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 18/314728, filed on 5/9/2023, which is a continuation of 17/477969, filed on 9/17/2021, which claims priority from US provisional application 63/157376, filed on 3/5/2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2, “the exposure face” should be changed to --an exposure face-- to correct antecedence.
Claim 4, lines 2-3, “the exposure face” should be changed to --an exposure face-- to correct antecedence.
Claim 5, line 2, “the exposure face” should be changed to --an exposure face-- to correct antecedence.
Claim 5, lines 2-3, “to support pins positioned on the cleaning electrode” should be changed to --the plurality of pins-- to correct antecedence from claim 1.
Claim 15, line 6, “configured draw” should be changed to --configured to draw-- to correct the missing word.
Appropriate correction is required to place claims in better form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 recites “further comprising support pins extending from a surface of the cleaning electrode, wherein the support pins support the debris capture film adjacent to and spaced apart from the cleaning electrode by the gap” in lines 1-3, but the parent claim, claim 15, already recites “a cleaning electrode including a plurality of pins extending from a surface of the cleaning electrode, the reticle cleaning system configured to place a debris capture film on the pins separated from the cleaning electrode by a gap.” That is, claim 15 requires a plurality of pins extending from a surface of the cleaning electrode that support a debris capture film on the pins, and the debris capture film is separated from the cleaning electrode by a gap and necessarily supported by the pins adjacent to the cleaning electrode. Therefore, claim 16 only recites subject matter that is already required by claim 15 and fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Thus, claim 16 is rejected as being of improper dependent form.
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 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11, 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 3, and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,235 in view of Yonekawa et al. (US PGPub 2008/0246939, Yonekawa hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, claim 2 of patent 235 recites a method (claim 1, col. 17, line 28), comprising:
positioning a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode (claim 1, col. 17, lines 29-30, first film is positioned on support pins by coupling the first film to the support film);
applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity (claim 1, col. 17, lines 35-38); and
capturing debris particles with the first debris capture film by drawing the debris particles from a photolithography reticle toward the cleaning electrode while applying the voltage waveform (claim 1, col. 17, lines 29-30, claim 2, col. 17, lines 39-42). Claim 2 of patent 235 does not recite the voltage waveform changing in a continuous manner.
Yonekawa discloses a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity (Figs. 2-5, 8-22, paras. [0037], [0043]-[0045], [0055]-[0058], an AC voltage waveform with continuously varying voltage polarity (see Figs. 3, 4, 8 for example) is applied to the wire electrode 31).
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 voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity as taught by Yonekawa as the voltage waveform in the method as recited by patent 235 since including a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity is commonly used to effectively protect the reticle from particles even when the contaminant particles are not charged (Yonekawa, paras. [0009]-[0011], [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa recites wherein drawing debris particles includes drawing charged debris particles of the second polarity from the exposure face to the film while the voltage is at the first polarity (claim 2, col. 17, lines 39-42).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 of patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa recites further comprising drawing charged debris particles of the first polarity from the exposure face to the film while the voltage waveform is at the second polarity (claim 3, col. 17, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 5, claim 2 of patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa recites wherein positioning the first debris capture film between the cleaning electrode and the exposure face includes coupling the first film to support pins positioned on the cleaning electrode (claim 1, col. 17, lines 29-30, first film is positioned on support pins by coupling the first film to the support film).
Regarding claim 7, claim 2 of patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa recites further comprising generating an electric field by applying the voltage waveform to the cleaning electrode (Yonekawa, Figs. 2-5, 8-22, paras. [0037], [0043]-[0045], [0048], [0055]-[0058], an AC voltage waveform with continuously varying voltage polarity (see Figs. 3, 4, 8 for example) is applied to the wire electrode 31, and an electric field is generated).
Regarding claim 8, claim 2 of patent 235 recites a method (claim 1, col. 17, line 28), comprising:
placing a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a support structure extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode (claim 1, col. 17, lines 29-30, first film is positioned on support pins by coupling the first film to the support film); and
capturing, with the first debris capture film, debris from an exposure face of the reticle by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity (claim 1, col. 17, lines 29-30, claim 2, col. 17, lines 39-42). Claim 2 of patent 235 does not appear to recite performing an extreme ultraviolet photolithography process with an extreme ultraviolet reticle and the voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity.
Yonekawa discloses performing an extreme ultraviolet photolithography process with an extreme ultraviolet reticle (Figs.1-5, 8-22, paras. [0036]-[0041], the wafer 1 is exposed in an EUV exposure apparatus); and
a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity (Figs. 2-5, 8-22, paras. [0037], [0043]-[0045], [0055]-[0058], an AC voltage waveform with continuously varying voltage polarity (see Figs. 3, 4, 8 for example) is applied to the wire electrode 31).
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 performing an extreme ultraviolet photolithography process with an extreme ultraviolet reticle as taught by Yonekawa in the method as recited by patent 235 since including performing an extreme ultraviolet photolithography process with an extreme ultraviolet reticle is commonly used to manufacture semiconductor devices with critical dimensions below 50 nm (Yonekawa, para. [0002]). Furthermore, 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 voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity as taught by Yonekawa as the voltage waveform in the method as recited by patent 235 since including a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity is commonly used to effectively protect the reticle from particles even when the contaminant particles are not charged (Yonekawa, paras. [0009]-[0011], [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 11, claim 2 of patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa recites further comprising generating an electric field by applying the voltage waveform to the cleaning electrode (Yonekawa, Figs. 2-5, 8-22, paras. [0037], [0043]-[0045], [0048], [0055]-[0058], an AC voltage waveform with continuously varying voltage polarity (see Figs. 3, 4, 8 for example) is applied to the wire electrode 31, and an electric field is generated).
Regarding claim 13, claim 2 of patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa recites comprising positioning the cleaning electrode directly below the exposure face (claim 1, col. 17, lines 29-30, claim 2, col. 17, lines 39-42, and as modified by Yonekawa, Figs. 2-5, 8-22, paras. [0037], [0043]-[0045], [0047]-[0048], [0055]-[0058], the wire electrode 31 is directly below the exposure face of the reticle 2).
Regarding claim 14, claim 2 of patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa recites comprising applying ground voltage to the extreme ultraviolet reticle while applying the voltage waveform to the cleaning electrode (Yonekawa, Figs. 1-5, paras. [0047]-[0048], [0055]-[0057], [0063], the reticle 2 is grounded with a maintained voltage while the voltage is applied to the electrode 31).
Regarding claim 15, claim 16 of patent 235 recites a system (claim 16, col. 18, line 47), comprising:
a reticle cleaning system (claim 16, col. 18, line 47-48) including:
a cleaning electrode including a plurality of pins extending from a surface of the cleaning electrode, the reticle cleaning system configured to place a debris capture film on the pins separated from the cleaning electrode by a gap (claim 16, col. 18, lines 48-54); and
a voltage source configured draw debris from a photolithography reticle to the debris capture film by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity when the cleaning electrode is adjacent to the photolithography reticle (claim 16, col. 18, lines 55-61). Patent 235 does not appear to recite the voltage waveform changing in a continuous manner
Yonekawa discloses a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity when the cleaning electrode is adjacent to the photolithography reticle (Figs. 2-5, 8-22, paras. [0037], [0043]-[0045], [0055]-[0058], an AC voltage waveform with continuously varying voltage polarity (see Figs. 3, 4, 8 for example) is applied to the wire electrode 31).
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 voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity when the cleaning electrode is adjacent to the photolithography reticle as taught by Yonekawa as the voltage waveform in the reticle cleaning system as recited by patent 235 since including a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity when the cleaning electrode is adjacent to the photolithography reticle is commonly used to effectively protect the reticle from particles even when the contaminant particles are not charged (Yonekawa, paras. [0009]-[0011], [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 of patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa recites further comprising support pins extending from a surface of the cleaning electrode, wherein the support pins support the debris capture film adjacent to and spaced apart from the cleaning electrode by the gap (claim 16, col. 18, lines 48-54).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 of patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa recites wherein the debris capture film is a flexible film (claim 17, col. 18, lines 62-63).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 of patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa recites wherein the debris capture film is a rigid film (claim 18, col. 18, lines 64-65).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 of patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa recites wherein the debris capture electrode has a planar surface facing the debris capture film (claim 19, col. 18, lines 66-67).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 of patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa recites wherein the reticle is an extreme ultraviolet reticle (claim 20, col. 19, lines 1-2).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,235 as modified by Yonekawa et al. (US PGPub 2008/0246939, Yonekawa hereinafter) in view of Scaccabarozzi (US PGPub 2011/0037960, Scaccabarozzi hereinafter)
Regarding claim 6, patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa does not appear to explicitly recite wherein the first debris capture film includes a polymer material.
Scaccabarozzi discloses wherein the first debris capture film includes a polymer material (Figs. 1-4, paras. [0039], [0064], the adhesive coating is a formaldehyde resin).
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 first debris capture film includes a polymer material as taught by Scaccabarozzi as the first debris capture film in the method as recited by patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa since including wherein the first debris capture film includes a polymer material is commonly used to provide a coating material with high electrical insulation (Scaccabarozzi, para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa does not appear to explicitly recite wherein the first debris capture film includes a polymer material.
Scaccabarozzi discloses wherein the first debris capture film includes a polymer material (Figs. 1-4, paras. [0039], [0064], the adhesive coating is a formaldehyde resin).
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 first debris capture film includes a polymer material as taught by Scaccabarozzi as the first debris capture film in the method as recited by patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa since including wherein the first debris capture film includes a polymer material is commonly used to provide a coating material with high electrical insulation (Scaccabarozzi, para. [0039]).
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,681,235 as modified by Yonekawa, and further in view of Bai et al. (US PGPub 2020/0348599, Bai hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the debris includes particles from droplets utilized to generate extreme ultraviolet light during the extreme ultraviolet photolithography process.
Bai discloses wherein the debris includes particles from droplets utilized to generate extreme ultraviolet light during the extreme ultraviolet photolithography process (Figs. 1, 10, paras. [0029], [0031], [0036], the EUV source 120 generate an EUV beam by irradiating source drops 121 with a laser beam, and the debris particles are derived from the source drops 121).
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 includes particles from droplets utilized to generate extreme ultraviolet light during the extreme ultraviolet photolithography process as taught by Bai as the debris in the method as recited by patent 235 as modified by Yonekawa since including wherein the debris includes particles from droplets utilized to generate extreme ultraviolet light during the extreme ultraviolet photolithography process is commonly used to remove contamination particles from all sources from the reticle in an EUV lithography system which uses irradiating a metal droplet with a laser for the source of the EUV illumination. The EUV illumination improves device integration density by allowing formation of finer patterns, and the removal of debris from the reticle caused by the EUV radiation source minimizes pattern failures (see Bai, paras. [0003]-[0004]).
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 16 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,099,310. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 15, claim 16 of patent 310 recites a system (claim 15, col. 18, lines 40-51), comprising:
a reticle cleaning system (claim 15, col. 18, lines 40-51) including:
a cleaning electrode including a plurality of pins extending from a surface of the cleaning electrode, the reticle cleaning system configured to place a debris capture film on the pins separated from the cleaning electrode by a gap (claim 15, col. 18, lines 41-44, claim 16, col. 18, lines 52-56); and
a voltage source configured draw debris from a photolithography reticle to the debris capture film by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity when the cleaning electrode is adjacent to the photolithography reticle (claim 15, col. 18, lines 44-51). Claims “may be differently worded and still define the same invention.” See MPEP 804, subsection II(A). In this case, “a plurality of pins extending from a surface of the cleaning electrode, the reticle cleaning system configured to place a debris capture film on the pins separated from the cleaning electrode by a gap” in the instant claim uses different language to define the same invention having “further comprising support pins extending from a surface of the cleaning electrode, wherein the support pins support the debris capture film adjacent to and spaced apart from the cleaning electrode by the gap” in claim 16 of patent 310.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 of patent 310 recites further comprising support pins extending from a surface of the cleaning electrode, wherein the support pins support the debris capture film adjacent to and spaced apart from the cleaning electrode by the gap (see claim 16 of patent 310).
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,099,310. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claim is a broader version of the patent claim, which further requires positioning the cleaning electrode adjacent to an exposure face of the photolithography reticle and capturing debris particles with the first film positioned between the cleaning electrode and the exposure face and separated from the cleaning electrode by a gap.
Regarding claim 1, claim 5 of patent 310 recites a method (claim 1, col. 17, line 28), comprising:
positioning a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode (claim 1, col. 17, lines 29-30 and 38-40 and claim 5, col. 17, lines 57-60);
applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity (claim 1, col. 17, lines 31-34); and
capturing debris particles with the first debris capture film by drawing the debris particles from a photolithography reticle toward the cleaning electrode while applying the voltage waveform (claim 1, col. 17, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 of patent 310 recites wherein positioning the first debris capture film between the cleaning electrode and the exposure face includes coupling the first film to support pins positioned on the cleaning electrode (claim 5, col. 17, lines 57-60).
Claims 2, 3, and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,099,310 in view of Scaccabarozzi (US PGPub 2011/0037960, Scaccabarozzi hereinafter)
Regarding claim 2, claim 5 of patent 310 does not recite wherein drawing debris particles includes drawing charged debris particles of the second polarity from the exposure face to the film while the voltage is at the first polarity.
Scaccabarozzi discloses wherein drawing debris particles includes drawing charged debris particles of the second polarity from the exposure face to the film while the voltage is at the first polarity (Figs. 1-4, paras. [0037], [0039], [0045]-[0046], [0048], [0050]-[0053], [0062]-[0064], negatively charged contaminant particles are attracted to the cleaning electrode when the positive voltage is applied to the cleaning electrode, and the contaminant particles are retained on the adhesive layer).
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 drawing debris particles includes drawing charged debris particles of the second polarity from the exposure face to the film while the voltage is at the first polarity as taught by Scaccabarozzi in the method as recited by patent 310 since including wherein drawing debris particles includes drawing charged debris particles of the second polarity from the exposure face to the film while the voltage is at the first polarity is commonly used to adhere the contaminant particles for improved particle removal (Scaccabarozzi, paras. [0009]-[0010], [0039], [0053], [0064]).
Regarding claim 3, patent 310 as modified by Scaccabarozzi recites further comprising drawing charged debris particles of the first polarity from the exposure face to the film while the voltage waveform is at the second polarity (Scaccabarozzi, Figs. 1-4, paras. [0037], [0039], [0045]-[0046], [0048], [0050]-[0053], [0062]-[0064], positively charged contaminant particles are attracted to the cleaning electrode when the negative voltage is applied to the cleaning electrode, and the contaminant particles are retained on the adhesive layer).
Regarding claim 6, claim 5 of patent 310 does not recite wherein the first debris capture film includes a polymer material.
Scaccabarozzi discloses wherein the first debris capture film includes a polymer material (Figs. 1-4, paras. [0039], [0064], the adhesive coating is a formaldehyde resin).
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 first debris capture film includes a polymer material as taught by Scaccabarozzi as the first debris capture film in the method as recited by patent 310 since including wherein the first debris capture film includes a polymer material is commonly used to provide a coating material with high electrical insulation (Scaccabarozzi, para. [0039]).
Claims 7, 8, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,099,310 in view of Yonekawa.
Regarding claim 7, claim 5 of patent 310 does not recite further comprising generating an electric field by applying the voltage waveform to the cleaning electrode.
Yonekawa discloses further comprising generating an electric field by applying the voltage waveform to the cleaning electrode (Figs. 2-5, 8-22, paras. [0037], [0043]-[0045], [0048], [0055]-[0058], an AC voltage waveform with continuously varying voltage polarity (see Figs. 3, 4, 8 for example) is applied to the wire electrode 31, and an electric field is generated).
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 further comprising generating an electric field by applying the voltage waveform to the cleaning electrode as taught by Yonekawa in the method as recited by patent 310 since including further comprising generating an electric field by applying the voltage waveform to the cleaning electrode is commonly used to effectively protect the reticle from particles even when the contaminant particles are not charged (Yonekawa, paras. [0009]-[0011], [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 8, claim 5 of patent 310 recites a method (claim 1, col. 17, line 28), comprising:
placing a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a support structure extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode (claim 1, col. 17, lines 29-30, lines 38-40, claim 5, col. 17, lines 57-60, first film is positioned on support pins by coupling the first film to the support film); and
capturing, with the first debris capture film, debris from an exposure face of the reticle by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity (claim 1, col. 17, lines 29-40). Claim 5 of patent 235 does not appear to recite performing an extreme ultraviolet photolithography process with an extreme ultraviolet reticle.
Yonekawa discloses performing an extreme ultraviolet photolithography process with an extreme ultraviolet reticle (Figs.1-5, 8-22, paras. [0036]-[0041], the wafer 1 is exposed in an EUV exposure apparatus); and
a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity (Figs. 2-5, 8-22, paras. [0037], [0043]-[0045], [0055]-[0058], an AC voltage waveform with continuously varying voltage polarity (see Figs. 3, 4, 8 for example) is applied to the wire electrode 31).
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 performing an extreme ultraviolet photolithography process with an extreme ultraviolet reticle as taught by Yonekawa in the method as recited by patent 235 since including performing an extreme ultraviolet photolithography process with an extreme ultraviolet reticle is commonly used to manufacture semiconductor devices with critical dimensions below 50 nm (Yonekawa, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 11, claim 5 of patent 310 does not recite further comprising generating an electric field by applying the voltage waveform to the cleaning electrode.
Yonekawa discloses further comprising generating an electric field by applying the voltage waveform to the cleaning electrode (Figs. 2-5, 8-22, paras. [0037], [0043]-[0045], [0048], [0055]-[0058], an AC voltage waveform with continuously varying voltage polarity (see Figs. 3, 4, 8 for example) is applied to the wire electrode 31, and an electric field is generated).
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 further comprising generating an electric field by applying the voltage waveform to the cleaning electrode as taught by Yonekawa in the method as recited by patent 310 since including further comprising generating an electric field by applying the voltage waveform to the cleaning electrode is commonly used to effectively protect the reticle from particles even when the contaminant particles are not charged (Yonekawa, paras. [0009]-[0011], [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 13, claim 5 of patent 310 as modified by Yonekawa recites comprising positioning the cleaning electrode directly below the exposure face (claim 1, col. 17, lines 31-40, claim 5, and as modified by Yonekawa, Figs. 2-5, 8-22, paras. [0037], [0043]-[0045], [0047]-[0048], [0055]-[0058], the wire electrode 31 is directly below the exposure face of the reticle 2).
Regarding claim 14, claim 5 of patent 310 as modified by Yonekawa recites comprising applying ground voltage to the extreme ultraviolet reticle while applying the voltage waveform to the cleaning electrode (Yonekawa, Figs. 1-5, paras. [0047]-[0048], [0055]-[0057], [0063], the reticle 2 is grounded with a maintained voltage while the voltage is applied to the electrode 31).
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,099,310 in view of Yonekawa and further in view of Scaccabarozzi.
Regarding claim 9, claim 5 of patent 310 as modified by Yonekawa does not recite wherein the first debris capture film includes a polymer material.
Scaccabarozzi discloses wherein the first debris capture film includes a polymer material (Figs. 1-4, paras. [0039], [0064], the adhesive coating is a formaldehyde resin).
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 first debris capture film includes a polymer material as taught by Scaccabarozzi as the first debris capture film in the method as recited by patent 310 as modified by Yonekawa since including wherein the first debris capture film includes a polymer material is commonly used to provide a coating material with high electrical insulation (Scaccabarozzi, para. [0039]).
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,099,310 in view of Yonekawa and further in view of Bai et al. (US PGPub 2020/0348599, Bai hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, patent 310 as modified by Yonekawa does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the debris includes particles from droplets utilized to generate extreme ultraviolet light during the extreme ultraviolet photolithography process.
Bai discloses wherein the debris includes particles from droplets utilized to generate extreme ultraviolet light during the extreme ultraviolet photolithography process (Figs. 1, 10, paras. [0029], [0031], [0036], the EUV source 120 generate an EUV beam by irradiating source drops 121 with a laser beam, and the debris particles are derived from the source drops 121).
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 includes particles from droplets utilized to generate extreme ultraviolet light during the extreme ultraviolet photolithography process as taught by Bai as the debris in the method as recited by patent 310 as modified by Yonekawa since including wherein the debris includes particles from droplets utilized to generate extreme ultraviolet light during the extreme ultraviolet photolithography process is commonly used to remove contamination particles from all sources from the reticle in an EUV lithography system which uses irradiating a metal droplet with a laser for the source of the EUV illumination. The EUV illumination improves device integration density by allowing formation of finer patterns, and the removal of debris from the reticle caused by the EUV radiation source minimizes pattern failures (see Bai, paras. [0003]-[0004]).
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,099,310 in view of Onvlee et al. (US PGPub 2015/0241797, Onvlee hereinafter)
Regarding claim 17, claim 16 of patent 310 does not appear to recite wherein the debris capture film is a flexible film.
Onvlee discloses wherein the debris capture film is a flexible film (Figs. 6-8, paras. [0080]-[0085], a cleaning system 500 includes a layer of flexible tape 502 to capture particles from the patterning device 302).
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 capture film is a flexible film as taught by Onvlee in the system as recited by patent 310 since including wherein the debris capture film is a flexible film is commonly used to provide conformation to the reticle surface to completely remove particle contaminants from the desired surfaces (Onvlee, paras. [0085]-[0086]).
Claims 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,099,310 in view of Scaccabarozzi.
Regarding claim 18, claim 16 of patent 310 does not appear to recite wherein the debris capture film is a rigid film.
Scaccabarozzi wherein the debris capture film is a rigid film (Figs. 1-4, paras. [0039], [0064], the adhesive coating is a formaldehyde resin).
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 capture film is a rigid film as taught by Scaccabarozzi in the system as recited by patent 310 since including wherein the debris capture film is a rigid film is commonly used to provide a coating material with high electrical insulation (Scaccabarozzi, para. [0039]).
Regarding claim 19, claim 16 of patent 310 does not appear to recite wherein the debris capture electrode has a planar surface facing the debris capture film.
Scaccabarozzi discloses wherein the debris capture electrode has a planar surface facing the debris capture film (Scaccabarozzi, Figs. 1-4, paras. [0039], [0064], the adhesive coating is formed facing the electrode).
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 capture electrode has a planar surface facing the debris capture film as taught by Scaccabarozzi in the system as recited by patent 310 since including wherein the debris capture electrode has a planar surface facing the debris capture film is commonly used to provide an improved cleaning system that decreases local electric fields (Scaccabarozzi, paras. [0005]-[0006], [0039]).
Regarding claim 20, claim 16 of patent 310 does not appear to recite wherein the reticle is an extreme ultraviolet reticle.
Scaccabarozzi discloses wherein the reticle is an extreme ultraviolet reticle (Figs. 1-4, paras. [0016], [0025]-[0027], [0045], an EUV lithographic apparatus exposes a pattern on a patterning device MA, 12 onto a substrate W using EUV radiation).
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 reticle is an extreme ultraviolet reticle as taught by Scaccabarozzi in the system as recited by patent 310 since including wherein the reticle is an extreme ultraviolet reticle is commonly used to produce integrated circuit patterns on a wafer in an EUV system (Scaccabarozzi, paras. [0003], [0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action or if a proper Terminal Disclaimer is provided.
Claims 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the statutory double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 4 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious positioning a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode; applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity; and capturing debris particles with the first debris capture film by drawing the debris particles from a photolithography reticle toward the cleaning electrode while applying the voltage waveform. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claim 1 render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious placing a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a support structure extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode; and capturing, with the first debris capture film, debris from an exposure face of the reticle by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claim 8 render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious a cleaning electrode including a plurality of pins extending from a surface of the cleaning electrode, the reticle cleaning system configured to place a debris capture film on the pins separated from the cleaning electrode by a gap; and a voltage source configured draw debris from a photolithography reticle to the debris capture film by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity when the cleaning electrode is adjacent to the photolithography reticle. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claim 15 render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The dependent claims are likewise allowable over prior art by virtue of their dependency.
Yonekawa et al. (US PGPub 2008/0246939, Yonekawa hereinafter) discloses positioning a cleaning electrode adjacent to an exposure face of a photolithography reticle (Figs. 2-5, 8-22, paras. [0037], [0043]-[0045], [0048], [0055]-[0058], the wire electrode 31 faces the reflection face of the reticle 2); applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity (Figs. 2-5, 8-22, paras. [0037], [0043]-[0045], [0048], [0055]-[0058], an AC voltage waveform with continuously varying voltage polarity (see Figs. 3, 4, 8 for example) is applied to the wire electrode 31); and drawing debris particles from the photolithography reticle toward the cleaning electrode while applying the voltage waveform (Figs. 2-5, 8-22, paras. [0037], [0043]-[0045], [0048], [0055]-[0058], particles are drawn away from the reticle 2 with application of the AC voltage waveform to the electrode 31). Yonekawa does not describe or render obvious positioning a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode; and capturing debris particles with the first debris capture film by drawing the debris particles from a photolithography reticle toward the cleaning electrode while applying the voltage waveform, or placing a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a support structure extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode, capturing, with the first debris capture film, debris from an exposure face of the reticle by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform, or the reticle cleaning system configured to place a debris capture film on the pins separated from the cleaning electrode by a gap; and a voltage source configured draw debris from a photolithography reticle to the debris capture film by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity when the cleaning electrode is adjacent to the photolithography reticle.
Perez-Falcon et al. (US PGPub 2020/0348606, Perez-Falcon hereinafter) discloses capturing the debris particles with a first film positioned between the cleaning electrode (Fig. 5, para. [0071], an electrode 510 is below the upper surface of the electrostatic cleaning substrate 500 having an upper layer 540 of a material that assists in retention of particulate contaminants). Perez-Falcon does not describe or render obvious positioning a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode. Perez-Falcon also fails to describe or suggest a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity.
Scaccabarozzi et al. (US PGPub 2011/0037960, Scaccabarozzi hereinafter) discloses a debris capture film supported adjacent to the cleaning electrode (Figs. 1-4, paras. [0037], [0039], [0045]-[0046], [0048], [0050]-[0053], [0062]-[0064], an adhesive layer is coated on the cleaning electrode to retain particles on the electrode during cleaning). However, Scaccabarozzi does not describe or suggest positioning a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode. Scaccabarozzi also fails to describe or suggest a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity.
Onvlee et al. (US PGPub 2015/0241797, Onvlee hereinafter) discloses wherein the debris capture film is a flexible film (Figs. 6-8, paras. [0080]-[0085], a cleaning system 500 includes a layer of flexible tape 502 to capture particles from the patterning device 302), but Onvlee does not describe or render obvious positioning a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode; and capturing debris particles with the first debris capture film by drawing the debris particles from a photolithography reticle toward the cleaning electrode while applying the voltage waveform, or placing a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a support structure extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode, capturing, with the first debris capture film, debris from an exposure face of the reticle by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform, or the reticle cleaning system configured to place a debris capture film on the pins separated from the cleaning electrode by a gap; and a voltage source configured draw debris from a photolithography reticle to the debris capture film by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity when the cleaning electrode is adjacent to the photolithography reticle.
Markoya et al. (WO2013/083332) discloses cleaning particles from the surface of a clamping structure using a flexible layer whose conductivity is controlled while voltage is applied to the clamping structure to draw the flexible layer to the burls of the clamping structure (Figs. 7-10, paras. [0069]-[0073], flexible layer 802, 902, 1002 is used to clean clamping structure 404). That is, the voltage is applied to the surface being cleaned (see at least paras. [0069], [0070]) rather than to a cleaning electrode. Markoya does not describe or render obvious positioning a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode; and capturing debris particles with the first debris capture film by drawing the debris particles from a photolithography reticle toward the cleaning electrode while applying the voltage waveform, or placing a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a support structure extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode, capturing, with the first debris capture film, debris from an exposure face of the reticle by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform, or the reticle cleaning system configured to place a debris capture film on the pins separated from the cleaning electrode by a gap; and a voltage source configured draw debris from a photolithography reticle to the debris capture film by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity when the cleaning electrode is adjacent to the photolithography reticle.
Kim et al. (US PGPub 2018/0164694) discloses applying voltage to a reticle to influence the direction of particles (Figs. 2-14, paras. [0039]-[0047], [0052]-[0064]), but Kim et al. does not describe or render obvious positioning a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode; and capturing debris particles with the first debris capture film by drawing the debris particles from a photolithography reticle toward the cleaning electrode while applying the voltage waveform, or placing a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a support structure extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode, capturing, with the first debris capture film, debris from an exposure face of the reticle by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform, or the reticle cleaning system configured to place a debris capture film on the pins separated from the cleaning electrode by a gap; and a voltage source configured draw debris from a photolithography reticle to the debris capture film by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity when the cleaning electrode is adjacent to the photolithography reticle.
Bruls et al. (US PGPub 2021/0041795) discloses enhancing the attraction of particles to a cleaning reticle by alternating the polarity of the supplied voltage (Figs. 3-5, paras. [0054]-[0059]). Bruls does not describe or suggest positioning a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode; and capturing debris particles with the first debris capture film by drawing the debris particles from a photolithography reticle toward the cleaning electrode while applying the voltage waveform, or placing a first debris capture film on a plurality of pins extending from a support structure extending from a surface of a cleaning electrode, capturing, with the first debris capture film, debris from an exposure face of the reticle by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform, or the reticle cleaning system configured to place a debris capture film on the pins separated from the cleaning electrode by a gap; and a voltage source configured draw debris from a photolithography reticle to the debris capture film by applying, to the cleaning electrode, a voltage waveform beginning with a first polarity and changing in a continuous manner to a second polarity opposite to the first polarity when the cleaning electrode is adjacent to the photolithography reticle.
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