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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 26, 2026 have been fully considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed Aug. 19, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
IDS filed on Aug. 19, 2024 will be considered when the NPL documents is provided.
Applicant states in the response filed on June 26, 2026 that a copy of the NPL document is provided with the response, but it is not in the file, and it cannot be considered.
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.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayano et al. (Hayano) (4,966,457) in view of Li et al. (Li) (CN 113567692, translation provided with the Office Action, the page numbers refer to the translation) and Tsuji (2002/0101574).
Regarding claim 17, Hayano discloses a lithography system (col. 1, lines 19-23) component, comprising: a reticle (3, Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 52-55); a pellicle (1, Fig. 2) installed on the reticle (col. 5, lines 52-55); a source of first radiation, having wavelength longer than extreme ultraviolet radiation (Hayano does not explicitly disclose EUV radiation, but the use of lens 16 and 17 in Fig. 2 means the first radiation has wavelength longer than EUV) configured to cause the first radiation to impinge on the reticle (9, Fig. 2, col. 5, line 62 – col. 6, line 2, col. 6, line 65 – col. 7, line 2); and a detector (18, 20, Fig. 2, col. 7, lines 6-28) that is configured to measure second radiation that is generated by the pellicle in response to an interaction of the first radiation with the pellicle, wherein the detector is further configured to measure a first intensity component of a first wavelength and a second intensity component of a second wavelength of the second radiation (col. 7, lines 22-28). Although Hayano does not disclose that the pellicle is configured to transmit EUV radiation, a pellicle is used to protect reticles used with EUV radiation as well as a wavelength greater than EUV radiation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pellicle to transmit EUV radiation since such use is well known in the art and providing such a pellicle would involve only the routine skill in the art based on the intended use. However, Hayano does not disclose that the detector comprises an enclosure having an aperture, a lens, and an array of photodetectors arranged on a substrate in a grid pattern, wherein each photodetector in the array is covered by an integrated spectral filter configured to transmit a distinct spectral band and the detector measures a first wavelength and a second wavelength at respective separate photodetectors of the array of photodetectors. Li discloses a detector (200, Fig. 7) comprising a light splitting element 220 which splits the light into four beams, an array of four filters 221 for each beam and an array of four photoelectric detectors 222 and four lens 400 for each corresponding filter (page 11). Li discloses that each filter 221 is used for transmitting different wavelengths. Tsuji discloses in Fig. 7, a detector comprising an enclosure (2, para 0049) having an aperture (2a, para 0050). Although Li discloses separate filters and does not disclose the photodetectors arranged in a grid pattern, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the photodetectors in a grid pattern and the filters as an integrated spectral filter in order to provide a more compact detector. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide the modified detector of Li in an enclosure of Tsuji to the invention of Hayano in order to combine two separate detecting system with one in order to provide a more compact system for more efficient use of space and to provide the enclosure with aperture in order to protect the detection system and limit any stray lights from reaching the detector.
Regarding claim 20, although Hayano does not disclose wherein the detector further includes processing circuits that are configured to generate a spectral profile of the second radiation, generating a spectral profile to analyze an area and detecting defect is well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a processing circuit to generate a spectral profile for analysis.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayano et al. (Hayano) (4,966,457) in view of Li et al. (Li) and Tsuji as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Brouns et al. (Brouns) (2020/0341366).
Regarding claim 18, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Hayano is the specific wavelength of the first radiation and wavelengths of the second radiation. Brouns discloses in Fig. 17, a pellicle inspecting system with the first radiation having wavelength selected from wavelength ranging from 180 nm-380 nm (para 0248, 0251, 0261). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first radiation with a third wavelength that is 150 nm to 350 nm as taught by Brouns in order to provide the radiation with low transmittance as taught by Brouns. Further, although Hayano does not disclose that the detectors 18 and 20 are configured for the claimed wavelengths, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide detectors that are configured for a wide range of wavelengths including the claimed wavelengths since such detectors are commonly used in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Hayano does not disclose wherein the pellicle comprises a layer of carbon nanotubes. Brouns discloses the pellicle comprising carbon nanotubes (para 0137). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pellicle comprising carbon nanotubes to further modify the invention of Hayano since 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
The reasons for allowance are stated in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights