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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in para 0029, “As describe” seems to be typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: “layer 704” seems to be a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 6 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.
It is not clear if “the UV radiation” is the UV radiation for treating the surface of the reticle or if it is the reflected UV beam from the surface of the reticle for adjusting the irradiation time. Further, the specification seems to disclose that EUV light source is used in EUV lithography, but does not disclose EUV radiation for treatment or for determining reflectivity and adjusting the irradiation time. In para 0047, it is disclosed “the reticle is irradiated with an incident ultraviolet (UV) radiation for a predetermined irradiation time to treat the surface of the reticle”. In the same paragraph, it is also disclosed “projecting, by an incident EUV radiation, a layout pattern of the reticle onto a photo resist layer of the wafer, and developing the photo resist”, which means EUV radiation is used to EUV lithography. Again, in the same paragraph, “the incident UV radiation is generated from a UV source of the treatment device and the incident EUV radiation is generated from an EUV source of the exposure device” which seems to indicate UV radiation is used for treatment and EUV radiation is used for lithography.
In order to expedite prosecution, until a further clarification is provided, it is assumed that EUV light source is used for EUV lithography as in claim 6.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are rejected for incorporating the defects from the base claim by dependency.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-12, 15 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,550,229. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 8 of the patent is directed to a method comprising: applying ozone fluid over a reticle (claim 8, “releasing ozone fluid over the surface”), irradiating the surface of reticle with UV radiation for an irradiation time to treat the surface (claim 8) and adjusting the irradiation time based on a reflected UV beam (claim 8, “stopping the treatment” of the reticle based on detection of “reflected UV beam”). The claim 1 of instant application is broader than the claim 8 of the patent, and is fully met. No further analysis is necessary. For example, claim 8 of the patent is further directed to transferring the reticle from the treatment device after the treatment.
Regarding claim 2, claim 8 is inherently directed to a reflective EUV mask (EUV lithography operation).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, although claim 8 of the patent is not specifically directed to an ozone gas or ozone water, claim 8 is directed to ozone fluid, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an ozone gas or ozone water since they are well known and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, claim 8 of the patent is directed to the EUV radiation from EUV source used in and EUV lithography apparatus.
Regarding claim 7, although claim 8 of the patent is not directed to a stage to hold the reticle and move the reticle while the ozone fluid is over the surface and the reticle is irradiated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a movable stage so that the entire surface of the reticle is exposed the UV radiation for treatment.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 of the patent is directed to a method comprising: applying ozone (claim 8, “releasing ozone fluid”), irradiating by an incident UV beam for an irradiation time, directing a reflected UV beam to generate a detected signal (“focusing a reflected UV beam onto a detector to generate a detected signal”) and controlling the irradiation of UV beam based on the detected signal (“stopping the treatment…detected signal is below a threshold”). Although claim 8 of the patent is not specifically directed to decomposing contamination layer, claim 8 is directed to the method which is equivalent to the steps of claim 8 of instant application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to decompose a contaminant layer from the reticle using the same methods.
Regarding claim 9, claim 8 of the patent is directed to the detected signal monitored during the irradiation time, and the irradiation of the UV beam stopping when a percentage increase of the detected signal is below a threshold value in a specific amount of time (“stopping the treatment of the surface of the reticle and ending the irradiation time when a percentage increase of the detected signal is below a threshold value in a specific amount of time”).
Claims 10-12 correspond to claims 10-12 of the patent, respectively.
Regarding claim 13, although claim 8 of the patent is not specifically directed to an ozone gas or ozone water, claim 8 is directed to ozone fluid, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an ozone gas or ozone water since they are well known and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Regarding claim 14, although claims 8-12 of the patent are not directed to removing hydrocarbon from the reticle, claims 8-12 are directed to the methods which are equivalent to the steps of claim 8 of instant application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove hydrocarbon from the reticle using the same methods.
Regarding claim 15, although claim 8-12 of the patent are not directed to collecting of the ozone fluid by a nozzle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to collect the ozone fluid to recycle the ozone fluid in order to improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 16, claim 15 of the patent is directed to a controller (claim 15, “main controller”), a reticle stage (“first reticle stage”) for a reticle, an UV light source, and an ozone fluid supplier (“an ozone supply line”), wherein the controller is configured to: irradiate with UV radiation the reticle, release an ozone fluid during the irradiation, adjust an irradiation time based on a reflected UV beam (“command the UV light source to turn on”, “irradiating the surface of the reticle by the UV radiation of the UV light source”, “release of ozone fluid from an ozone supply line over the surface of the reticle during the irradiation with the UV radiation”, “a command via the main controller to the UV light source to stop a treatment of the surface of the reticle when a percentage increase of the detected signal is below a threshold value in a specific amount of time”). Although claim 15 of the patent is not directed to move the reticle and the stage while the ozone fluid is over the surface and the reticle is irradiated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a movable stage so that the entire surface of the reticle is exposed the UV radiation for treatment.
Regarding claim 17, although claim 15 of the patent is not specifically directed to an ozone gas or ozone water, claim 15 is directed to ozone fluid, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an ozone gas or ozone water since they are well known and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Regarding claim 18, claim 20 of the patent is directed to wherein a wavelength of the UV radiation is between 120 nm and 250 nm.
Regarding claim 19, claim 15 of the patent is directed to wherein the controller is configured to turn on the UV light source for a predetermined amount of time (“a command via the main controller to the UV light source to stop a treatment of the surface of the reticle when a percentage increase of the detected signal is below a threshold value in a specific amount of time”).
Regarding claim 20, although claims 15 of the patent are not directed to collecting of the ozone fluid by a nozzle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to collect the ozone fluid to recycle the ozone fluid in order to improve efficiency.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,829,076. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 8 of the patent is directed to a method comprising: applying ozone fluid over a reticle (claim 8, “applying ozone fluid over a surface of the reticle”), irradiating the surface of reticle with UV radiation for an irradiation time to treat the surface (“irradiating the surface of the reticle by an incident ultraviolet (UV) beam for an irradiation time”) and adjusting the irradiation time based on a reflected UV beam (“directing a reflected UV beam from the surface of the reticle to a detector to generate a detected signal; and controlling the irradiation of the UV beam based on the detected signal”). The claim 1 of instant application is broader than the claim 8 of the patent, and is fully met. No further analysis is necessary. For example, claim 8 of the patent is further directed to generating a detected signal.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, although claim 8 of the patent is not specifically directed to an ozone gas or ozone water, claim 8 is directed to ozone fluid, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an ozone gas or ozone water since they are well known and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Regarding claim 7, although claim 8 of the patent is not directed to a stage to hold the reticle and move the reticle while the ozone fluid is over the surface and the reticle is irradiated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a movable stage so that the entire surface of the reticle is exposed the UV radiation for treatment.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 of the patent is directed to a method comprising: applying ozone (claim 8, “applying ozone fluid over a surface of the reticle”), irradiating by an incident UV beam for an irradiation time, directing a reflected UV beam to generate a detected signal (“irradiating the surface of the reticle by an incident ultraviolet (UV) beam for an irradiation time”, “directing a reflected UV beam from the surface of the reticle to a detector to generate a detected signal”) and controlling the irradiation of UV beam based on the detected signal (“controlling the irradiation of the UV beam based on the detected signal”). Although claim 8 of the patent is not specifically directed to decomposing contamination layer, claim 8 is directed to the method which is equivalent to the steps of claim 8 of instant application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to decompose a contaminant layer from the reticle using the same methods.
Claims 9-15 correspond to claims 9-15 of the patent, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 of the patent is directed to a controller (claim 16, “main controller”), a reticle stage (“first reticle stage”) for a reticle, an UV light source, and an ozone fluid supplier (inherent, “allow release of ozone fluid”), wherein the controller is configured to: irradiate with UV radiation the reticle, release an ozone fluid during the irradiation, adjust an irradiation time based on a reflected UV beam (“command the UV light source to turn on”, “irradiate UV radiation from the UV light source, a surface of the reticle”, “allow release of ozone fluid over the surface of the reticle during the irradiation”, “stop a treatment of the surface of the reticle when a percentage increase of the detected signal is below a threshold value in a specific amount of time”). Although claim 16 of the patent is not directed to move the reticle and the stage while the ozone fluid is over the surface and the reticle is irradiated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a movable stage so that the entire surface of the reticle is exposed the UV radiation for treatment.
Claims 17 and 18 correspond to claims 18 and 19 of the patent, respectively.
Regarding claim 19, although claim 16 of the patent is not explicitly directed to the controller configured to turn on the UV light source for a predetermined amount of time, claim 16 is directed to stopping the treatment of the surface of the reticle when a percentage increase of the detected signal is below a threshold value in a specific amount of time. Since stopping the treatment would involve turning off the light after a specific amount of time, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to turn off the UV light after a specific time or a predetermined time.
Regarding claim 20, although claims 16 of the patent are not directed to collecting of the ozone fluid by a nozzle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to collect the ozone fluid to recycle the ozone fluid in order to improve efficiency.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,153,351. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the patent is directed to a method comprising: applying ozone fluid over a reticle (claim 1, “applying ozone fluid over a surface of the reticle”), irradiating the surface of reticle with UV radiation for an irradiation time to treat the surface (“irradiating the surface of the reticle by an incident ultraviolet (UV) beam for an irradiation time”) and adjusting the irradiation time based on a reflected UV beam (“adjusting the irradiation time based on a reflected UV beam from the surface of the reticle”). The claim 1 of instant application is broader than the claim 1 of the patent, and is fully met. No further analysis is necessary. For example, claim 8 of the patent is further directed to decomposing a contamination layer.
Claims 2-7 correspond to claims 2-7 of the patent, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 of the patent is directed to a method comprising: applying ozone (claim 8, “applying ozone fluid over a surface of the reticle”), irradiating by an incident UV beam for an irradiation time, directing a reflected UV beam to generate a detected signal (“irradiating the surface of the reticle by an incident ultraviolet (UV) beam for an irradiation time”, “directing a reflected UV beam from the surface of the reticle to a detector to generate a detected signal”) and controlling the irradiation of UV beam based on the detected signal (“controlling the irradiation of the UV beam based on the detected signal”). Although claim 8 of the patent is not specifically directed to decomposing contamination layer, claim 8 is directed to the method which is equivalent to the steps of claim 8 of instant application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to decompose a contaminant layer from the reticle using the same methods.
Claims 9-15 correspond to claims 9-15 of the patent, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 of the patent is directed to a controller (claim 16, “a controller”), a reticle stage (“reticle stage”) for a reticle, an UV light source, and an ozone fluid supplier (“an ozone fluid supplier”), wherein the controller is configured to: irradiate with UV radiation the reticle, release an ozone fluid during the irradiation, adjust an irradiation time based on a reflected UV beam (“command the UV light source to turn on”, “irradiate UV radiation from the UV light source, a surface of the reticle”, “release an ozone fluid over the surface of the reticle during the irradiation with the UV radiation”, “adjust an irradiation time of the UV radiation based on a reflected UV beam”) and command the reticle stage to move such that an entire surface of the reticle is subjected to the UV radiation and the ozone fluid (“command the reticle stage to move such that an entire surface of the reticle is subjected to the UV radiation and the ozone fluid”). The claim 16 of instant application is broader than the claim 16 of the patent, and is fully met. No further analysis is necessary. For example, claim 8 of the patent is further directed to decomposing a contamination layer.
Claims 17-20 correspond to claims 17-20 of the patent, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the double patenting rejections are overcome. Claims 5 and 6 would be allowable if, in addition to the double patenting rejections, the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection is overcome.
Oshemkov et al. (2016/0370697 in IDS) discloses a method of correcting a CD variation is EUV photolithography comprising detecting CD variation (ref. 29, Fig. 1) (para 0049-0052, 0062, 0063) and compensating with a treatment (Fig. 2A, para 0066-0068) by determining treatment parameter including treatment time (claim 3). Oshemkov et al. further discloses changing reflectance of the mask with treatment.
However, Oshemkov et al. does not discloses releasing ozone fluid over a surface of the reticle; while the ozone fluid is over the surface of the reticle, irradiating the surface of the reticle with an incident ultraviolet (UV) radiation for a predetermined irradiation time, and does not disclose controlling or adjusting the treatment based on a UV beam reflected from the reticle.
KR 10-2015-0016056 (‘056) (in IDS) discloses a method of cleaning a reticle, comprising: applying ozone fluid over a surface of the reticle; and while the ozone fluid is over the surface of the reticle, irradiating the surface of the reticle with an ultraviolet (UV) radiation for an irradiation time (page 13, cleaning process comprising combination of ozone water and UV radiation, the time the UV radiation is provided is the claimed irradiation time).
‘056 reference teaches while the ozone fluid is over the surface of the reticle, irradiating the surface of the reticle by an incident ultraviolet (UV) beam for an irradiation time, but does not disclose collecting the ozone fluid that is applied to the surface of reticle; directing a reflected UV beam from the surface of the reticle to a detector to generate a detected signal; and controlling the irradiation of the UV beam based on the detected signal.
Sakamoto et al. (4,954,717) discloses cleaning the mask with an ozone gas and light for a predetermined time (claim 14), but does not disclose that the time is dependent on reflected UV beam.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, 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.
/PETER B KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 January 6, 2026