DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 16-23, 26-29, in the reply filed on July 27, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that none of the claims in any of the Groups recite “illumination system”, or “patterning the conditioned radiation beam” or “phase shift mask” or “reflective mask blank”. This is not found persuasive because Claim 24 recites “an illumination system” and also recites “produce a conditioned radiation beam”. Claim 30 recites high resolution reflectivity measurements of a patterning device and suggests a reflective mask blank or a even a phase shifting reflective mask.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 16, 19, 21-23, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0057350 (hereinafter referred to as Lu).
Lu, in paragraph nos. [0041]-[0060], and in figures 5A, 5B, and 5C, discloses a mask (patterning device), that comprises a main field (claimed imaging area, reference 250_1), and a periphery field (claimed black border area), and the mask has the claimed first sides that extend parallel to the scanning direction (X-axis. See W1 in figure 3), and two opposing second sides extending perpendicular to the scanning direction (see sides H1 in figure 3), and in figure 5C, Lu discloses an alignment mark (claimed sensing mark, reference 258_3, mark regions) that is located at a predetermined distance from the at least one second side and extends a width in the scanning direction (X-axis direction), and Lu, in [0042], discloses that the alignment marks corresponds to the alignment features (claimed projected onto the substrate) to be formed in the scribe lines (on the substrate) (claims 1, 19). Lu, in [0078]-[0079], discloses that the alignment marks are x and y fine alignment marks (distances along the X direction and the distances along the Y direction between the alignment marks are obtained in the in-chip overlay measurement to determine if the overlay-shift is present between the first lithographic exposure and the second and/or third lithographic exposure ) (claim 21). Lu, in [0043], discloses that the mask includes fiducial features (that includes coarse alignment marks or reference marks), as illustrated in figure 5A , see reference marks (fiducial features), 265_1, and are positioned in the peripheral field (edge of black border), and away from the main field (imaging area) and thereby are coverable with a reticle X-blade (claims 22-23).
Claim(s) 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0128250 (hereinafter referred to as Van Der Veen).
Van Der Veen, in the abstract, and in paragraph nos. [0027]-[0028], discloses a patterning device, and as illustrated in figure 7, discloses image fields (claimed imaging area) having opposing first sides that extend parallel to the scanning direction and opposing second sides that extend perpendicular to the scanning direction, wherein the imaging area (I1) is shifted with a first spacing (distance between the first and second image fields) in the claimed manner to the adjacent second side as illustrated in figures 7, such that a second spacing between another of the second side of the imaging area to an opposing adjacent edge is larger than the first spacing (first spacing of distance between the first and second image fields (see figure 7) is less than a second spacing) (claim 26). Van Der Veen, on page 7, left column, lines 27-29, discloses that the distance between the first image field and the second image field (claimed first spacing ) is 5mm or less (claims 27-28). Van Der Veen, in the abstract, and in paragraph nos. [0010], and in [0063]-[0064], discloses that the first reticle (patterning device) and the second reticle (another patterning device) arranged in the same plane and aligned with respect to each other such that the reticle assembly behaves as a single large reticle comprising the first and second image fields, and Van Der Veen in [0060], discloses that the distance (first spacing) between the first and second image fields can be bough as low as 0.25mm (includes the claimed first spacing) (claim 29).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0057350 (hereinafter referred to as Lu) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0260419 (hereinafter referred to as Hagiwara).
Lu is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
The difference between the claims and Lu is that Lu does not disclose the predetermined distance of the sensing mark (alignment mark) or the width of the sensing mark recited in claims 17-18.
Hagiwara, in [0095]-[0097], discloses the alignment marks (mark areas) positioned in the scanning direction (see figure 9) and away from the pattern area (imaging area) at a distance greater than 1mm and less than 6mm and includes the claimed 3mm, and that the width of the of the alignment marks are less than 200 micron (at least 22 micron in width) in the scanning direction.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Lu by employing the distance from the imaging area to position the alignment mark in the peripheral field (outside imaging area or the pattern area) and use the claimed width for the alignment mark as taught by Hagiwara, because Lu, illustrates in figure 5C that the alignment mark positioned in the scanning direction is positioned a predetermined distance away from the main field, and does not prohibit the claimed dimension for the alignment mark and Hagiwara, in [0097], discloses that the positioning the alignment mark of the claimed dimension at the claimed distance from the main field (imaging area) enables the illumination light to be irradiated on the pattern area (imaging area) without irradiating the light on the mark areas during exposure.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0057350 (hereinafter referred to as Lu) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0128250 (hereinafter referred to as Van Der Veen).
Lu is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
The difference between the claim and Lu is that Lu does not disclose that the alignment mark comprises TIS (transmission image sensor) alignment mark (claim 20).
Van Der Veen, in [0056], discloses that the alignment marks are TIS alignment marks.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled to modify Lu by using the alignment marks as TIS alignment marks as taught by Van Der Veen because Lu teaches in [0048], that the alignment marks used for verifying stitching results of multiple masks, and Van Der Veen, in [0056], discloses that the alignment sensors such as the TIS sensors detect (read) the alignment marks to determine the position of the first reticle with respect to the second reticle and use actuators to adapt the position of the first reticle with respect to the second reticle so that the first reticle and the second reticle are properly aligned with respect to each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 September 27, 2026.
Prosecution Insights