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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. [US 2019/0155139] in view of Levit [WO 02/084832].
For claims 1, 11 and 17, Chang teaches a method, comprising:
receiving a first reticle enclosure (500 and 540, see Figs. 4, 7 and 9) using a reticle handling system (610-622), wherein the first reticle enclosure includes a first base (544) and a first cover (542) disposed on the first base, a reticle (400) is disposed on the first base, and electrostatic discharge device (550) is disposed on the first base;
removing the reticle from the first reticle enclosure (see Fig. 11 and 12); providing the reticle to an exposure tool (see Fig. 12 and 13); and
performing a photolithography operation on a semiconductor substrate using the reticle (see Fig. 13).
Chang teaches a method, comprising:
arranging a reticle (400, see Fig. 4) on an inner base (544) of an inner reticle enclosure (540), wherein an electrostatic discharge device (550) is disposed on the inner base of the inner reticle enclosure;
disposing an inner cover (542) on the inner base with the reticle disposed between the inner base and the inner cover; and
enclosing the inner reticle enclosure in an outer reticle enclosure (510), wherein the outer reticle enclosure includes an outer base (514) and an outer cover (512) disposed on the outer base with the inner reticle enclosure disposed between the outer base and the outer cover.
Chang teaches a method, comprising:
receiving a reticle enclosure (see Figs. 4, 7, 9), wherein the reticle enclosure (540) includes a base (544) and a cover (542) disposed on the base, a reticle (400) is disposed on the base, and an electrostatic discharge device (550) is disposed on the base;
removing the reticle from the reticle enclosure for lithographic processing (see Figs. 10-12); and
reducing residual electrostatic charges on the reticle during removal of the reticle from the reticle enclosure by way of the electrostatic discharge device (continuously neutralized, see [0046], [0061], [0064] and [0077]).
Chang fails to teach the electrostatic discharge device is a layer or coating of electrostatic discharge material.
Levit teaches the electrostatic discharge device is a layer or coating of electrostatic discharge material (Polonium 210 film 15, see [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the foil layer as taught by Levit as the electrostatic discharge device as taught by Chang in order to produce continuous alpha radiation to reduce the static charge accumulation on the reticle and to continuously inhibit the build up of charge, by substitution of one known means for another means for the predictable result of removing charge in the vicinity of the reticle.
For claim 2, Chang teaches transporting the reticle from the exposure tool to the reticle handling system; placing a reticle on the first base; and closing the first reticle enclosure by placing the first cover on the first base (see [0074]-[0077]).
For claims 7 and 12, in the combination, Chang teaches electrostatic discharge device is spaced from outer edges of the first/inner base (location of 550 as shown in Fig. 4), and Levit teaches the layer of electrostatic discharge material/coating (Polonium 210 film 15, see [0008]).
For claims 8, 13, and 18, in the combination, Levit teaches the layer of electrostatic discharge material/coating includes polonium (Po-210).
For claims 10 and 15, in the combination, Chang teaches the electrostatic discharge device is disposed in only a portion of a surface of the first/inner base (location of 550 as shown in Fig. 4), and Levit teaches the layer of electrostatic discharge material/coating (Polonium 210 film 15, see [0008]).
For claims 16 and 20, Chang teaches the reticle is fixed inside the inner reticle enclosure with a plurality of restraining mechanisms on the base (524, see Fig. 4 and [0042]).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Levit as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gregerson et al. [US 2006/0260978].
For claims 3 and 5, Chang teaches placing the reticle on the first/inner base includes placing the reticle on one or more first restraining mechanisms (524, see Fig. 4 and [0042]) on the first base and closing the first reticle enclosure includes placing the first cover on the first base (see Fig. 4).
Chang fails to teach closing the first reticle enclosure includes placing the first cover on the first base such that one or more second restraining mechanisms on the first cover contact the reticle, thereby securing the reticle in the first reticle enclosure.
Gregerson teaches the closing the first reticle enclosure includes placing the first cover on the first base such that one or more second restraining mechanisms (dome shaped retainer protrusions 301 contact reticle upper surface 55 proximate corners 85 to secure the reticle 30 against movement relative to the secondary pod 300, see [0049] and Fig. 3) on the first cover contact the reticle, thereby securing the reticle in the first reticle enclosure (see [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the contact surface of the cover in the enclosure as taught by Gregerson in the enclosure as taught by Chang in order to secure the reticle from movement during transport.
For claim 4, in the combination, Chang teaches the electrostatic discharge device is disposed on a surface of the first base only between two or more restraining mechanisms (location of 550 as shown in Fig. 4), and Levit teaches the layer of electrostatic discharge material/coating (Polonium 210 film 15, see [0008]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Levit and Gregerson as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Chuang et al. [US 2021/0116821].
For claim 6, Chang fails to teach the layer of electrostatic discharge material is disposed on the one or more first restraining mechanisms.
Chuang teaches the layer of electrostatic discharge material is disposed on the one or more first restraining mechanisms (ESD material on supporting elements 1021, see [0055]-[0058] and Fig. 10a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the charge dissipative material on the restraining supports as taught by Chuang in the supports as taught by Chang in order to provide a path for charge removal or for providing close area contact with the reticle for change removal.
Claims 9, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Levit as applied to claims 1, 11, and 17 above, and further in view of Su et al. [US 2007/0076292].
For claims 9, 14, and 19, in the combination, Chang and Levit fail to teach the layer of electrostatic discharge material/coating covers an entire surface of the first/inner base.
Su teaches the layer of electrostatic discharge material/coating covers an entire surface of the first/inner base (122 on base 102 surface, see Fig. 2 and [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the coating on the entire surface as taught by Su in the electrostatic discharge as taught by Chang in order to increase the area from which charge is removed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights