellicle using a sensor (Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 inspects the pellicle), wherein the condition associated with the pellicle is one or more selected from: lifetime of the pellicle, integrity of the pellicle, a defect in the pellicle, a local transmission change of the pellicle, a stain on the pellicle, a deformation of the pellicle, an impending rupture of the pellicle, a rupture of the pellicle, and/or the presence of the pellicle within a frame (Figs. 3 and 6, paras. [0072]-[0077], [0089], [0091], [0094], [0147], [0150], [0155]-[0156], [0159], deformation measuring device 85, 91 inspects the pellicle to determine deformation). Sato does not appear to explicitly describe actively controlling power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature.
Anonymous 639 discloses actively controlling power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature (Figure 1, page 2, third paragraph-page 3, split exposure operation controls the radiating beam power and is employed to limit the measured temperature increase of the pellicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included actively controlling power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature as taught by Anonymous 639 in the method as taught by Sato since including actively controlling power of a radiation beam to maintain the pellicle at a predetermined temperature is commonly used to avoid pellicle damage due to heating during EUV exposure while maintaining the desired throughput (Anonymous 639, page 2, second paragraph, third paragraph, page 3).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Prejean et al. (US PGPub 2010/0012828, Prejean hereinafter).
Regarding claim 40, Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band is 2-8 µm.
Prejean discloses a sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band of 2-8 µm (para. [0022], the CCD senses infrared radiation in the 1.0 to 5.0 micron range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band of 2-8 µm as taught by Prejean in the method as taught by Sato as modified by Anonymous 639 since including a sensor is configured to measure an intensity of infrared (IR) emission in a wavelength band of 2-8 µm is commonly used to provide the desired infrared spectrum detection for thermal imaging to determine failure analysis (Prejean, para. [0004]).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamono (US PGPub 2002/0192579) in view of Tokawa (JP2004-271952).
Regarding claim 41, Kamono discloses an apparatus for determining a condition associated with a pellicle for use in a lithographic apparatus (Figs. 1-6 and 14), the apparatus comprising a sensor, wherein the sensor is configured to measure a property associated with the pellicle (Fig. 14, paras. [0175]-[0178], sensor 1401), the property being indicative of the pellicle condition (Fig. 14, paras. [0175]-[0178], sensor 1401 measures the flexure of the pellicle 26), and wherein the sensor comprises a capacitive sensor configured to interact with the pellicle (Fig. 14, paras. [0175]-[0178], sensor 1401 is a capacitance sensor that measures the flexure of the pellicle 26), wherein a frame comprises the pellicle (Fig. 14, paras. [0081], [0175]-[0178], support frame 25). Kamono does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the frame affixed to the pellicle, or a movable carrier to envelop the pellicle and the frame, comprises the sensor.
Tokawa discloses a capacitive sensor and wherein a frame comprises the pellicle, wherein the frame affixed to the pellicle (Figs. 1-2, 4-7, para. [0016], pellicle 4 is affixed to pellicle frame 6), or a movable carrier to envelop the pellicle and the frame, comprises the sensor (Figs. 1-7, paras. [0020]-[0023], [0026], [0036], [0044], capacitance sensors 28 and 38 are arranged in the gas supply unit 14 and gas exhaust unit 16 for pellicle 4. The gas supply unit 14 and gas exhaust unit 16 are rectangle rods longer than the sides of the pellicle frame 6 with pellicle 4 (see para. [0020]). Handling mechanism 200 including the gas supply unit 14 and gas exhaust unit 16 is movable (see para. [0036])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the frame affixed to the pellicle, or a movable carrier to envelop the pellicle and the frame, comprises the sensor Tokawa in the apparatus as taught by Kamono since including wherein the frame affixed to the pellicle, or a movable carrier to envelop the pellicle and the frame, comprises the sensor is commonly used to provide a compact sensor arrangement in the apparatus.
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamono (US PGPub 2002/0192579) in view of Shu et a. (US PGPub 2004/0194556, Shu hereinafter).
Regarding claim 41, Kamono discloses an apparatus for determining a condition associated with a pellicle for use in a lithographic apparatus (Figs. 1-6 and 14), the apparatus comprising a sensor, wherein the sensor is configured to measure a property associated with the pellicle (Fig. 14, paras. [0175]-[0178], sensor 1401), the property being indicative of the pellicle condition (Fig. 14, paras. [0175]-[0178], sensor 1401 measures the flexure of the pellicle 26), and wherein the sensor comprises a capacitive sensor configured to interact with the pellicle (Fig. 14, paras. [0175]-[0178], sensor 1401 is a capacitance sensor that measures the flexure of the pellicle 26), wherein a frame comprises the pellicle (Fig. 14, paras. [0081], [0175]-[0178], support frame 25). Kamono does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the frame affixed to the pellicle, or a movable carrier to envelop the pellicle and the frame, comprises the sensor.
Shu discloses wherein a frame comprises the pellicle, and wherein the frame affixed to the pellicle, or a movable carrier to envelop the pellicle and the frame, comprises the sensor (Figs. 1, 4, paras. [0016]-[0022], the pellicle 106 is mounted to frame 110, and frame 110 includes at least sensors 102F-102H, 102J, 102L, 102V, 102K, 102I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the frame affixed to the pellicle, or a movable carrier to envelop the pellicle and the frame, comprises the sensor as taught by Shu in the apparatus as taught by Kamono since including wherein the frame affixed to the pellicle, or a movable carrier to envelop the pellicle and the frame, comprises the sensor is commonly used to permit accurate in-situ measurements when the pellicle is mounted to the frame and to provide information on frame deformation (Shu, abstract, paras. [0014], [0022]).
Regarding claim 42, Kamono as modified by Shu discloses wherein the frame comprises the sensor (Kamono, Fig. 14, paras. [0081], [0175]-[0178], support frame 25, as modified by Shu, Figs. 1, 4, paras. [0016]-[0022], the pellicle 106 is mounted to frame 110, and frame 110 includes at least sensors 102F-102H, 102J, 102L, 102V, 102K, 102I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-24, 26-27, 29-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 16 that Kamono as modified by Tokawa fails to suggest “a capacitive sensor configured to interact with the pellicle, wherein a frame comprises the pellicle, and wherein the frame affixed to the pellicle, or a movable carrier to envelop the pellicle and the frame comprises the sensor” as recited in claim 41. The Applicant contends that the capacitance sensors 28 and 38 in Tokawa are not arranged in the frame or a movable carrier as claimed, and the Applicant alleges the handling mechanism 200 is not a frame affixed to the pellicle and is not “a movable carrier to envelop the pellicle and the frame.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In para. [0020], Tokawa discloses handling mechanism 200 includes gas supply unit 14 and gas exhaust unit 16, which are longer than the pellicle frame 6 with pellicle 4 and extend below the pellicle frame 6 and pellicle 4, and para. [0023] describes that the gas supply unit 14 is provided with capacitance sensors 28, and para. [0026] describes that gas exhaust 16 includes capacitance sensors 38. Tokawa further describes that the photomask 100 is moved by the handling mechanism 200 in para. [0036]. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Tokawa discloses a capacitive sensor and wherein a frame comprises the pellicle, wherein the frame affixed to the pellicle (Figs. 1-2, 4-7, para. [0016], pellicle 4 is affixed to pellicle frame 6), or a movable carrier to envelop the pellicle and the frame, comprises the sensor (Figs. 1-7, paras. [0020]-[0023], [0026], [0036], [0044], capacitance sensors 28 and 38 are arranged in the gas supply unit 14 and gas exhaust unit 16 for pellicle 4. The gas supply unit 14 and gas exhaust unit 16 are rectangle rods longer than the sides of the pellicle frame 6 with pellicle 4 (see para. [0020]). Handling mechanism 200 including the gas supply unit 14 and gas exhaust unit 16 is movable (see para. [0036])). The claim language, as drafted, does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the structure suggested by Kamono as modified by Tokawa under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant’s arguments on this point have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
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 CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571)272-2303. 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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights