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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sloan et al. [WO 2021/244822 A1].
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 9, Sloan et al. discloses a method / a system for cleaning contamination particles from a clamp of a lithography apparatus (paragraph [0002], see also Figs. 3A), the method comprising:
inserting a body (302, paragraph [0072] teaches cleaning tool and/or other components) into the lithography apparatus (as shown in Fig. 3A), the body comprising cleaning features (Fig. 7 items F1 and F2) disposed on a clamp engaging surface of the body (paragraph [0083] teaches cleaning the surface upon contact therewith), wherein locations and spacing of the cleaning features on the clamp engaging surface approximate locations and spacing of contamination particles on the clamp (paragraph [0089] teaches the cleaning material that correspond to the locations of handler gripping location, a clamp element etc.);
engaging the body with the clamp; and causing relative movement between the cleaning features and the clamp to clean the contamination particles from the clamp (paragraph [0091] teaches the cleaning tool 302 is configured to contact the cleaner material with a target surface (e.g. vacuum pads) of the portion of the lithography apparatus, and move relative to the portion of the lithography apparatus).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 16, Sloan et al. discloses wherein the cleaning features are formed by a patterned coating on the clamp facing surface and/or the cleaning features are etched into the clamp facing surface (as shown in Fig, 7, see also paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, Sloan et al. discloses wherein: the clamp is an electrostatic clamp (paragraph [0077]); and the electrostatic clamp is configured to clamp the body such that sag of the body is mitigated, but the relative movement between the cleaning features and the electrostatic clamp is still permitted (paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, Sloan et al. discloses further comprising: one or more support structures configured to support a further surface of the body such that sag of the body is mitigated, the further surface opposite the clamp facing surface; and/or one or more constraint structures configured to constrain movement of the body, such that relative movement between of the clamp and the cleaning features cleans the contamination particles from the clamp (paragraph [0092] teaches the cleaning material scrubs the target portion under a normal force of the reticle handler turret gripper and the cleaning tool due to motion of the reticle handler gripper turret which may be moved back-and-forth with high acceleration and low range of motion).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Sloan et al. discloses wherein: a thickness of the cleaning features is about 200 nm; the clamp is an electrostatic clamp which is configured to clamp the body using a voltage of about 200V-400V (paragraph [0077] teaches an electrostatic clamp); the relative movement ranges from about a few tenths of a micrometer (μm) to about 4 millimeters (mm) in a non-scan direction of the lithography apparatus, and to about 2 mm in a scan direction of the lithography apparatus (paragraph [0078] teaches the relative movements); and the cleaning features are patterned on the clamp facing surface of the body using photolithography (paragraph [0102] teaches the burled reticle stage chuck membranes).
Regarding claim 20, Sloan et al. discloses further comprising using a reticle handler to move the body from a load port of the lithography apparatus is configured to position the body for cleaning and using a turret gripper to position the body for cleaning (paragraphs [0016] and [0073], see also Fig.3A).
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.
Claims 4, 11, 17, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloan et al. in view of Park et al. [US 2014/0174468 A1].
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17, Sloan et al. discloses wherein: the contact areas on the clamp comprise burls, each burl having an undulating surface with peaks and valleys (paragraph [0102] teaches the burled reticle stage chuck membranes and lateral movement).
Sloan et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the locations of the cleaning features on the clamp facing surface correspond to peaks of burls on the clamp where contamination particles are located; and /or the locations of the cleaning features alternate with gripping areas on the clamp facing surface in a macro pattern across an entirety of the clamp facing surface.
However, Park et al. discloses a cleaning device that may be applied to a manufacturing equipment without stopping operations of the equipment wherein the pattern is formed on the surface of the second functional membrane of the cleaning device to correspond to the pattern of the support surface, in order to improve the cleaning function (Fig. 6, see also paragraph [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide corresponding dimension of the cleaning surface with the surface to be cleaned, as taught by Park et al. in the system of Sloan et al. wherein the locations of the cleaning features alternate with gripping areas on the clamp facing surface in a macro pattern across an entirety of the clamp facing surface because such a modification improves the cleaning function (paragraph [0096] of Park et al.).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Sloan et al. discloses the system, as applied above.
Sloan et al. does not explicitly teach wherein: dimensions of the cleaning features comprise a pitch and a line width that correspond to a pitch and a line width of object contact areas on the clamp where the contamination particles are located, and comprise a thickness that corresponds to a thickness of the contamination particles.
However, Park et al. discloses a cleaning device that may be applied to a manufacturing equipment without stopping operations of the equipment wherein the pattern is formed on the surface of the second functional membrane of the cleaning device to correspond to the pattern of the support surface, in order to improve the cleaning function (Fig. 6, see also paragraph [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide corresponding dimension of the cleaning surface with the surface to be cleaned, as taught by Park et al. in the system of Sloan et al. because such a modification an optimized cleaning device which improves the cleaning function (paragraph [0096] of Park et al.) of the device to be cleaned.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied reference does not teach “locations and spacing of the cleaning features on the clamp engaging surface approximate locations and spacing of contamination particles on the clamp” see pages 8-9 of the remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sloan et al. teaches wherein the cleaning tool cleans membranes and/or vacuum pads thereon of the reticle clamp of a reticle stage and wherein the film FI and/or F2 comprises a transparent portion through which one or more features on the surface of the cleaning tool are readable via an optical sensor (e.g., camera, and barcode reader), wherein the transparent portion may be a transparent tape (paragraph [0083]).
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC § 102 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights