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 12/11/2025, which amended claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 42, 51, 55 and cancelled claim 2 and added new claim 67. Claims 1, 3-15, 41-43, 51, 55, and 67 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 42 and 67 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 42, line 9, “the at least displacement sensor” should be changed to --the at least one displacement sensor-- to improve grammar.
Claim 67, line 1, “wherein the at least displacement sensor” should be changed to --wherein the at least one displacement sensor-- to improve grammar.
Appropriate correction is required to place claims in better form.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one preparing mechanism configured to reduce adhesion of the particles to the component” in lines 9-11 in claim 1; “at least one removing mechanism configured to remove particles from the component” in lines 12-14 in claim 1; “a plurality of removing mechanisms configured to remove particles from the component” in lines 14-15 in claim 1; “at least one separation module configured to remove particles from the component” in lines 2-3 in claim 3; “a plurality of separation modules” in line 4 in claim 5; “at least one separation module” in line 5 in claim 5; “at least one preparation module configured to reduce adhesion of particles to the component” in lines 5-6 in claim 5; “a heat generating mechanism configured to generate heat to dry the component and/or the particles in a vacuum environment” in lines 2-3 in claim 8; “a plasma generating mechanism configured to generate a plasma adjacent to or around the component” in lines 2-3 in claim 12; “at least one removing mechanism configured to remove particles from the component” in lines 6-7 in claim 51; “at least one preparing mechanism configured to reduce adhesion of the particles to the component” in lines 7-10 in claim 51; “a plurality of removing mechanisms configured to remove particles from the component” in lines 11-12 in claim 51.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Numanami (JP2012-211951, cited in 1/12/2024 IDS; English translation attached with this action).
Regarding claim 1, Numanami discloses an apparatus for cleaning a component for use in a lithographic apparatus (Figs. 1-4, page 3, a cleaning apparatus 1 cleans a photomask substrate), the apparatus comprising a plurality of cleaning modules (Figs. 1-4, page 3, the cleaning apparatus 1 includes multiple units 2-4),
wherein the apparatus is configured such that the component is passable through the plurality of cleaning modules sequentially to be cleaned (Figs. 1-3, pages 3-5, the photomask substrate is transported to each unit 2, 3, 4, by transport means 5a,-5c),
wherein the plurality of cleaning modules comprise a plurality of cleaning mechanisms (Figs. 1-3, pages 3-4, the cleaning apparatus 1 includes pretreatment unit 2, UV irradiation unit 3, and wet cleaning unit 4) , and
wherein the plurality of cleaning mechanisms comprise:
at least one preparing mechanism configured to reduce adhesion of the particles to the component in a first cleaning module of the plurality of cleaning modules and at least one removing mechanism configured to remove particles from the component in a second different cleaning module of the plurality of cleaning modules (Figs. 1-3, pages 3-4, the cleaning apparatus 1 includes pretreatment unit 2, UV irradiation unit 3, and wet cleaning unit 4), or
a plurality of removing mechanisms of different types configured to remove particles from the component (Figs. 1-3, pages 3-4, the cleaning apparatus 1 includes pretreatment unit 2, UV irradiation unit 3, and wet cleaning unit 4).
Regarding claim 3, Numanami discloses wherein the plurality of cleaning modules comprise at least one separation module configured to remove particles from the component (Figs. 1-3, abstract, pages 3-4, the cleaning apparatus 1 includes pretreatment unit 2, UV irradiation unit 3, and wet cleaning unit 4. The pretreatment unit 2, UV irradiation unit 3, and wet cleaning unit 4 remove particles from the substrate).
Regarding claim 4, Numanami discloses wherein the at least one separation module is configured to reduce adhesion of particles to the component, either during or before removing the particles from the component (Figs. 1-3, abstract, pages 3-4, pretreatment unit 2, UV irradiation unit 3, and wet cleaning unit 4 remove particles from the substrate).
Regarding claim 5, Numanami discloses wherein the cleaning modules comprise:
a plurality of separation modules (Figs. 1-3, pages 3-4, the cleaning apparatus 1 includes pretreatment unit 2, UV irradiation unit 3, and wet cleaning unit 4), and/or
at least one separation module and at least one preparation module configured to reduce adhesion of particles to the component (Figs. 1-3, abstract, pages 3-4, pretreatment unit 2, UV irradiation unit 3, and wet cleaning unit 4 remove particles from the substrate).
Regarding claim 6, Numanami discloses wherein at least one cleaning module of the plurality of cleaning modules is maintained under a vacuum or controlled gas environment (Figs. 1-3, pages 3-4, page 5, pages 6-7, Example 1, the pre-treatment unit 2 removes foreign matter from the substrate while blowing gas, and the UV irradiation unit 3 includes gas supply ports 35a, 35b to supply desired gasses to the UV radiation chamber 31 and gas discharge portion 36 to discharge gas).
Regarding claim 51, Numanami discloses a method of cleaning a component for use in a lithographic apparatus (Figs. 1-4, page 3, a cleaning apparatus 1 cleans a photomask substrate), the method comprising:
cleaning the component in a plurality of cleaning modules of an apparatus by passing the component through the plurality of cleaning modules sequentially (Figs. 1-3, pages 3-5, the photomask substrate is transported to each unit 2, 3, 4, by transport means 5a,-5c) and using:
at least one removing mechanism configured to remove particles from the component in a first cleaning module of the plurality of cleaning modules and at least one preparing mechanism configured to reduce adhesion of the particles to the component in a second different cleaning module of the plurality of cleaning modules (Figs. 1-3, pages 3-4, the cleaning apparatus 1 includes pretreatment unit 2, UV irradiation unit 3, and wet cleaning unit 4), or
a plurality of removing mechanisms of different types configured to remove particles from the component (Figs. 1-3, pages 3-4, the cleaning apparatus 1 includes pretreatment unit 2, UV irradiation unit 3, and wet cleaning unit 4).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numanami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Owa (WO02/41375, English translation included with the 7/1/2025 Office Action).
Regarding claim 7, Numanami does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one removing mechanism and/or the at least one preparing mechanism comprises a vacuum generating mechanism.
Owa discloses wherein the at least one removing mechanism and/or the at least one preparing mechanism comprises a vacuum generating mechanism (Figs. 1 and 7, pages 5-6, 9, and 11-13 of the English translation, the foreign matter removing device 12 includes a vacuum pump connected to gas suction nozzle 33 to remove foreign particles from the reticle R).
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 at least one removing mechanism and/or the at least one preparing mechanism comprises a vacuum generating mechanism as taught by Owa in the wherein the at least one removing mechanism and/or the at least one preparing mechanism in the apparatus as taught by Numanami since wherein the at least one removing mechanism and/or the at least one preparing mechanism comprises a vacuum generating mechanism is commonly used to remove minute particles to improve exposure accuracy (Owa, pgs. 2 and 6).
Claims 8, 10-12, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numanami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nikipelov et al. (WO2020/109152, Nikipelov hereinafter; cited in 1/12/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Numanami does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one preparing mechanism comprises a heat generating mechanism configured to generate heat to dry the component and/or the particles in a vacuum environment
Nikipelov discloses wherein the at least one preparing mechanism comprises a heat generating mechanism configured to generate heat to dry the component and/or the particles in a vacuum environment (Figs. 5, 9, paras. [0116], [0213], [0286]-[0290], [0312]-[0315], [0322], the membrane cleaning apparatus 900 includes a laser 914 and beam delivery system 918 to control the temperature of the membrane 211 arranged in a vacuum chamber 901).
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 at least one preparing mechanism comprises a heat generating mechanism configured to generate heat to dry the component and/or the particles in a vacuum environment as taught by Nikipelov as in the at least one preparing mechanism in the apparatus as taught by Numanami since including wherein the at least one preparing mechanism comprises a heat generating mechanism configured to generate heat to dry the component and/or the particles in a vacuum environment is used to enable effective removal of the contamination from the cleaned component.
Regarding claim 10, Numanami as modified by Nikipelov discloses wherein the heat generating mechanism comprises a radiative heater (Nikipelov, Figs. 5, 9, paras. [0116], [0213], [0286]-[0290], [0312]-[0315], [0322], the membrane cleaning apparatus 900 includes a laser 914).
Regarding claim 11, Numanami as modified by Nikipelov discloses wherein the heat generating mechanism is configured such that at least one selected from: the radiative heat towards a border of the component is below 1 W/cm2; a border of the component is in contact with a heat sink such that the border temperature remains below 400C; and/or radiative heat power density at the component is below 10 W/cm2 (Nikipelov, Figs. 5, 9, paras. [0116], [0213], [0286]-[0290], [0312]-[0316], [0321]-[0322], the laser beam 916 from laser 914 in the vacuum chamber 901 is directed to a laser sport region of the membrane 211 not directed to the frame 212, and the frame is not heated. The power density of the laser beam is between 1 W/cm2 and 10 W/cm2).
Regarding claim 12, Numanami does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one preparing mechanism comprises a plasma generating mechanism configured to generate a plasma adjacent to or around the component.
Nikipelov discloses wherein the at least one preparing mechanism comprises a plasma generating mechanism configured to generate a plasma adjacent to or around the component (Figs. 8, paras. [0098]-[0101], [0252], [0255], [0258]-[0262], [0265], [0267]-[0269], [0279]-[0282], cleaning apparatus 800 comprises a plasma generating mechanism to generate plasma 812 adjacent membrane 211).
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 at least one preparing mechanism comprises a plasma generating mechanism configured to generate a plasma adjacent to or around the component as taught by Nikipelov as the at least one preparing mechanism in the apparatus as taught by Numanami since including wherein the at least one preparing mechanism comprises a plasma generating mechanism configured to generate a plasma adjacent to or around the component is commonly used to provide improved cleaning of a surface of a membrane to be cleaned without damage to the membrane (Nikipelov, para. [0100], [0269]-[0270], [0281]).
Regarding claim 41, Numanami does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the component is at least one selected from: a pellicle, an EUV transparent film, a dynamic gas lock membrane, or an EUV spectral purity filter.
Nikipelov discloses wherein the component is at least one selected from: a pellicle, an EUV transparent film, a dynamic gas lock membrane, or an EUV spectral purity filter (Figs. 1-2, 5-14, paras. [0002], [0161]-[0164], [0168]-[0169], [0232], [0247], [0396], the cleaning apparatus cleans a pellicle membrane 211).
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 component is at least one selected from: a pellicle, an EUV transparent film, a dynamic gas lock membrane, or an EUV spectral purity filter as taught by Nikipelov as the component in the apparatus as taught by Numanami since including wherein the component is at least one selected from: a pellicle, an EUV transparent film, a dynamic gas lock membrane, or an EUV spectral purity filter is commonly used to effectively remove particles from a pellicle to prevent contamination of the patterning device in a lithography apparatus to prevent defective exposure during lithographic exposure (Nikipelov, paras. [0005]-[0008], [0161]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numanami as modified by Nikipelov as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Van Dijsseldonk et al. (US PGPub 2006/0126041, Van Dijsseldonk hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Numanami as modified by Nikipelov does not appear to explicitly describe wherein water vapor or other oxygen-containing gasses pressure in the vacuum environment has a pressure of below (1E-4 Pa).
Van Dijsseldonk discloses wherein water vapor or other oxygen-containing gasses pressure in the vacuum environment has a pressure of below (1E-4 Pa) (Fig. 2, paras. [0033], [0039], the vacuum lithography apparatus 1 is operated at vacuum conditions with a pressure for water less than 10-5 Pa).
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 water vapor or other oxygen-containing gasses pressure in the vacuum environment has a pressure of below (1E-4 Pa) as taught by Van Dijsseldonk in the apparatus as taught by Numanami as modified by Nikipelov since including wherein water vapor or other oxygen-containing gasses pressure in the vacuum environment has a pressure of below (1E-4 Pa) is commonly used to limit the exposure of parts to water particles to increase lifetime of parts and improve optical performance (Van Dijsseldonk, paras. [0003], [0006]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numanami as modified by Nikipelov as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Scaccabarozzi et al. (US PGPub 2010/0151394, Scaccabarozzi hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Numanami as modified by Nikipelov does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the plasma generating mechanism is configured to generate plasma with at least one selected from a reducing agent, hydrogen, a noble gas, a reducing agent and an oxidizing agent, and/or hydrogen and water.
Scaccabarozzi discloses wherein the plasma generating mechanism is configured to generate plasma with at least one selected from a reducing agent, hydrogen, a noble gas, a reducing agent and an oxidizing agent, and/or hydrogen and water (Figs. 2-4, paras. [0044]-[0047], [0051]-[0052], the plasma is a He plasma).
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 plasma generating mechanism is configured to generate plasma with at least one selected from a reducing agent, hydrogen, a noble gas, a reducing agent and an oxidizing agent, and/or hydrogen and water as taught by Scaccabarozzi in the plasma generating mechanism in the apparatus as taught by Numanami as modified by Nikipelov since including wherein the plasma generating mechanism is configured to generate plasma with at least one selected from a reducing agent, hydrogen, a noble gas, a reducing agent and an oxidizing agent, and/or hydrogen and water is commonly used to efficiently remove carbon-containing particles from a surface (Scaccabarozzi, paras. [0044], [0048]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numanami as modified by Nikipelov in view of Scaccabarozzi as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Dinger et al. (WO 2021/165078, Dinger hereinafter; English translation included with the 7/1/2025 Office Action).
Regarding claim 14, Numanami as modified by Nikipelov in view of Scaccabarozzi does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the plasma generating mechanism is configured to generate plasma with a reducing agent and an oxidizing agent and wherein the ratio between reducing agent and oxidizing agent is greater than 100.
Dinger discloses wherein the plasma generating mechanism is configured to generate plasma with a reducing agent and an oxidizing agent and wherein the ratio between reducing agent and oxidizing agent is greater than 100 (Figs. 1-4, pages 9, 16-17 and pages 19-20 of English translation, the plasma includes a ratio between molecular hydrogen and molecular oxygen to balance reduction and oxidation in the plasma, and the ratio is on the order of 1 ppb O2 to H2, or a ratio of greater than 100 between reducing agent and oxidizing agent).
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 plasma generating mechanism is configured to generate plasma with a reducing agent and an oxidizing agent and wherein the ratio between reducing agent and oxidizing agent is greater than 100 as taught by Dinger in the plasma generating mechanism in the apparatus as taught by Numanami as modified by Nikipelov in view of Scaccabarozzi since including wherein the plasma generating mechanism is configured to generate plasma with a reducing agent and an oxidizing agent and wherein the ratio between reducing agent and oxidizing agent is greater than 100 is commonly used to optimize plasma conditions to extend the service life of optical elements treated by the plasma (Dinger, pgs. 3-4).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numanami as modified by Nikipelov as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Moors et al. (US Patent No. 6,781,673, Moors hereinafter).
Regarding claim 15, Numanami as modified by Nikipelov does not appear to explicitly describe wherein pressure for plasma generation is in the range of 0.01 Pa to 100 Pa.
Moors discloses wherein pressure for plasma generation is in the range of 0.01 Pa to 100 Pa (col. 9, lines 22-32, the plasma is formed in an environment with a pressure on the order of 1 mbar).
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 pressure for plasma generation is in the range of 0.01 Pa to 100 Pa as taught by Moors as the pressure for plasma generation in the apparatus as taught by Numanami as modified by Nikipelov since including wherein pressure for plasma generation is in the range of 0.01 Pa to 100 Pa is commonly used to provide a plasma capable of preventing contamination of a mask (Moors, col. 9, lines 22-32).
Claims 42, 43, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelov (WO2020/109152, Nikipelov hereinafter; cited in 1/12/2024 IDS) in view of Shiraishi (WO 02/052345, English translation included with the 7/1/2025 Office Action) in view of Jeunink et al. (WO2019/137725, Jeunink hereinafter).
Regarding claim 42, Nikipelov discloses a membrane cleaning apparatus for removing particles from a membrane (Figs. 1-2, 5-14, paras. [0002], [0161]-[0164], [0168]-[0169], [0232], [0247], [0396], a membrane cleaning apparatus), the apparatus comprising:
a membrane support configured to support the membrane (Figs. 1-2, 5-14, paras. [0169], [0208], [0225], [0233], [0250]-[0251], [0287], [0314], [0316], [0321], [0331], [0346], [0355], [0367], membrane 211 is supported by a frame 212);
a time-varying electric field generator configured to induce mechanical oscillations in the membrane when supported by the membrane support, to remove particles from the membrane (Figs. 4, 5-10, 14, paras. [0029]-[0030], [0053], [0061]-[0062], [0177]-[0184], [0199]-[0209], [0219], [0239]-[0242], [0252], [0276]-[0282], [0287]-[0301], [0306]-[0311], [0342]-[0343], [0350], [0379], [0392], electric fields supplied by electrodes, such as electrodes 902a, 902b, 1002a, 1002b, 1062a, 1062b positioned to induce mechanical oscillations in the membrane 211, and are controlled to produce mechanical oscillations in the membrane by producing a time-varying electric field in the cleaning apparatus to remove particles from the membrane); and
a controller configured to control the time-varying electric field generator to alter at least one characteristic of the time-varying electric field (Figs. 4, 5-10, 14, paras. [0029]-[0030], [0053], [0061]-[0062], [0177]-[0184], [0199]-[0209], [0219], [0239]-[0242], [0252], [0276]-[0282], [0287]-[0301], [0306]-[0311], [0342]-[0343], [0350], [0362]-[0364], [0379]-[0381], [0392], the voltage source 205, 905, 1065 controls the voltage for the electrodes to control the time-varying electric field in the cleaning apparatus to remove particles from the membrane by mechanical oscillation of the membrane). Nikipelov does not appear to explicitly describe at least one displacement sensor configured to measure a displacement of the membrane relative to the membrane at rest when supported by the membrane support, the at least displacement sensor configured to measure the displacement from opposite sides of the membrane and/or to measure the displacement more frequently than 100 Hz and the controller configured to determine if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside a predetermined range.
Shiraishi discloses at least one displacement sensor configured to measure a displacement of the membrane relative to the membrane at rest when supported by the membrane support (Figs. 1, 3, pages 5, 6, 10 of English translation, pellicle surface displacement meter 48 detects the displacement of the pellicle 1 relative to a rest position when supported by pellicle frame 1 and provides the detection to control system 41 to control movement of the pellicle to prevent damage); and
a controller configured to determine if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside a predetermined range and control the cleaning causing the displacement if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside the predetermined range (Figs. 1, 3, pages 5, 6, 10, the control system 41 adjusts the exhaust speed of pump 43 and air supply speed of purge gas supply source 43 if the displacement measured by pellicle surface displacement meter 48 is outside an allowable 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 at least one displacement sensor configured to measure a displacement of the membrane relative to the membrane at rest when supported by the membrane support and the controller configured to determine if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside of a predetermined range and control the mechanism causing displacement if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside the predetermined range as taught by Shiraishi with the controller configured to control the time-varying electric field generator to alter at least one characteristic of the time-varying electric field in the membrane cleaning apparatus as taught by Nikipelov such that the controller is configured to determine if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside a predetermined range and control the time-varying electric field generator to alter at least one characteristic of the time-varying electric field if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside the predetermined range since including at least one displacement sensor configured to measure a displacement of the membrane relative to the membrane at rest when supported by the membrane support and the controller configured to determine if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside a predetermined range and control the time-varying electric field generator to alter at least one characteristic of the time-varying electric field if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside the predetermined range is commonly used to prevent damage to the pellicle while providing effective decontamination (Shiraishi, pg. 10).
Nikipelov as modified by Shiraishi does not appear to explicitly describe the at least displacement sensor configured to measure the displacement from opposite sides of the membrane and/or to measure the displacement more frequently than 100 Hz.
Jeunink discloses the at least displacement sensor configured to measure the displacement from opposite sides of the membrane and/or to measure the displacement more frequently than 100 Hz (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0040], [0053], [0067]-[0071], the pressure sensors 30 provide output measurements with a frequency of up to 200 Hz).
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 displacement sensor configured to measure the displacement from opposite sides of the membrane and/or to measure the displacement more frequently than 100 Hz as taught by Jeunink for the at least one displacement sensor in the membrane cleaning apparatus as taught by Nikipelov as modified by Shiraishi since including the at least displacement sensor configured to measure the displacement from opposite sides of the membrane and/or to measure the displacement more frequently than 100 Hz is commonly used to accurately detect dynamic pellicle deformation (Jeunink, paras. [0069]-[0071]).
Regarding claim 43, Nikipelov as modified by Shiraishi in view of Jeunink discloses wherein the at least one displacement sensor is configured to measure a displacement of at least a localized portion of the membrane relative to the localized portion of the membrane at rest (Shiraishi, Figs. 1, 3, pages 5, 6, 10 of English translation, pellicle surface displacement meter 48 uses photoelectric detector 54 to detect detection light reflected from pellicle 1, and the detection signal is used to calculate the amount of vertical displacement of the pellicle 1 to determine if the vertical displacement is in an allowable range).
Regarding claim 55, Nikipelov discloses a method of removing particles from a membrane, for use in a lithographic apparatus (Figs. 1-2, 5-14, paras. [0002], [0161]-[0164], [0168]-[0169], [0232], [0247], [0392], [0396], a membrane cleaning apparatus removes particles), the method comprising:
inducing mechanical oscillations in the membrane using a time-varying electric field, to remove particles from the membrane (Figs. 4, 5-10, 14, paras. [0029]-[0030], [0053], [0061]-[0062], [0177]-[0184], [0199]-[0209], [0219], [0239]-[0242], [0252], [0276]-[0282], [0287]-[0301], [0306]-[0311], [0342]-[0343], [0350], [0379], [0392], electric fields supplied by electrodes, such as electrodes 902a, 902b, 1002a, 1002b, 1062a, 1062b positioned to induce mechanical oscillations in the membrane 211, and are controlled to produce mechanical oscillations in the membrane by producing a time-varying electric field in the cleaning apparatus to remove particles from the membrane);
controlling at least one characteristic of the time-varying electric field (Figs. 4, 5-10, 14, paras. [0029]-[0030], [0053], [0061]-[0062], [0177]-[0184], [0199]-[0209], [0219], [0239]-[0242], [0252], [0276]-[0282], [0287]-[0301], [0306]-[0311], [0342]-[0343], [0350], [0362]-[0364], [0379]-[0381], [0392], the voltage source 205, 905, 1065 controls the voltage for the electrodes to control the time-varying electric field in the cleaning apparatus to remove particles from the membrane by mechanical oscillation of the membrane). Nikipelov does not appear to explicitly describe measuring a displacement of the membrane relative to the membrane at rest, the measuring comprising measuring the displacement from opposite sides of the membrane and/or comprising measuring the displacement more frequently than 100 Hz; determining if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside a predetermined range; and controlling if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside the predetermined range.
Shiraishi discloses measuring a displacement of the membrane relative to the membrane at rest (Figs. 1, 3, pages 5, 6, 10 of English translation, pellicle surface displacement meter 48 detects the displacement of the pellicle 1 relative to a rest position when supported by pellicle frame 1 and provides the detection to control system 41 to control movement of the pellicle to prevent damage);
determining if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside a predetermined range (Figs. 1, 3, pages 5, 6, 10, the control system 41 determines if the vertical displacement of the pellicle 1 is outside an allowable range and adjusts the exhaust speed of pump 43 and air supply speed of purge gas supply source 43); and
controlling the cleaning causing the displacement if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside the predetermined range (Figs. 1, 3, pages 5, 6, 10, the control system 41 adjusts the exhaust speed of pump 43 and air supply speed of purge gas supply source 43 if the displacement measured by pellicle surface displacement meter 48 is outside an allowable 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 measuring a displacement of the membrane relative to the membrane at rest, determining if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside a predetermined range, and controlling the cleaning causing the displacement if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside the predetermined range as taught by Shiraishi with controlling the time-varying electric field to control at least one characteristic of the time-varying electric field in the method as taught by Nikipelov such that at least one characteristic of the time-varying electric field is controlled if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside the predetermined range since including measuring a displacement of the membrane relative to the membrane at rest; determining if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside a predetermined range; and controlling at least one characteristic of the time-varying electric field if the measured displacement of the membrane is outside the predetermined range is commonly used to prevent damage to the pellicle while providing effective decontamination (Shiraishi, pg. 10).
Nikipelov as modified by Shiraishi does not appear to explicitly describe the measuring comprising measuring the displacement from opposite sides of the membrane and/or comprising measuring the displacement more frequently than 100 Hz.
Jeunink discloses the measuring comprising measuring the displacement from opposite sides of the membrane and/or comprising measuring the displacement more frequently than 100 Hz (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0040], [0053], [0067]-[0071], the pressure sensors 30 provide output measurements with a frequency of up to 200 Hz).
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 measuring comprising measuring the displacement from opposite sides of the membrane and/or comprising measuring the displacement more frequently than 100 Hz as taught by Jeunink in the measuring displacement in the method as taught by Nikipelov as modified by Shiraishi since including the measuring comprising measuring the displacement from opposite sides of the membrane and/or comprising measuring the displacement more frequently than 100 Hz is commonly used to accurately detect dynamic pellicle deformation (Jeunink, paras. [0069]-[0071]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 67 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 67, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious wherein the at least displacement sensor is configured to measure the displacement from opposite sides of the membrane. This limitation in combination with all of the other limitations of the parent claim would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Shiraishi discloses at least one displacement sensor configured to measure a displacement of the membrane relative to the membrane at rest when supported by the membrane support (Figs. 1, 3, pages 5, 6, 10 of English translation, pellicle surface displacement meter 48 detects the displacement of the pellicle 1 relative to a rest position when supported by pellicle frame 1 and provides the detection to control system 41 to control movement of the pellicle to prevent damage), but Shiraishi does not describe or suggest wherein the at least displacement sensor is configured to measure the displacement from opposite sides of the membrane.
Jeunink discloses the at least displacement sensor configured to measure the displacement more frequently than 100 Hz (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0040], [0053], [0067]-[0071], the pressure sensors 30 provide output measurements with a frequency of up to 200 Hz), but Jeunink fails to describe or render obvious wherein the at least displacement sensor is configured to measure the displacement from opposite sides of the membrane.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-15, 41-43, 51, and 55 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 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 14 that none of the claims recite “means” or “step” or a “means for” or a “step for” limitation and alleges that the identified words have known structural definitions. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the limitations do not use the word “means,” the limitations “at least one preparing mechanism configured to reduce adhesion of the particles to the component” in lines 9-11 in claim 1; “at least one removing mechanism configured to remove particles from the component” in lines 12-14 in claim 1; “a plurality of removing mechanisms configured to remove particles from the component” in lines 14-15 in claim 1; “at least one separation module configured to remove particles from the component” in lines 2-3 in claim 3; “a plurality of separation modules” in line 4 in claim 5; “at least one separation module” in line 5 in claim 5; “at least one preparation module configured to reduce adhesion of particles to the component” in lines 5-6 in claim 5; “a heat generating mechanism configured to generate heat to dry the component and/or the particles in a vacuum environment” in lines 2-3 in claim 8; “a plasma generating mechanism configured to generate a plasma adjacent to or around the component” in lines 2-3 in claim 12; “at least one removing mechanism configured to remove particles from the component” in lines 6-7 in claim 51; “at least one preparing mechanism configured to reduce adhesion of the particles to the component” in lines 7-10 in claim 51; “a plurality of removing mechanisms configured to remove particles from the component” in lines 11-12 in claim 51 use terms “mechanism” or “module,” which are generic placeholders without a specific structural meaning. See MPEP 2181, subsection I(A). The Applicant has not presented sufficient showing to establish that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the Applicant has not provided evidence or specific arguments that the terms “mechanism” and “module” have sufficiently definite meanings as the names for structures that perform the recited functions. The limitations are further modified by functional language, and they are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions. See MPEP 2181, subsection I. Therefore, the limitations are being interpreted according to 35 U.S.C. 112(f). 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