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 .
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para 0076, “…a significant correlation between with the transmittance of the EUV…” seems to include a typo.
In para 0087, it is stated that an intensity value is measured for each of the wavelength, “402 nm, 425 nm, 450 nm…” However, Fig. 9 shows 405 nm, 425 nm…. Fig. 9 does not show 402 nm.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayano et al. (Hayano) (4,966,457).
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 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).
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.
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 Brouns et al. (Brouns) (2020/0341366).
Regarding claim 18, Hayano discloses the claimed invention as disclosed above; however, Hayano does not disclose 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 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayano et al. (Hayano).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, Hayano et al. (Hayano) discloses causing first radiation to impinge on the reticle causing the pellicle to generate second radiation and measuring intensity of the second radiation, wherein measuring the intensity of the second radiation further comprises measuring a first intensity component of a first wavelength and measuring a second intensity component of a second wavelength (Fig. 2, col. 5, line 52 – col. 7, line 28). However, Hayano does not disclose generating a plurality of intensity measurements and determining from the plurality of intensity measurements, a time-dependent intensity increase; and predicting a pellicle lifetime based on the time-dependent intensity increase. Hayano is inspecting pellicle for defect element adhering to the pellicle. Hayano is not predicting a pellicle lifetime by repeating the measurements to determine increase in intensity depending on time.
Vles et al. (Vles) (2018/0364561) discloses, in Fig. 18, causing a first radiation (142) to impinge on the reticle (MA) causing the pellicle (19) to generate second radiation and measuring intensity of the second radiation (142a, 142b, para 0302, 0303). Vles discloses when the pellicle breaks the radiation will no longer be absorbed by the pellicle and the intensity would increase (para 0308), which implies a plurality of measurement and that the increase in intensity is time dependent (to observe increase in intensity, inherently a plurality of measurement is needed). However, although Vles discloses two detectors (143a and 143b) for measuring the light reflected by pellicle (142a) and the light transmitted through the pellicle and reflected from the patterned surface or the reticle (142b), Vles does not disclose that the light 142a has a first wavelength and the light 142b has a second wavelength. Vles does not disclose stimulated emission where the second radiation may include one or more wavelengths different from the first radiation.
Regarding claim 11, Nagai et al. (Nagai) (2009/0027647) discloses, in Fig. 3, causing first radiation (720) to impinge on a pellicle (32) that is installed on a reticle (30); measuring an intensity of second radiation that is generated by the pellicle in response to an interaction of the first radiation with the pellicle (para 0042); and determining at least one of a thickness or a density of the pellicle from intensity of the second radiation (para 0042-0046). However, Nagai does not disclose wherein measuring the intensity of the second radiation further comprises measuring a first intensity component of a first wavelength and measuring a second intensity component of a second wavelength. Nagai discloses detecting intensity of the light reflected by the upper and lower surfaces of the pellicle (LF, LB, para 0042) and calculating the distance between the intensity peaks. However, Nagai does not disclose that the light component LF has a first wavelength and the light component LB has a second wavelength.
Vles et al. (Vles) does not explicitly disclose determining a thickness of the pellicle, but Vles discloses that determining the increase in the intensity of the light generated by the interaction with the pellicle indicates that the pellicle is broken (para 0306-0308). Therefore, it would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that as the intensity increases, the pellicle is getting thinner if not already broken. However, Vles does not disclose wherein measuring the intensity of the second radiation further comprises measuring a first intensity component of a first wavelength and measuring a second intensity component of a second wavelength. Vles does not disclose stimulated emission where the second radiation may include one or more wavelengths different from the first radiation.
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 March 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights