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 continuation of application 18/324889, filed on 5/26/2023, which is a continuation of 17/484945, filed on 9/24/2021, which claims priority from US provisional application 63/163401, filed on 3/19/2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, “form” should be changed to --from-- to correct spelling.
Claim 3, line 3, “a reticle)” should be changed to --the reticle-- to correct antecedence from claim 1 and to remove the closed parenthesis.
Claim 6, line 2, “a light sensor” should be changed to --the light sensor-- to correct antecedence.
Claim 13, line 9, “the debris particles” should be changed to --debris particles-- to correct antecedence.
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: “a reticle cleaning system” in lines 9-10 of claim 1; “an automatic reticle cleaning system” in lines 8-9 of claim 13; and “a reticle cleaning system” in lines 13-14 in claim 17.
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 § 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.
Claims 3, 11, and 12 are 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 3, the claim recites the limitations "the detection light source" and “the light sensor” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim since the parent claims, claim 1 and claim 2, fail to properly introduce “a detection light source” and “a light sensor.” However, claim 4 introduces “a detection light source” and “a light sensor” in lines 2 and 3, respectively. It is therefore unclear if claim 3 is meant to depend from claim 4 or if claim 3 is meant to properly introduce “a detection light source” and “a light sensor.” For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning directing, with first optical conditioning devices within the scanner, the extreme ultraviolet light passed between a detection light source and a light sensor to a reticle within the scanner after. Thus, claim 3 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation "the cleaning laser" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the parent claims, claim 1 and claim 4, fail to properly introduce “a cleaning laser.” However, claim 2 introduces “a cleaning laser” in line 3. It is therefore unclear if claim 11 is meant to depend from claim 2 or if claim 11 is meant to properly introduce “a cleaning laser.” For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning a cleaning laser is positioned downstream from the detection light source within the scanner. Thus, claim 11 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, 11, 14-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,693,324 in view of Singer et al. (US PGPub 2011/0279799, Singer hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of patent 324 recites a method (claim 1), comprising:
generating extreme ultraviolet light from droplets in an extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by irradiating the droplets with a laser (claim 1, col. 20, lines 61-63);
directing the extreme ultraviolet light from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber to a scanner (claim 1, col. 20, lines 64-68);
outputting a detection light (claim 1, col. 21, lines 1-4);
detecting debris particles traveling form the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber based on interaction of the debris particles with the detection light (claim 1, col. 21, lines 5-8). Claim 1 of patent 324 does not appear to recite activating a reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles.
Singer discloses activating a reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], control device 16 obtains inspection data and controls processing device 15 to remove contamination from the mask 8).
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 activating a reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles as taught by Singer with detecting debris particles in the method as recited by patent 324 since including activating a reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles is commonly used to provide rapid cleaning and mask repair without removing the mask from the vacuum environment (Singer, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites comprising: outputting, with a detection light source in the scanner, the detection light across a path of travel of the extreme ultraviolet light and toward a light sensor in the scanner (claim 1, col. 21, lines 1-4); and detecting debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber into the scanner by detecting, with the light sensor, interaction of the debris particles with the detection light (claim 1, col. 21, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 5, claim 3 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites comprising detecting debris includes sensing emissions from the debris responsive to the detection light (claim 3).
Regarding claim 6, claim 4 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites wherein detecting debris particles includes sensing an interruption in the detection light with a light sensor (claim 4).
Regarding claim 7, claim 5 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites further comprising counting a number of debris particles that have traveled from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber into the scanner (claim 5).
Regarding claim 8, claim 6 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites further comprising initiating a debris removal process responsive to detecting debris particles (claim 6).
Regarding claim 9, claim 7 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites wherein the debris removal process includes flowing a cleaning fluid into the scanner (claim 7).
Regarding claim 10, claim 8 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites further comprising adjusting extreme ultraviolet light generation parameters responsive to detection debris particles (claim 8).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, claim 1 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites wherein the cleaning laser is positioned downstream from the detection light source within the scanner (claim 1, col. 21, lines 1-4, and as modified by Singer, Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], processing device 15 includes a laser 29 to remove contamination 24 downstream of measuring light source 18).
Regarding claim 12, claim 1 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites comprising activating the cleaning laser responsive to detecting debris particles with the light sensor (Singer, Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], control device 16 obtains inspection data and controls processing device 15 to remove contamination from the mask 8).
Regarding claim 13, claim 11 of patent 324 recites a method (claim 11, col. 21, line 48), comprising:
generating extreme ultraviolet light in an extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber (claim 11, col. 21, lines 49-50);
performing a photolithography process on a wafer with the extreme ultraviolet light (claim 11, col. 22, lines 9-11);
detecting, with a detection light in a scanner coupled to the extreme ultraviolet generation chamber (claim 11, col. 21, lines 51-58, col. 22, lines 1-4). Claim 11 of patent 324 does not appear to recite activating an automatic reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles.
Singer discloses activating an automatic reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], control device 16 obtains inspection data and controls processing device 15 to remove contamination from the mask 8).
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 activating an automatic reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles as taught by Singer with detecting debris particles in the method as recited by patent 324 since including activating an automatic reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles is commonly used to provide rapid cleaning and mask repair without removing the mask from the vacuum environment (Singer, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 14, claim 11 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites comprising detecting debris particles travelling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by emitting a detection light adjacent to an aperture of the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber and sensing interaction of the detection light with the debris particles (claim 11, col. 21, lines 51-58, col. 22, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 15, claim 14 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites further comprising emitting the detection light from a laser or a light emitting diode (claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, claim 15 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites wherein sensing interaction of the debris particles with the detection light includes detecting characteristic emissions from the debris particles (claim 15).
Regarding claim 17, claim 16 of patent 324 recites a photolithography system (claim 16, col. 22, line 21), comprising:
an extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber (claim 16, col. 22, line 22);
extreme ultraviolet light generation equipment configured to generate extreme ultraviolet light in the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber (claim 16, col. 22, lines 23-25);
a scanner coupled to the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber and configured to receive the extreme ultraviolet light from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber and to direct the extreme ultraviolet onto a reticle (claim 16, col. 22, lines 26-30);
a detection light source configured to output a detection light adjacent to an aperture (claim 16, col. 22, lines 31-32);
a light sensor configured to detect debris particles from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by detecting interaction of the debris particles with the detection light (claim 16, col. 22, lines 33-37). Claim 16 of patent 324 does not appear to recite a reticle cleaning system configured to clean the reticle responsive to detecting the debris particles.
Singer discloses a reticle cleaning system configured to clean the reticle responsive to detecting the debris particles (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], control device 16 obtains inspection data and controls processing device 15 to remove contamination from the mask 8).
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 reticle cleaning system configured to clean the reticle responsive to detecting the debris particles as taught by Singer in the photolithography system as recited by patent 324 since including a reticle cleaning system configured to clean the reticle responsive to detecting the debris particles is commonly used to provide rapid cleaning and mask repair without removing the mask from the vacuum environment (Singer, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 18, claim 16 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites comprising a cleaning laser positioned downstream from the detection light source within the scanner (claim 16, col. 22, lines 31-42, and as modified by Singer, Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], processing device 15 includes a laser 29 to remove contamination 24 downstream of measuring light source 18).
Claims 2, 3, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,693,324 as modified by Singer et al. (US PGPub 2011/0279799, Singer hereinafter) in view of Baier e al. (DE 102017207458, Baier hereinafter; English translation included with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 2, patent 324 as modified by Singer does not appear to recite altering a trajectory of debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by outputting, with a cleaning laser in the scanner, a particle disruption light across a path of travel of the extreme ultraviolet light and toward a debris trap in the scanner; and capturing, with the debris trap, debris particles impacted by the particle disruption light.
Baier discloses altering a trajectory of debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by outputting, with a cleaning laser in the scanner (Figs. 1-2, pgs. 4-5 of the attached English translation, laser 16 is arranged in the lighting system 2 of the EUV projection exposure system coupled to the light source 1), a particle disruption light across a path of travel of the extreme ultraviolet light and toward a debris trap in the scanner (Figs. 1-2, pgs. 4-5, laser 16 is directed across the beam path 10, and the particles are directed to collecting device, or catcher 18, in lighting system 2 after being subjected to ionization by the laser 16); and
capturing, with the debris trap, debris particles impacted by the particle disruption light (Figs. 1-2, pgs. 4-5, particles are captured by collecting device, or catcher 18, after being subjected to ionization by laser 16 directed across the beam path 10).
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 altering a trajectory of debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by outputting, with a cleaning laser in the scanner, a particle disruption light across a path of travel of the extreme ultraviolet light and toward a debris trap in the scanner; and capturing, with the debris trap, debris particles impacted by the particle disruption light as taught by Baier in the method as recited by patent 324 as modified by Singer since including altering a trajectory of debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by outputting, with a cleaning laser in the scanner, a particle disruption light across a path of travel of the extreme ultraviolet light and toward a debris trap in the scanner; and capturing, with the debris trap, debris particles impacted by the particle disruption light is commonly used to provide an effective and easily-operated particle barrier to limit the entrance of contaminants into an EUV projection system with reduced equipment costs (Baier, “Object of the Invention,” pgs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, claim 1 of patent 324 as modified by Singer in view of Baier recites directing, with first optical conditioning devices within the scanner, the extreme ultraviolet light passed between the detection light source and the light sensor to a reticle) within the scanner after (claim 1, col. 21, lines 5-12); and
directing, with second optical conditioning devices within the scanner, the extreme ultraviolet light from the reticle to a wafer (claim 1, col. 21, lines 13-15).
Regarding claim 20, claim 16 of patent 324 as modified by Singer does not appear to recite comprising a debris trap in the scanner configured to trap debris particles impacted by the cleaning laser.
Baier discloses a debris trap in the scanner configured to trap debris particles impacted by the cleaning laser (Figs. 1-2, pgs. 4-5, particles are captured by collecting device, or catcher 18, after being subjected to ionization by laser 16 directed across the beam path 10).
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 debris trap in the scanner configured to trap debris particles impacted by the cleaning laser as taught by Baier in the photolithography system as recited by patent 324 as modified by Singer since including a debris trap in the scanner configured to trap debris particles impacted by the cleaning laser is commonly used to provide an effective and easily-operated particle barrier to limit the entrance of contaminants into an EUV projection system with reduced equipment costs (Baier, “Object of the Invention,” pgs. 2-3).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 10, 11, 14-16, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,085,865 in view of Singer.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of patent 865 recites a method (claim 1), comprising:
generating extreme ultraviolet light from droplets in an extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by irradiating the droplets with a laser (claim 1, col. 20, lines 61-63);
directing the extreme ultraviolet light from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber to a scanner (claim 1, col. 20, lines 64-67);
outputting a detection light (claim 1, col. 21, lines 8-22);
detecting debris particles traveling form the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber based on interaction of the debris particles with the detection light (claim 1, col. 21, lines 8-22). Claim 1 of patent 865 does not appear to recite activating a reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles.
Singer discloses activating a reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], control device 16 obtains inspection data and controls processing device 15 to remove contamination from the mask 8).
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 activating a reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles as taught by Singer with detecting debris particles in the method as recited by patent 865 since including activating a reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles is commonly used to provide rapid cleaning and mask repair without removing the mask from the vacuum environment (Singer, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites comprising: altering a trajectory of debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by outputting, with a cleaning laser in the scanner, a particle disruption light across a path of travel of the extreme ultraviolet light and toward a debris trap in the scanner (claim 1, col. 21, lines 1-5); and capturing, with the debris trap, debris particles impacted by the particle disruption light (claim 1, col. 21, lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, claim 1 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites directing, with first optical conditioning devices within the scanner, the extreme ultraviolet light passed between the detection light source and the light sensor to a reticle) within the scanner after (claim 1, col. 21, lines 8-11); and
directing, with second optical conditioning devices within the scanner, the extreme ultraviolet light from the reticle to a wafer (claim 1, col. 21, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 of patent 865 as modified by Singer comprising: outputting, with a detection light source in the scanner, the detection light across a path of travel of the extreme ultraviolet light and toward a light sensor in the scanner (claim 1, col. 21, lines 8-18); and detecting debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber into the scanner by detecting, with the light sensor, interaction of the debris particles with the detection light (claim 1, col. 21, lines 8-22).
Regarding claim 5, claim 2 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites comprising detecting debris includes sensing emissions from the debris responsive to the detection light (claim 2).
Regarding claim 6, claim 3 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites wherein detecting debris particles includes sensing an interruption in the detection light with a light sensor (claim 3).
Regarding claim 7, claim 4 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites further comprising counting a number of debris particles that have traveled from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber into the scanner (claim 4).
Regarding claim 8, claim 5 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites further comprising initiating a debris removal process responsive to detecting debris particles (claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, claim 6 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites wherein the debris removal process includes flowing a cleaning fluid into the scanner (claim 6).
Regarding claim 10, claim 7 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites further comprising adjusting extreme ultraviolet light generation parameters responsive to detection debris particles (claim 7).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, claim 10 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites wherein the cleaning laser is positioned downstream from the detection light source within the scanner (claim 10).
Regarding claim 12, claim 11 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites comprising activating the cleaning laser responsive to detecting debris particles with the light sensor (claim 11).
Regarding claim 13, claim 14 of patent 865 recites a method (claim 12, col. 21, line 64), comprising:
generating extreme ultraviolet light in an extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber (claim 12, col. 21, lines 65-66);
performing a photolithography process on a wafer with the extreme ultraviolet light (claim 12, col. 22, lines 1-2);
detecting, with a detection light in a scanner coupled to the extreme ultraviolet generation chamber (claim 14, col. 22, lines 19-24). Claim 14 of patent 865 does not appear to recite activating an automatic reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles.
Singer discloses activating an automatic reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], control device 16 obtains inspection data and controls processing device 15 to remove contamination from the mask 8).
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 activating an automatic reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles as taught by Singer with detecting debris particles in the method as recited by patent 865 since including activating an automatic reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles is commonly used to provide rapid cleaning and mask repair without removing the mask from the vacuum environment (Singer, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 of patent 324 as modified by Singer recites comprising detecting debris particles travelling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by emitting a detection light adjacent to an aperture of the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber and sensing interaction of the detection light with the debris particles (claim 14, col. 22, lines 19-24).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites further comprising emitting the detection light from a laser or a light emitting diode (claim 15).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites wherein sensing interaction of the debris particles with the detection light includes detecting characteristic emissions from the debris particles (claim 16).
Regarding claim 17, claim 19 of patent 865 recites a photolithography system (claim 18, col. 22, line 34), comprising:
an extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber (claim 18, col. 22, line 35);
extreme ultraviolet light generation equipment configured to generate extreme ultraviolet light in the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber (claim 18, col. 22, lines 36-38);
a scanner coupled to the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber and configured to receive the extreme ultraviolet light from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber and to direct the extreme ultraviolet onto a reticle (claim 18, col. 22, lines 34-42);
a detection light source configured to output a detection light adjacent to an aperture (claim 19, col. 22, lines 56-58);
a light sensor configured to detect debris particles from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by detecting interaction of the debris particles with the detection light (claim 19, col. 22, lines 59-62). Claim 19 of patent 865 does not appear to recite a reticle cleaning system configured to clean the reticle responsive to detecting the debris particles.
Singer discloses a reticle cleaning system configured to clean the reticle responsive to detecting the debris particles (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], control device 16 obtains inspection data and controls processing device 15 to remove contamination from the mask 8).
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 reticle cleaning system configured to clean the reticle responsive to detecting the debris particles as taught by Singer in the photolithography system as recited by patent 865 since including a reticle cleaning system configured to clean the reticle responsive to detecting the debris particles is commonly used to provide rapid cleaning and mask repair without removing the mask from the vacuum environment (Singer, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 18, claim 20 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites comprising a cleaning laser positioned downstream from the detection light source within the scanner (claim 18, col. 22, lines 43-47, claim 19, claim 20).
Regarding claim 19, claim 20 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites comprising a plurality of cleaning lasers positioned downstream from the detection light source within the scanner (claim 18, col. 22, lines 43-52, claim 19, claim 20).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 of patent 865 as modified by Singer recites comprising a debris trap in the scanner configured to trap debris particles impacted by the cleaning laser (claim 18, col. 22, lines 43-55).
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 1, 13, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butscher et al. (US PGPub 2014/0028989, Butscher hereinafter) in view of Singer et al. (US PGPub 2011/0279799, Singer hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Butscher discloses a method (Figs. 1-3, abstract, paras. [0007], [0057], [0059]-[0065], a lithography apparatus and method for detecting particles) comprising:
generating extreme ultraviolet light from droplets in an extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by irradiating the droplets with a laser (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0004], [0016], [0053], [0057], [0060], the lithography apparatus includes a beam generating system 2 with an EUV plasma light source 5 in which droplets of tin are irradiated with a laser);
directing the extreme ultraviolet light from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber to a scanner (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0053]-[0056], the EUV radiation 6 from the light source 5 is directed to a collimator 7 and monochromator 8 in beam generating system 2 and to optical elements 9, 10 in illumination system 3 of the lithography apparatus);
outputting a detection light (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0060]-[0065], [0077]-[0079], laser light source 15 outputs radiation 17 to illuminate particles detected by a camera 16. The EUV radiation 6 is used as the detection light adjacent to the region of the intermediate focus between the openings of beam shaping system 2 and illumination system 3, and camera 16 detects particles from scattered radiation);
detecting debris particles traveling form the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber based on interaction of the debris particles with the detection light (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0057]-[0065], [0077]-[0079], laser light source 15 emits radiation 17, and camera 16 detects particles illuminated by the radiation 17, including contaminating particles from the plasma light source, or EUV radiation 6 is used as the detection light adjacent to the region of the intermediate focus between the openings of beam shaping system 2 and illumination system 3, and camera 16 detects particles from scattered radiation); and although Butscher discloses activating a cleaning system to clean an optical surface in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles (para. [0046], particles are removed from the optical surface), Butscher does not appear to explicitly describe activating a reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles.
Singer discloses activating a reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], control device 16 obtains inspection data and controls processing device 15 to remove contamination from the mask 8).
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 activating a reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles as taught by Singer with detecting debris particles in the method as taught by Butscher since including activating a reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles is commonly used to provide rapid cleaning and mask repair without removing the mask from the vacuum environment (Singer, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 13, Butscher discloses a method (Figs. 1-3, abstract, paras. [0007], [0057], [0059]-[0065], a lithography apparatus and method for detecting particles), comprising:
generating extreme ultraviolet light in an extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0004], [0016], [0053], [0057], [0060], the lithography apparatus includes a beam generating system 2 with an EUV plasma light source 5 in which droplets of tin are irradiated with a laser);
performing a photolithography process on a wafer with the extreme ultraviolet light (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0053]-[0056], the EUV radiation 6 is used to pattern a wafer 12);
detecting, with a detection light in a scanner coupled to the extreme ultraviolet generation chamber (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0060]-[0065], [0077]-[0079], laser light source 15 outputs radiation 17 to illuminate particles detected by a camera 16, or EUV radiation 6 is used as the detection light adjacent to the region of the intermediate focus between the openings of beam shaping system 2 and illumination system 3, and camera 16 detects particles from scattered radiation); and although Butscher discloses activating a cleaning system to clean an optical surface in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles (para. [0046], particles are removed from the optical surface), Butscher does not appear to explicitly describe activating an automatic reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles.
Singer discloses activating an automatic reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], control device 16 obtains inspection data and controls processing device 15 to remove contamination from the mask 8).
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 activating an automatic reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles as taught by Singer with detecting debris particles in the method as taught by Butscher since including activating an automatic reticle cleaning system to clean a reticle in the scanner in response to detecting the debris particles is commonly used to provide rapid cleaning and mask repair without removing the mask from the vacuum environment (Singer, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 14, Butscher as modified by Singer discloses detecting debris particles travelling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by emitting a detection light adjacent to an aperture of the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber and sensing interaction of the detection light with the debris particles (Butscher, Fig. 3, paras. [0077]-[0079], the EUV radiation 6 is used as the detection light adjacent to the region of the intermediate focus between the openings of beam shaping system 2 and illumination system 3, and camera 16 detects particles from scattered radiation).
Regarding claim 17, Butscher discloses a photolithography system (Figs. 1-3, abstract, paras. [0007], [0053]-[0057], [0059]-[0065], a lithography apparatus for detecting particles), comprising:
an extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0004], [0016], [0053], [0057], [0060], the lithography apparatus includes a beam generating system 2 with an EUV plasma light source 5);
extreme ultraviolet light generation equipment configured to generate extreme ultraviolet light in the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0004], [0016], [0053], [0057], [0060], the lithography apparatus includes a beam generating system 2 with an EUV plasma light source 5 in which droplets of tin are irradiated with a laser to produce EUV radiation);
a scanner coupled to the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber and configured to receive the extreme ultraviolet light from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber and to direct the extreme ultraviolet onto a reticle (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0053]-[0056], the EUV lithography apparatus 1 includes illumination system 3 coupled to beam generating system 2 to direct EUV radiation to photomask 11);
a detection light source configured to output a detection light adjacent to an aperture (Fig. 3, paras. [0077]-[0079], the EUV radiation 6 is used as the detection light adjacent to the region of the intermediate focus between the openings of beam shaping system 2 and illumination system 3, and camera 16 detects particles from scattered radiation);
a light sensor configured to detect debris particles from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by detecting interaction of the debris particles with the detection light (Fig. 3, paras. [0077]-[0079], camera 16 detects particles from scattered radiation). Butscher does not appear to explicitly describe a reticle cleaning system configured to clean the reticle responsive to detecting the debris particles.
Singer discloses a reticle cleaning system configured to clean the reticle responsive to detecting the debris particles (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], control device 16 obtains inspection data and controls processing device 15 to remove contamination from the mask 8).
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 reticle cleaning system configured to clean the reticle responsive to detecting the debris particles as taught by Singer in the photolithography system as taught by Butscher since including a reticle cleaning system configured to clean the reticle responsive to detecting the debris particles is commonly used to provide rapid cleaning and mask repair without removing the mask from the vacuum environment (Singer, para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 18, Butscher as modified by Singer recites comprising a cleaning laser positioned downstream from the detection light source within the scanner (Singer, Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], processing device 15 includes a laser 29 to remove contamination 24 downstream of measuring light source 18).
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butscher as modified by Singer as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Baier e al. (DE 102017207458, Baier hereinafter).
Regarding claim 2, Butscher as modified by Singer does not appear to explicitly describe altering a trajectory of debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by outputting, with a cleaning laser in the scanner, a particle disruption light across a path of travel of the extreme ultraviolet light and toward a debris trap in the scanner; and capturing, with the debris trap, debris particles impacted by the particle disruption light.
Baier discloses altering a trajectory of debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by outputting, with a cleaning laser in the scanner (Figs. 1-2, pgs. 4-5 of the attached English translation, laser 16 is arranged in the lighting system 2 of the EUV projection exposure system coupled to the light source 1), a particle disruption light across a path of travel of the extreme ultraviolet light and toward a debris trap in the scanner (Figs. 1-2, pgs. 4-5, laser 16 is directed across the beam path 10, and the particles are directed to collecting device, or catcher 18, in lighting system 2 after being subjected to ionization by the laser 16); and
capturing, with the debris trap, debris particles impacted by the particle disruption light (Figs. 1-2, pgs. 4-5, particles are captured by collecting device, or catcher 18, after being subjected to ionization by laser 16 directed across the beam path 10).
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 altering a trajectory of debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by outputting, with a cleaning laser in the scanner, a particle disruption light across a path of travel of the extreme ultraviolet light and toward a debris trap in the scanner; and capturing, with the debris trap, debris particles impacted by the particle disruption light as taught by Baier in the method as taught by Butscher as modified by Singer since including altering a trajectory of debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber by outputting, with a cleaning laser in the scanner, a particle disruption light across a path of travel of the extreme ultraviolet light and toward a debris trap in the scanner; and capturing, with the debris trap, debris particles impacted by the particle disruption light is commonly used to provide an effective and easily-operated particle barrier to limit the entrance of contaminants into an EUV projection system with reduced equipment costs (Baier, “Object of the Invention,” pgs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 20, Butscher as modified by Singer does not appear to explicitly describe comprising a debris trap in the scanner configured to trap debris particles impacted by the cleaning laser.
Baier discloses a debris trap in the scanner configured to trap debris particles impacted by the cleaning laser (Figs. 1-2, pgs. 4-5, particles are captured by collecting device, or catcher 18, after being subjected to ionization by laser 16 directed across the beam path 10).
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 debris trap in the scanner configured to trap debris particles impacted by the cleaning laser as taught by Baier in the photolithography system as taught by Butscher as modified by Singer since including a debris trap in the scanner configured to trap debris particles impacted by the cleaning laser is commonly used to provide an effective and easily-operated particle barrier to limit the entrance of contaminants into an EUV projection system with reduced equipment costs (Baier, “Object of the Invention,” pgs. 2-3).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butscher as modified by Singer as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Kraus et al. (US PGPub 2010/0045948, Kraus hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Butscher as modified by Singer discloses directing, with first conditioning devices within the scanner, the extreme ultraviolet light (Butscher, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0053]-[0058], illumination system 3 includes reflective optical elements 9, 10 for conducting EUV radiation to the mask 11), and directing, with second optical conditioning devices within the scanner, the extreme ultraviolet light form the reticle to wafer (Butscher, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0053]-[0058], the projection system 4 images a wafer 12 with patterned EUV radiation patterns). Butscher as modified by Singer does not appear to explicitly describe directing, with first optical conditioning devices within the scanner, the extreme ultraviolet light passed between the detection light source and the light sensor to a reticle within the scanner after.
Kraus discloses directing, with first optical conditioning devices within the scanner, the extreme ultraviolet light passed between the detection light source and the light sensor to a reticle within the scanner after (Figs. 1a-c, paras. [0043]-[0046], the EUV light 16 passes between light source 21 and detection unit 26. The EUV radiation is directed to a reticle 12).
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 directing, with first optical conditioning devices within the scanner, the extreme ultraviolet light passed between the detection light source and the light sensor to a reticle within the scanner after as taught by Kraus in the method as taught by Butscher as modified by Singer since including directing, with first optical conditioning devices within the scanner, the extreme ultraviolet light passed between the detection light source and the light sensor to a reticle within the scanner after is commonly used to determine the contamination on an optical element in an EUV illumination optical system with improved precision (Kraus, para. [0006]).
Regarding claim 15, Butscher as modified by Singer does not appear to explicitly describe further comprising emitting the detection light from a laser or a light emitting diode.
Kraus discloses emitting the detection light from a laser or a light emitting diode (Figs. 1a-c, paras. [0032]-[0034], laser light source 21 comprises laser diodes).
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 emitting the detection light from a laser or a light emitting diode taught by Kraus as the detection light in the method as taught by Butscher as modified by Singer since including emitting the detection light from a laser or a light emitting diode is commonly used to provide a light source with the desired wavelength to permit determination of the contamination substances and increase sensitivity of measurement (Kraus, paras. [0010], [0032], [0034]).
Claims 4-8, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butscher as modified by Singer as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Chien et al. (US PGPub 2016/0225610, Chien hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Butscher as modified by Singer discloses outputting, with a detection light source in the scanner, the detection light and toward a light sensor in the scanner (Butscher, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0060]-[0065], laser light source 15 outputs radiation 17 to illuminate particles detected by a camera 16); and detecting debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber into the scanner by detecting, with the light sensor, interaction of the debris particles with the detection light (Butscher, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0057]-[0065], [0077]-[0079], laser light source 15 emits radiation 17, and camera 16 detects particles illuminated by the radiation 17, including contaminating particles from the plasma light source), but Butscher as modified by Singer does not appear to explicitly describe the detection light across a path of travel of the extreme ultraviolet light and toward the light sensor.
Chien discloses outputting, with a detection light source in the scanner, the detection light across a path of travel of the extreme ultraviolet light and toward a light sensor in the scanner (Figs. 2-7, paras. [0031]-[0034], [0038]-[0044], the particle monitor system 316 includes light sources 320 emitting light across a path of travel of the EUV radiation to illuminate the photomask 102. The light sources 320 emit light toward sensor 318 to detect particles from the EUV source); and
detecting debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber into the scanner by detecting, with the light sensor, interaction of the debris particles with the detection light (Figs. 2-7, paras. [0031]-[0034], [0038]-[0044], [0050], the particle monitor system 316 includes light sources 320 and sensors 318 to detect particles from the EUV source (such as Sn particles). The sensors 318 detects particle presence from interaction of the emitted light with the particles).
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 detecting debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber into the scanner by detecting, with the light sensor, interaction of the debris particles with the detection light, and detecting debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber into the scanner by detecting, with the light sensor, interaction of the debris particles with the detection light as taught by Chien in the method as taught by Butscher as modified by Singer since including detecting debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber into the scanner by detecting, with the light sensor, interaction of the debris particles with the detection light, and detecting debris particles traveling from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber into the scanner by detecting, with the light sensor, interaction of the debris particles with the detection light is commonly used to identify and classify the particle contamination to determine appropriate treatment (Chien, paras. [0018], [0034], [0044], [0045]).
Regarding claim 5, Butscher as modified by Singer does not appear to explicitly describe comprising detecting debris includes sensing emissions from the debris responsive to the detection light.
Chien discloses detecting debris includes sensing emissions from the debris responsive to the detection light (Figs. 2-7, paras. [0018], [0034], [0038]-[0044], [0053]-[0054], the particle monitor system 316 detects the composition of the particle from characteristic reflectivity or spectrum).
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 detecting debris includes sensing emissions from the debris responsive to the detection light as taught by Chien in the method as taught by Butscher as modified by Singer since including detecting debris includes sensing emissions from the debris responsive to the detection light is commonly used to identify and classify the particle contamination to determine appropriate treatment (Chien, paras. [0018], [0034], [0044], [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Butscher as modified by Singer does not appear to explicitly describe wherein detecting debris particles includes sensing an interruption in the detection light with a light sensor.
Chien discloses wherein detecting debris particles includes sensing an interruption in the detection light with a light sensor (Figs. 2-7, paras. [0033]-[0034], [0039]-[0043], [0050], [0053], [0054], the particle monitor system 316 detects interruption in the detection light of the optical sensors 318 from the constructive and destructive interference of the light beam as interrupted by the presence of particles, and the detectors detect the energy loss from particles intercepting the illumination beam).
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 detecting debris particles includes sensing an interruption in the detection light with a light sensor as taught by Chien in the method as taught by Butscher as modified by Singer since including wherein detecting debris particles includes sensing an interruption in the detection light with a light sensor is commonly used to determine the presence of particle contamination and to determine data on the shape, size, and composition of the contamination (Chien, para. [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Butscher as modified by Singer in view of Chien discloses further comprising counting a number of debris particles that have traveled from the extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber into the scanner (Butscher, Figs. 1-3, paras. [0004], [0009], [0010], [0034], [0057], [0065]-[0067], [0071]-[0073], the evaluation unit 23 determines the number of particles detected by the camera from the scattered radiation 17a).
Regarding claim 8, Butscher as modified by Singer in view of Chien discloses further comprising initiating a debris removal process responsive to detecting debris particles (Singer, Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], control device 16 obtains inspection data and controls processing device 15 to remove contamination from the mask 8).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Butscher as modified by Singer in view of Chien discloses wherein the cleaning laser is positioned downstream from the detection light source within the scanner (Singer, Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], processing device 15 includes a laser 29 to remove contamination 24 downstream of measuring light source 18).
Regarding claim 12, Butscher as modified by Singer in view of Chien discloses comprising activating the cleaning laser responsive to detecting debris particles with the light sensor (Singer, Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], control device 16 obtains inspection data and controls processing device 15 to remove contamination from the mask 8).
Regarding claim 16, Butscher as modified by Singer does not appear to explicitly describe wherein sensing interaction of the debris particles with the detected light includes detecting characteristic emissions from the debris particles.
Chien discloses wherein sensing interaction of the debris particles with the detected light includes detecting characteristic emissions from the debris particles (Figs. 2-7, paras. [0018], [0034], [0038]-[0044], [0053]-[0054], the particle monitor system 316 detects the composition of the particle from characteristic reflectivity or spectrum).
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 sensing interaction of the debris particles with the detected light includes detecting characteristic emissions from the debris particles as taught by Chien in the method as taught by Butscher as modified by Singer since including wherein sensing interaction of the debris particles with the detected light includes detecting characteristic emissions from the debris particles is commonly used to identify and classify the particle contamination to determine appropriate treatment (Chien, paras. [0018], [0034], [0044], [0045]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butscher as modified by Singer in view of Chien as applied to claims 4 and 8 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US PGPub 2020/0178380, Chen hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Butscher as modified by Singer in view of Chien does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the debris removal process includes flowing a cleaning fluid into the scanner.
Chen discloses wherein the debris removal process includes flowing a cleaning fluid into the scanner (Fig. 4, paras. [0035]-[0037], [0041], gas is supplied to the apparatus for cleaning the debris).
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 debris removal process includes flowing a cleaning fluid into the scanner as taught by Chen in the method as taught by Butscher as modified by Singer in view of Chien since including wherein the debris removal process includes flowing a cleaning fluid into the scanner is commonly used to mitigate contamination of the optical components of the lithography equipment to prevent damage of the optical components (Chen, para. [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Butscher as modified by Singer in view of Chien does not appear to explicitly describe adjusting extreme ultraviolet light generation parameters responsive to detecting debris particles.
Chen discloses further comprising adjusting extreme ultraviolet light generation parameters responsive to detecting debris particles (Figs. 4-6, paras. [0037], [0042]-[0044], [0048]-[0050], [0052], [0058], the feedback control system adjusts parameters based on the contamination measurement).
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 adjusting extreme ultraviolet light generation parameters responsive to detecting debris particles as taught by Chen in the method as taught by Butscher as modified by Singer in view of Chien since including adjusting extreme ultraviolet light generation parameters responsive to detecting debris particles is commonly used to ensure proper efficacy of irradiating the target droplets with a laser to improve EUV radiation source efficiency (Chen, para. [0004]) to improve lithography throughput.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action, or if a proper Terminal Disclaimer is filed, and if rewritten to include 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 19, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious comprising a plurality of cleaning lasers positioned downstream from the detection light source within the scanner. This limitation in combination with all of the other limitations of the parent claims would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten.
Singer discloses comprising a cleaning laser positioned downstream from the detection light source within the scanner (Figs. 1-2, paras. [0048]-[0050], [0057]-[0060], processing device 15 includes a laser 29 to remove contamination 24 downstream of measuring light source 18), but Singer fails to describe or suggest a plurality of cleaning lasers positioned downstream from the detection light source within the scanner.
Baier discloses a cleaning laser in the scanner (Figs. 1-2, pgs. 4-5 of the attached English translation, laser 16 is arranged in the lighting system 2 of the EUV projection exposure system coupled to the light source 1), but Baier does not describe or render obvious a plurality of cleaning lasers positioned downstream from the detection light source within the scanner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Becker (DE102017205452) discloses detectors arranged to detect debris from an EUV light source.
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