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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were filed on 19 March 2025 and 01 May 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and therefore is considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0235049 A1 by Daimian Wang (herein after “Wang”) in view of US 2018/0070040 A1 by Yung-Ho Alex Chuang et al. (herein after “Chuang”). Examiner notes the reference Wang was cited in the IDS filed 19 March 2025.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method for inspecting photomasks (Wang abstract – inspection of EUV active reticles [photomask]), wherein a photomask is illuminated by EUV radiation emitted by an EUV radiation source and wherein EUV radiation reflected at the photomask is guided to an image sensor of an EUV camera such that the photomask is imaged on the image sensor (Wang [0023] and fig. 1 discloses an EUV light source 11 [EUV radiation source] which emits EUV radiation which is directed via a series of illumination optics 12 including condensing mirrors 17a,b to the reticle 14, where that light is reflected by the reticle and guided to EUV imaging sensor 16 and a filter 18; [0024] and fig. 1 discloses objective optics 15, where the objective optics 15 and the imaging sensor/filter pair are considered the EUV camera) , and wherein the EUV radiation passes through a pellicle arranged between [the photomask] and the image sensor (Wang figs. 1-2 and [0024] discloses a spectral purity filter SPF (see [0004]) [here, the pellicle] 18 positioned proximate to the EUV image sensor; the term “pellicle” in the claim is an abnormal one in the field of EUV photolithography, but in this case, consistent with the description of pellicle in applicant’s specification, it is a protective layer between the mask and the image sensor (see Wang [0036] and at least applicant’s specification page 4 ll. 20-22)).
Wang is silent to wherein EUV radiation reflected at the photomask is guided via a projection lens to an image sensor of an EUV camera, and wherein the EUV radiation passes through a pellicle arranged between the projection lens and the image sensor.
However, Chuang does address this limitation. Wang and Chuang are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are in the same field of photomask inspection via EUV optical systems.
Chuang discloses “wherein EUV radiation reflected at the photomask is guided via a projection lens to an image sensor of an EUV camera, and wherein the EUV radiation passes through a pellicle arranged between the projection lens and the image sensor” (Chuang is generally directed to inspecting photomasks, reticles, etc., as is the current invention and Wang; fig. 2A and [0031] discloses an inspection system comprising a UV light source directing light to a photomask 211, where that light is reflected and collected by lenses 212/213 [projection lens] where the radiation is then directed to the sensor 215; given the geometry of the pellicle and EUV image sensor of Wang, the lenses 212/213 of Chuang serve as intermediaries between the photomask and the EUV image sensor, such that the pellicle is arranged between the projection lens and the image sensor]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate wherein EUV radiation reflected at the photomask is guided via a projection lens to an image sensor of an EUV camera, and wherein the EUV radiation passes through a pellicle arranged between the projection lens and the image sensor as suggested by Chuang for the advantage of collecting light scattered from the sample and directing said light to the sensor, reducing light lost after interaction with the photomask (Chuang [0031]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang when modified by Chuang discloses the method of claim 1, and Wang further teaches the method wherein the EUV radiation passes through the pellicle exactly once between the EUV radiation source and the image sensor (Wang fig. 1 shows the termination of the EUV radiation emitted by the radiation source at the image sensor, therefore the light passes through the SPF [pellicle] only once before detection).
Regarding claim 3, Wang when modified by Chuang discloses the method of claim 1, and Wang further teaches the method wherein the pellicle is a constituent part of the EUV camera (Wang figs. 1-2 and [0025]-[0026] discloses the SPF [pellicle] being located directly on or proximate to imaging sensor 16, and may be on a window/mirror/etc. within the objective optics 15 [as the EUV camera covers the objective optics and image sensor, the pellicle is considered as a constituent part of the EUV camera]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang when modified by Chuang discloses the method of claim 1. Wang is silent to the method wherein a first EUV image recording is recorded by the EUV camera, the photomask being displaced relative to the incident EUV radiation and a second EUV image recording being recorded subsequently.
However, Chuang does address this limitation.
Chuang discloses the method of claim 1, “wherein a first EUV image recording is recorded by the EUV camera, the photomask being displaced relative to the incident EUV radiation and a second EUV image recording being recorded subsequently” (Chuang [0036] and fig. 3A show an instrument 320 which provides relative motion between the beams and the sample, so that spots are scanned across the surface of sample 308; Chuang claim 3 is directed to generating first and second confocal images from the sample into the detector – i.e. images are captured sequentially as the photomask is displaced relative to the incident radiation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate wherein a first EUV image recording is recorded by the EUV camera, the photomask being displaced relative to the incident EUV radiation and a second EUV image recording being recorded subsequently as suggested by Chuang for the advantage of investigating more than just a UV beam spot size of the sample 309 by scanning the spot across the surface of the sample (Chuang [0036]), enabling a better characterization of the sample.
Claim 5-6, 9-12, 14-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of US 11,525,906 B2 by Achuta Kadambi et al. (herein after “Kadambi”).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses an EUV camera having an image sensor, the image sensor being sensitive to EUV radiation (Wang [0023] and fig. 1 discloses an EUV imaging sensor 16 [image sensor being sensitive to EUV radiation]; EUV radiation is emitted by EUV light source 11, and directed to the image sensor; [0024] discloses objective optics 15 which direct EUV light towards the image sensor [the combination of the objective optics 15 and imaging sensor 16 read on an EUV camera]), the camera being designed for the entry of EUV radiation (Wang fig. 1 shows EUV radiation being incident onto the image sensor [where “entry” of some kind must take place into the objective optics for the radiation to be incident on the image sensor]), and the EUV camera comprising a pellicle such that EUV radiation entering the EUV camera passes through the pellicle (Wang fig. 2 and [0024] discloses a spectral purity filter SPF [pellicle] separated from the image sensor by a distance, such that light entering the objective optics [EUV camera] passes through the pellicle at some point before being incident on the imaging sensor 16; additionally, [0025] the SPF may be located on a separate window within the objective optics [the location of the pellicle within the EUV camera is not fixed only to the image sensor]).
Wang is silent to a camera having a camera housing, the image sensor being held in the camera housing, and the camera housing spanning an entrance opening.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation. Wang and Kadambi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to optical systems which capture reflected light from an object and/or setting and capture an image via an image sensor.
Kadambi discloses “an EUV camera having a camera housing, the image sensor being held in the camera housing, and the camera housing spanning an entrance opening” (Kadambi fig. 3 and col 6 ll. 39-59 discloses a polarization camera 10 [camera] with an image sensor 14 positioned to capture data; the camera is seen to have a housing [camera housing] where the image sensor is held within the camera housing [held in the camera housing]; a lens 12 defines a field of view from which light can enter the camera housing [camera housing spans an entrance opening]; col 8 ll. 6-12 discloses that the camera 10 can detect light in the ultraviolet region [i.e. UV camera, where EUV is a species of UV]; fig. 3 and col 7 ll. 1-19 disclose the camera 10 where a polarization mask 16 appears in front of the image sensor 14 where this filter 16 is analogous to the spectral purity filter SPF of Wang [i.e. the claimed pellicle]; Kadambi col 9 ll. 62-67 notes that this filter 16 does not need to be directly in front of the image sensor and may instead appear in front of the lens 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate an EUV camera having a camera housing, the image sensor being held in the camera housing, and the camera housing spanning an entrance opening as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of limiting the image sensor within the camera to a specified field of view, thereby preventing stray light from impinging on the image sensor and preventing false or errant readings from the image sensor.
Regarding claim 6, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, and Wang further teaches the camera wherein the pellicle consists of a silicon material (Wang [0007] discloses the thin film SPF coating [pellicle] to include silicon or other silicon compounds).
Regarding claim 9, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, and Wang further teaches the camera wherein the image sensor is configured as a sensor array, in which the sensor area of the image sensor is spanned by a plurality of sensor components (Wang [0032] discloses that the image sensor 16, a cross section of which is shown in fig. 5B, may be a charge coupled device (CCD) or a time delayed integration (TDI) image sensor; both of those sensor types consist of sensor arrays at least in one direction [i.e. a linear CCD, or two dimensional TDI], such that the image sensor CCD or TDI would be a sensor array, such that the sensor area is spanned by a plurality of sensor components).
Regarding claim 10, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, and Wang further teaches the camera wherein the EUV camera comprises a pellicle which is smaller than the sensor area of the image sensor (while the SPF [pellicle] of Wang is shown in the box diagram of figs 1 and 2 as having the same at least width of the image sensor, a prime facie case of obviousness exists under MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Changes in Size/Proportion, such that to one of ordinary skill in the art, the size of the pellicle may be smaller relative to the sensor area of the image sensor – there is no criticality within the specification to suggest any significance to the pellicle being smaller than the sensor area of the image sensor as claimed; additionally, it is disclosed in Ward [0025] that the SPF may be found on a separate window, mirror, etc. within the objective optics proximate to but separate from the image sensor, where no specific size consistency with the sensor area of the image sensor is required in reference to said window, mirror, etc.; given these facts, a change in size/proportion for the SPF would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, given lack of evidence that the change in relative dimension would not cause the SPF to perform differently than the SPF of Wang).
Regarding claim 11, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5. Wang is silent to the EUV camera of claim 5, wherein the EUV camera comprises a plurality of pellicles.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation.
Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, “wherein the EUV camera comprises a plurality of pellicles” (Kadambi fig. 3 and col 7 ll. 1-19 disclose the camera 10; a polarization mask 16 appears in front of the image sensor 14, aligned with the pixel grid of the image sensor, where the mask is comprised of a plurality of polarization filters, as seen in fig. 3 with the shown polarization grid example; in this case, the polarization filter itself is analogous to the SPF of Wang, where the pellicle [whole mask] is comprised of a plurality of pellicles [each polarization filter within the mask]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate wherein the EUV camera comprises a plurality of pellicles as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of matching the geometry of a two-dimensional image sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of pixels with a corresponding two-dimensional mosaic filter, enabling each pixel location to obtain a desired portion of the EM spectrum as necessary (Kadambi col 7 ll. 1-17).
Regarding claim 12, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 11. Wang is silent to the EUV camera of claim 11, wherein the plurality of pellicles are arranged in a plane.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation.
Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 11, “wherein the plurality of pellicles are arranged in a plane” (Kadambi fig. 3 and col 1-19 discloses the mosaic polarization filter 16, and the shape of the plurality of pellicles are arranged within a plane, matching the array of pixels within the image sensor 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate wherein the plurality of pellicles are arranged in a plane as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of matching the geometry of a two-dimensional image sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of pixels with a corresponding two-dimensional mosaic filter, enabling each pixel location to obtain a desired portion of the EM spectrum as necessary (Kadambi col 7 ll. 1-17).
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses a measuring device for inspecting photomasks (Wang abstract – inspection of EUV active reticles [photomask]), comprising an illumination system (Wang [0023] and fig. 1 discloses illumination optics 12 [illumination system]), an EUV camera, EUV radiation emitted by the EUV radiation source being guided via the illumination system to a photomask (Wang [0023] and fig. 1 discloses EUV source 11 directing EUV radiation guided via illumination optics 12 including redirection mirrors 17a,b to reticle 14 [EUV radiation guided via illumination system to photomask]; [0024] discloses objective optics located between the reticle illumination position and an imaging sensor 16 [the objective optics and imaging sensor are taken together as being the EUV camera]), EUV radiation reflected at the photomask being guided to an image sensor of the EUV camera such that the photomask is imaged on the image sensor (Wang [0023] and fig. 1 discloses an EUV light source 11 [EUV radiation source] which emits EUV radiation which is directed via a series of illumination optics 12 including condensing mirrors 17a,b to the reticle 14, where that light is reflected by the reticle and guided to EUV imaging sensor 16, and the imaging sensor captures an image of the reticle for inspection), and the measuring device comprising a pellicle arranged between [the photomask] and the image sensor (Wang fig. 1 and [0024] disclose a spectral purity filter SPF [pellicle] positioned proximate to the EUV image sensor; the term “pellicle” in the claim is an abnormal one in the field of EUV photolithography, but in this case, consistent with the description of pellicle in applicant’s specification, it is a protective layer between the mask and the image sensor (see Wang [0036] and at least applicant’s specification page 4 ll. 20-22).
Wang is silent to a projection lens, EUV radiation reflected at the photomask being guided via the projection lens to an image sensor of the EUV camera, and the pellicle being arranged between the projection lens and the image sensor.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation. Wang and Kadambi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to optical systems which capture reflected light from an object and/or setting and capture an image via an image sensor.
Kadambi discloses “a projection lens, EUV radiation reflected at the photomask being guided via the projection lens to an image sensor of the EUV camera, and the pellicle being arranged between the projection lens and the image sensor” (Kadambi fig. 3 and col 6 ll. 39-59 discloses a polarization camera 10 and col 8 ll. 6-12 discloses the camera can detect light in the UV region; the camera comprises a lens 12 [projection lens] and directs light being reflected by an object [i.e. a photomask like that in Wang] to the image sensor 14; col 6 ll. 59 – col 7 ll. 19 discloses that the image sensor 14 has a polarization mask 16 placed between the lens 12 and the image sensor 14 [this is equivalent to the SPF of Wang, placed between the photomask and the image sensor]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate a projection lens, EUV radiation reflected at the photomask being guided via the projection lens to an image sensor of the EUV camera, and the pellicle being arranged between the projection lens and the image sensor as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of efficiently focusing light from the field of view/object being imaged directly onto the light sensitive medium of the image sensor (Kadambi col 6 ll. 49-58).
Regarding claim 15, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, and Wang further teaches wherein the pellicle comprises a silicon-containing material (Wang [0007] discloses the thin film SPF coating [pellicle] to include silicon or other silicon compounds).
Regarding claim 17, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 9. Wang is silent to the EUV camera of claim 9 wherein each sensor component comprises a plurality of pixels.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation.
Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 9, “wherein each sensor component comprises a plurality of pixels” (Kadambi col 7 ll. 1-10 discloses that the image sensor has a pixel grid [i.e. a plurality of pixels], and the polarization mask 16 (polarization mosaic) aligns with the pixel grid of the image sensor – since the mask 16 is a polarization mosaic with a plurality of different regions, the corresponding pixels associated with each region of the mosaic is a sensor component, and each comprises a plurality of pixels; additionally, arguendo, Wang recites the image sensor being a CCD or TDI, both of which are known within the art has comprising a plurality of pixels, where the pixels can be arranged within multiple sensor components formed within the image sensor, reading on the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate wherein each sensor component comprises a plurality of pixels as suggested by as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of matching the geometry of a two-dimensional image sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of pixels with a corresponding two-dimensional mosaic filter, enabling each pixel location to obtain a desired portion of the EM spectrum as necessary (Kadambi col 7 ll. 1-17).
Regarding claim 18, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the measuring device of claim 14, and Wang further teaches the measuring device wherein the pellicle is a constituent part of the EUV camera (Wang fig. 1 and [0036]; given that the SPF [pellicle] is shown and described as being positioned on or proximate to the EUV sensor, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the combination of the SPF and the EUV image sensor as the EUV camera).
Regarding claim 19, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the measuring device of claim 18. Wang is silent to the measuring device of claim 18, wherein the EUV camera comprises a plurality of pellicles.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation.
Kadambi discloses the measuring device of claim 18, “wherein the EUV camera comprises a plurality of pellicles” (Kadambi fig. 3 and col 7 ll. 1-19 disclose the camera 10; a polarization mask 16 appears in front of the image sensor 14, aligned with the pixel grid of the image sensor, where the mask is comprised of a plurality of polarization filters, as seen in fig. 3 with the shown polarization grid example; in this case, the polarization filter itself is analogous to the SPF of Wang, where the pellicle [whole mask] is comprised of a plurality of pellicles [each polarization filter within the mask]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate wherein the EUV camera comprises a plurality of pellicles as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of matching the geometry of a two-dimensional image sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of pixels with a corresponding two-dimensional mosaic filter, enabling each pixel location to obtain a desired portion of the EM spectrum as necessary (Kadambi col 7 ll. 1-17).
Regarding claim 20, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the measuring device of claim 19. Wang is silent to the measuring device of claim 19, wherein the plurality of pellicles are arranged in a plane.
However, Kadambi does address this limitation.
Kadambi discloses the measuring device of claim 19, “wherein the plurality of pellicles are arranged in a plane” (Kadambi fig. 3 and col 1-19 discloses the mosaic polarization filter 16, and the shape of the plurality of pellicles are arranged within a plane, matching the array of pixels within the image sensor 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to incorporate wherein the plurality of pellicles are arranged in a plane as suggested by Kadambi for the advantage of matching the geometry of a two-dimensional image sensor comprising a two-dimensional array of pixels with a corresponding two-dimensional mosaic filter, enabling each pixel location to obtain a desired portion of the EM spectrum as necessary (Kadambi col 7 ll. 1-17).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kadambi, and further in view of US 2017/0336591 A1 by Hideo Kobayashi (herein after “Kobayashi”).
Regarding claim 7, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5. Wang when modified by Kodambi is silent to the EUV camera of claim 5, wherein the pellicle is sealingly flush with a housing edge surrounding the entrance opening.
However, Kobayashi does address this limitation. Wang, Kadambi, and Kobayashi are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to optical systems which capture reflected light from an object and/or setting and capture an image via an image sensor (i.e. cameras).
Kobayashi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, “wherein the pellicle is sealingly flush with a housing edge surrounding the entrance opening” (as mentioned in claim 5 above, Kadambi discloses that its polarization mask 16 may be placed in front of the lens 12; Kobayashi is drawn to a polarization filter and support frame to be attached to a traditional camera; fig. 2A and [0033]- [0034] shows the polarization filter 2 between a front ring 4 and rear ring 5, and comprises external threads 12 for attachment to the imaging lens of a camera [i.e. the lens 12 of Kadambi]; for the filter 2 of Kobayashi being threaded onto the housing of the polarization camera 10 within Kadambi, the threads create a “sealingly flush” connection between the pellicle and the housing edge surrounding the entrance opening [the filter 2 is screwed into the housing in front of the lens, around the entrance opening into the EUV camera]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Kadambi to incorporate wherein the pellicle is sealingly flush with a housing edge surrounding the entrance opening as suggested by Kobayashi for the advantage of enabling easy mounting of the pellicle to the housing of the camera (Kobayashi [0034]) while the threaded feature minimizes any stray light from entering through the mounting position.
Regarding claim 8, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5. Wang when modified by Kadambi is silent to the EUV camera of claim 5, wherein the pellicle is mounted on a frame, wherein the pellicle is connected to the camera housing via the frame and wherein the frame is detachably connected to the camera housing.
However, Kobayashi does address this limitation.
Kobayashi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, “wherein the pellicle is mounted on a frame, wherein the pellicle is connected to the camera housing via the frame and wherein the frame is detachably connected to the camera housing” (as mentioned in claim 5 above, Kadambi discloses that its polarization mask 16 may be placed in front of the lens 12; Kobayashi [0033]-[0034] is drawn to a polarization filter 2 [pellicle] and camera filter frame 10 [frame] to be attached to a traditional camera [frame is detachably connected to the camera housing]; fig. 2A shows the polarization filter 2 between a front ring 4 and rear ring 5, and comprises external threads 12 for attachment to the imaging lens of a camera [i.e. the lens 12 of Kadambi]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Kadambi to incorporate wherein the pellicle is mounted on a frame, wherein the pellicle is connected to the camera housing via the frame and wherein the frame is detachably connected to the camera housing as suggested by Kobayashi for the advantage of enabling easy mounting of the pellicle to the housing of the camera (Kobayashi [0034]) while the threaded feature minimizes any stray light from entering through the mounting position.
Claims 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kadambi, and US 2021/0132490 A1 Yun-Yue Lin (herein after “Lin”).
Regarding claim 13, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 11. Wang when modified by Kadambi is silent to the EUV camera of claim 11, wherein the plurality of pellicles are held on a frame and wherein parts of the frame are arranged in front of pixel-free regions of the sensor area of the image sensor.
However, Lin does address this limitation. Wang, Kadambi, and Lin are considered to be analogous to the present invention because they are related to optical systems operating within an ultraviolet range comprising optical filters/masks/pellicles to manipulate UV light.
Lin discloses the EUV camera of claim 11, “wherein the plurality of pellicles are held on a frame and wherein parts of the frame are arranged in front of pixel-free regions of the sensor area of the image sensor” (Lin [0034] and fig. 2A disclose a pellicle structure 200; [0038] and fig. 2A discloses the pellicle 114 [analogous to the plurality of pellicles taught by the combination of Ward and Kadambi]; [0038] pellicle frame structure 206 exists to support the plurality of pellicles [frame]; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the obviousness of arranging parts of a pellicle supporting frame in front of pixel-free regions of an image sensor, so as to maximize the effectiveness of the image sensor – this is analogous to the image sensor of a camera being located directly in line with the optical path of a lens instead of the sensor being located behind the housing of the camera which is outside the optical path of the lens; the camera cannot function properly if light from the camera’s field of view is not incident on the image sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Kadambi to incorporate wherein the plurality of pellicles are held on a frame and wherein parts of the frame are arranged in front of pixel-free regions of the sensor area of the image sensor as suggested by Lin for the advantage of maximizing the pixelated regions of the image sensor able to receive light signals from the object under investigation, improving the signal strength of the image sensor.
Regarding claim 16, Wang when modified by Kadambi discloses the EUV camera of claim 5. Wang when modified by Kadambi is silent to the EUV camera of claim 5, wherein the pellicle comprises carbon nanotubes.
However, Lin does address this limitation.
Lin discloses the EUV camera of claim 5, “wherein the pellicle comprises carbon nanotubes” (Lin [0049] discloses that the pellicle membrane 222 includes a border 224, where the border contains carbon nanotubes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Kadambi to incorporate wherein the pellicle comprises carbon nanotubes as suggested by Lin for the advantage of ensuring environmental stability of the pellicle, resulting in a mechanically robust pellicle (Lin [0015]).
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.
Claims 1 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/639,028 (reference application 1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, all of the limitations of instant claim 1 are taught by claim 14 of the reference application.
Regarding claim 14, all of the limitations of instant claim 14 are taught by claim 1 of the reference application 1.
Claims 1 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/638,890 (reference application 2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, all of the limitations of instant claim 1 are taught by claim 12 of the reference application 2.
Regarding claim 14, all of the limitations of instant claim 14 are taught by claim 1 of the reference application 2.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The following document(s) were considered but not relied up on for the rejection set forth in this action:
US 2025/0004362 A1 by Franciscus Theodorus Agricola et al.
US 2024/0280502 A1 by Minoru Hosomi
US 2022/0155675 A1 by Ilya Malakhovsky et al.
US 9,915,621 B2 by Majeed A. Foad et al.
US 2017/0256045 A1 by Hiroki Miyai et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA M CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0065. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/JOSHUA M CARLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877