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
Acknowledgement is made that the instant application is a national stage entry of application PCT/EP2023/050198, filed on 1/5/2023, which claims priority from EP22153208, filed on 1/25/2022, EP2218953, filed on 7/8/2022, and EP22188666, filed on 8/4/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the system of claim 5 as dependent on claim 4,” in lines 1-2 is vague and indefinite. It is unclear if claim 5 or claim 4 is intended as the parent claim of claim 16; therefore, the metes and bounds of the scope of claim 16 are unclear. For the purposes of examination, claim 16 is being interpreted as depending from claim 5. Thus, claim 16 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 19, 20, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nikipelov et al. (WO2020/109152, Nikipelov hereinafter; cited by 7/3/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Nikipelov discloses a cleaning system for cleaning a component related to a lithographic process (Figs. 1, 3, 5, paras. [0002], [0159]-[0164], [0211]-[0214], [0287]-[0290], [0313]-[0327], a membrane cleaning apparatus for a lithographic apparatus), the cleaning system comprising:
at least one radiation emitter configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component (Figs. 5, 8, 9, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0252]-[0282], [0287]-[0290], [0313]-[0327], a pulsed radiation source or plasma generating mechanism irradiates a membrane 211) so as to: cause thermomechanical vibrations in the component; and/or induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component (the limitation “so as to: cause thermomechanical vibrations in the component; and/or induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the apparatus that does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the system taught by Nikipelov. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 5, 8, 9, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0252]-[0282], [0287]-[0290], [0311]-[0327], a pulsed radiation source is incident on a portion of a membrane to clean the membrane, or a plasma is used to remove contaminants).
Regarding claim 2, Nikipelov discloses a system for testing structural integrity of a component related to a lithographic process (the language “for testing structural integrity of a component related to a lithographic process” is intended use of the system that does not limit the structure of the system. See MPEP 2111.02Figs. 1, 3, 5, paras. [0002], [0159]-[0164], [0211]-[0214], [0287]-[0290], [0313]-[0327], [0330], a membrane cleaning apparatus for a lithographic apparatus), the system comprising:
at least one radiation emitter configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component so as to cause thermomechanical vibrations in the component (the limitation “so as to cause thermomechanical vibrations in the component” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the apparatus that does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the system taught by Nikipelov. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 5, 9, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0287]-[0290], [0313]-[0327], [0330], a pulsed radiation source is incident on a portion of a membrane to clean the membrane).
Regarding claim 4, Nikipelov discloses further comprising a holder configured to hold the component (Figs. 5 and 9, paras. [00166]-[0170], [0208], [0211], [0287], [0294]-[0295], [0305], [0327], conducting support 204 or support 904 supports the frame 212 and membrane assembly 208).
Regarding claim 5, Nikipelov discloses wherein the at least one radiation emitter comprises a heater configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component so as to cause thermomechanical vibrations in the component (the limitation “so as to cause thermomechanical vibrations in the component” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the apparatus that does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the system taught by Nikipelov. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 5, 9, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0287]-[0290], [0312]-[0327], [0330], a pulsed radiation source is incident on a portion of a membrane heat and clean the membrane).
Regarding claim 6, Nikipelov discloses wherein the heater is a laser (Figs. 5, 9, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0287]-[0290], [0312]-[0327], [0330], a laser 514, 914).
Regarding claim 8, Nikipelov discloses wherein radiation provided by the heater has an average power selected from between 1 mW and 200 W (Figs. 5, 9, para. [0322], the laser has a power between 1 W and 100 W).
Regarding claim 9, Nikipelov discloses wherein radiation provided by the heater is pulsed (Figs. 5, 9, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0287]-[0290], [0312]-[0327], a laser 514, 914 provides pulsed radiation).
Regarding claim 19, Nikipelov discloses wherein the at least one radiation emitter comprises an ion source configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component (the limitation “configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the apparatus that does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the system taught by Nikipelov. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 8a-c, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0252]-[0282], a plasma containing ions is used to remove contaminants from the membrane 211).
Regarding claim 20, Nikipelov discloses wherein the ion source is configured to, in use, irradiate a region of a first side of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the first side and/or a second side of the component (the limitation “so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the first side and/or a second side of the component” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the apparatus that does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the system taught by Nikipelov. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 8a-c, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0252]-[0282], a plasma containing ions is used to remove contaminants from the membrane 211).
Regarding claim 30, Nikipelov discloses a method of cleaning a component related to a lithographic process (Figs. 1, 3, 5, paras. [0002], [0159]-[0164], [0211]-[0214], [0287]-[0290], [0313]-[0327], a membrane cleaning apparatus for a lithographic apparatus), the method comprising irradiating a region of the component so as to:
induce thermomechanical vibrations in the component; and / or induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component (Figs. 5, 8, 9, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0252]-[0282], [0287]-[0290], [0311]-[0327], a pulsed radiation source is incident on a portion of a membrane to clean the membrane, or a plasma is used to remove contaminants).
Regarding claim 31, Nikipelov discloses a method of testing the structural integrity of a component related to a lithographic processing (the language “for testing structural integrity of a component related to a lithographic process” is intended use of the system that does not limit result in a manipulative difference of the process claim. See MPEP 2111.02. Figs. 1, 3, 5, paras. [0002], [0159]-[0164], [0211]-[0214], [0287]-[0290], [0313]-[0327], [0330], a membrane cleaning apparatus for a lithographic apparatus), the method comprising irradiating a region of the component so as to induce thermomechanical vibrations in the component (Figs. 5, 9, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0287]-[0290], [0311]-[0327], a pulsed radiation source is incident on a portion of a membrane to clean the membrane).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelov as applied to claims 5 and 9 above, and further in view of Elliott et al. (US Patent No. 5,669,979, Elliott hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, although Nikipelov discloses wherein radiation provided by the heater has a frequency (Figs. 5, 9, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0287]-[0290], [0312]-[0327], [0330], a pulsed radiation source is incident on a portion of a membrane heat and clean the membrane), Nikipelov does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the frequency is within the range of 300 GHz to 4300 THz.
Elliott discloses wherein radiation provided by the heater has a frequency from within the range of 300 GHz to 4300 THz (col. 26, lines 1-18, a 248 nm wavelength laser cleans the pellicle surface).
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 radiation provided by the heater has a frequency from within the range of 300 GHz to 4300 THz as taught by Elliott as the frequency range of the radiation provided by the heater in the system as taught by Nikipelov since including wherein radiation provided by the heater has a frequency from within the range of 300 GHz to 4300 THz is commonly used to clean a surface of the pellicle without damaging the pellicle (Elliott, col. 26, lines 1-18).
Regarding claim 10, although Nikipelov discloses wherein the radiation provided has a pulse frequency (Figs. 5, 9, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0287]-[0290], [0312]-[0327], [0330], a pulsed radiation source is incident on a portion of a membrane heat and clean the membrane), Nikipelov does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the radiation has a pulse frequency selected from between 1 Hz and 1 MHz.
Elliott discloses wherein the radiation has a pulse frequency selected from between 1 Hz and 1 MHz (col. 13, lines 61-67, col. 14, lines 1-12, the laser pulse rate is 175 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 wherein the radiation has a pulse frequency selected from between 1 Hz and 1 MHz as taught by Elliott as the pulse frequency of the radiation in the system as taught by Nikipelov since including wherein the radiation has a pulse frequency selected from between 1 Hz and 1 MHz is commonly used to control the parameters of the beam as desired to clean a surface without damage to the surface (Elliott, col. 6, lines 6-26).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelov as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US PGPub 2022/0317562, Liu hereinafter).
Regarding claim 13, Nikipelov does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the heater is configured to provide a plurality of radiation beams.
Liu discloses wherein the heater is configured to provide a plurality of radiation beams (Figs. 5, 7, 8, paras. [0035], [0041], [0044]-[0047], [0050], [0071], the light source emits beams in a multiple-optical trap to remove particles from the pellicle membrane 112).
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 heater is configured to provide a plurality of radiation beams as taught by Liu in the system as taught by Nikipelov since including wherein the heater is configured to provide a plurality of radiation beams is commonly used to improve the efficiency of removing particles from the pellicle (Liu, para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, Nikipelov as modified by Liu discloses wherein the heater comprises one or more beam splitting and/or redirecting optics to generate one or more beams of the plurality of radiation beams (Liu, Figs. 5, 7, 8, paras. [0035], [0041], [0044]-[0047], [0050], [0071], a spatial light modulator 124 produces light beams).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelov as modified by Liu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sogard (US PGPub 2006/0077361).
Regarding claim 14, Nikipelov as modified by Liu does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the heater comprises a plurality of heaters to generate one or more beams of the plurality of radiation beams.
Sogard discloses wherein the heater comprises a plurality of heaters to generate one or more beams of the plurality of radiation beams (Figs. 1A-C, 7-8, 10-11, paras. [0035], [0052], [0055]-[0057], laser beams 10 and 20, 710A and 720A, 810 and 820, 1010 and 1020 are incident on the membrane).
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 heater comprises a plurality of heaters to generate one or more beams of the plurality of radiation beams as taught by Sogard as the heater in the system as taught by Nikipelov as modified by Liu since including wherein the heater comprises a plurality of heaters to generate one or more beams of the plurality of radiation beams is commonly used to enhance particle removal from both sides of a membrane (Sogard, paras. [0017]-[0018], [0056]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelov as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Peters et al. (US PGPub 2021/0271159, Peters hereinafter).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Nikipelov does not appear to explicitly describe further comprising a plurality of holders, each configured to hold a component of a plurality of components, and wherein the heater is configured to, in use, heat a region of a respective component of the plurality of respective components.
Peters discloses a plurality of holders, each configured to hold a component of a plurality of components, and wherein the heater is configured to, in use, heat a region of a respective component of the plurality of respective components (Figs. 4a-b and 5a-b, paras. [0024], [0027], [0085]-[0087], [0091]-[0096], a carousel 402 includes storage areas 404, 406, 408, 410 for storing pellicle cassettes with pellicles, and a heater is provided to the carousel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a plurality of holders, each configured to hold a component of a plurality of components, and wherein the heater is configured to, in use, heat a region of a respective component of the plurality of respective components as taught by Peters in the system as taught by Nikipelov since including a plurality of holders, each configured to hold a component of a plurality of components, and wherein the heater is configured to, in use, heat a region of a respective component of the plurality of respective components is commonly used to provide support during assembly of pellicle cassettes (Peters, paras. [0027], [0091]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelov as modified by Peters as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of LeClaire et al. (US PGPub 2009/0038637, LeClaire hereinafter).
Regarding claim 18, Nikipelov as modified by Peters does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the heater is configured to heat different ones of the plurality of components with different wavelengths.
LeClaire discloses wherein the heater is configured to heat different ones of the plurality of components with different wavelengths (paras. [0064], multiple laser sources or a tunable laser provide multiple wavelengths).
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 heater is configured to heat different ones of the plurality of components with different wavelengths as taught by LeClaire as the heater in the system comprising a plurality of holders as taught by Nikipelov as modified by Peters since including wherein the heater is configured to heat different ones of the plurality of components with different wavelengths is commonly used to facilitate cleaning different contamination materials from a surface while reducing surface damage during cleaning (LeClaire, paras. [0064], [0071]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Platzgummer et al. (GB2399676, Platzgummer hereinafter; cited by 7/3/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 19, a further interpretation of Nikipelov does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one radiation emitter comprises an ion source configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component.
Platzgummer discloses an ion source configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component (Figs. 1-6, abstract, page 6, and page 9, an ion beam is used to sputter clean or remove material).
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 an ion source configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component as taught by Platzgummer as the at least one radiation emitter in the system as taught by Nikipelov since including wherein the at least one radiation emitter comprises an ion source configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component is commonly used to effectively control localized removal of material (Platzgummer, page 6, 4th full paragraph, page 9, first paragraph, fifth paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, Nikipelov as modified by Platzgummer discloses wherein the ion source is configured to, in use, irradiate a region of a first side of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the first side and/or a second side of the component (Nikipelov, Figs. 8a-c, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0252]-[0282], a plasma containing ions is used to remove contaminants from the membrane 211, and as modified by Platzgummer, Figs. 1-6, abstract, page 6, and page 9, an ion beam is used to sputter clean or remove material from one side of a component).
Regarding claim 22, Nikipelov discloses wherein the at least one radiation emitter comprises: a heater configured to, in use, heat a region of the component so as to cause thermomechanical vibrations in the component (the limitation “so as to cause thermomechanical vibrations in the component” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the apparatus that does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the system taught by Nikipelov. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 5, 9, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0287]-[0290], [0312]-[0327], [0330], a pulsed radiation source is incident on a portion of a membrane heat and clean the membrane). The first embodiment of Nikipelov does not appear to explicitly describe an ion source configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component.
Platzgummer discloses an ion source configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component (Figs. 1-6, abstract, page 6, and page 9, an ion beam is used to sputter clean or remove material).
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 an ion source configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component as taught by Platzgummer in the at least one radiation emitter in the system as taught by Nikipelov since including wherein the at least one radiation emitter comprises an ion source configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component is commonly used to effectively control localized removal of material (Platzgummer, page 6, 4th full paragraph, page 9, first paragraph, fifth paragraph).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelov.
Regarding claim 22, Nikipelov discloses wherein the at least one radiation emitter comprises: a heater configured to, in use, heat a region of the component so as to cause thermomechanical vibrations in the component (the limitation “so as to cause thermomechanical vibrations in the component” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the apparatus that does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the system taught by Nikipelov. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 5, 9, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0287]-[0290], [0312]-[0327], [0330], a pulsed radiation source is incident on a portion of a membrane heat and clean the membrane). The first embodiment of Nikipelov does not appear to explicitly describe an ion source configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component.
A second embodiment of Nikipelov discloses an ion source configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component (the limitation “configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the apparatus that does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the system taught by Nikipelov. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 8a-c, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0252]-[0282], a plasma containing ions is used to remove contaminants from the 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 an ion source configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component as taught by the second embodiment of Nikipelov in the system as taught by the first embodiment of Nikipelov since including an ion source configured to, in use, irradiate a region of the component with ions so as to induce sputtering of contaminants present on the component is commonly used to clean the two surfaces of a thin, flexible membrane without damaging the membrane (Nikipelov, para. [00119], [0258], [0264]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagai et al. (US PGPub 2009/0027647, Nagai hereinafter).
Regarding claim 29, Nikipelov does not appear to explicitly describe an adjustor to adjust a slit width of the radiation between a slit width and a second slit width.
Nagai discloses an adjustor to adjust a slit width of the radiation between a slit width and a second slit width (Fig. 2, paras. [0033]-[0034], [0053]-an illuminance adjusting unit 220 includes movable light-shielding plates 224 to change the slit width).
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 an adjustor to adjust a slit width of the radiation between a slit width and a second slit width as taught by Nagai in the system as taught by Nikipelov since including an adjustor to adjust a slit width of the radiation between a slit width and a second slit width is commonly used to adjust the illuminance amount based on the thickness variation of the pellicle (Nagai, para. [0016]).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US PGPub 2002/0126269) in view of Nikipelov.
Regarding claim 31, Sato discloses a method of testing the structural integrity of a component related to a lithographic processing (Figs. 3, 6, paras. [0072]-[0075], [0147], [0155]-[0156], a deformation measuring device 85, 91 measures deformation of the pellicle PE), the method comprising irradiating a region of the component (Figs. 3, 6, paras. [0072]-[0075], [0147], [0155]-[0156], deformation measuring device 85, 91 measures deformation of the pellicle PE using a laser displacement sensor projecting light). Sato does not appear to explicitly describe inducing thermomechanical vibrations in the component.
Nikipelov discloses irradiating a region of the component so as to induce thermomechanical vibrations in the component (Figs. 5, 9, paras. [0211]-[0219], [0287]-[0290], [0311]-[0327], a pulsed radiation source is incident on a portion of a membrane to clean the membrane).
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 irradiating a region of the component so as to induce thermomechanical vibrations in the component as taught by Nikipelov in the method as taught by Sato since including irradiating a region of the component so as to induce thermomechanical vibrations in the component is commonly used to efficiently and precisely clean the pellicle membrane to remove particles in a large range of sizes (Nikipelov, paras. [0211], [0217], [0311], [0320], [0324]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571)272-2303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights