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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that the instant application is a national stage entry of application PCT/EP2023/054221, filed on 2/20/2023, which claims priority from EP22168399.8, filed on 4/14/2022, and from EP22159521.8, filed on 3/1/2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a reticle-facing surface of the at least one shielding element is curved” in line 2 in claim 25 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, line 2, “the at least one element” should be changed to --the at least one shielding element-- to correct antecedence.
Claim 29, line 1, “a lithographic apparatus” should be changed to --the lithographic apparatus-- to correct antecedence.
Appropriate correction is required to place claims in better form.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a system” in lines 1-2 in claim 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(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.
Claims 16, 18, 19, 24, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubo (US PGPub 2005/0237503).
Regarding claim 16, Kubo discloses a reticle stage for a lithographic apparatus (Figs. 1-9, 12, 13, paras. [0032]-[0036], mask stage with a main base 1, slider base 2, Y bases 3, stators 8, second table 9 support a mask 32), the reticle stage comprising:
a support for a reflective reticle (Figs. 1-9, 12, 13, paras. [0033]-[0036], [0050], main base 1 supports the reflective mask 32); and
at least one shielding element (Figs. 1-9, paras. [0041]-[0045], [0052], [0056]-[0058], the blades 31a and 31b, or 28a and 28b, or 74 to 81) coupled to the support (Figs. 1-9, paras. [0041]-[0045], [0052]-[0054], [0071], [0073]-[0075], the blades 31a and 31b, or 28a and 28b are coupled to main base 1) and selectively configurable between a first position for shielding a portion of a patterned side of the reflective reticle form a radiation beam, and a second position for exposing the portion (the limitation “selectively configurable between a first position for shielding a portion of a patterned side of the reflective reticle form a radiation beam, and a second position for exposing the portion” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the device and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the structure as taught by Kubo. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 1-5, 7-9, 12, 13, paras. [0016], [0041]-[0045], [0052]-[0054], [0071], [0073]-[0075], the blades 31a and 31b, or 28a and 28b are driven by actuators to move between positions to block and expose regions of the mask).
Regarding claim 18, Kubo discloses comprising a pair of shielding elements, each shielding element configurable to selectively shield a respective portion of opposite ends of the patterned side of the reflective reticle (Figs. 1-5, 7-9, 12, 13, paras. [0016], [0041]-[0045], [0052]-[0054], [0071], [0073]-[0075], the blades 31a and 31b, or 28a and 28b are arranged to shield opposite ends of the mask).
Regarding claim 19, Kubo discloses wherein the at least one shielding element is coupled to the support such that, in use, the at least one element moves together with the support within the lithographic apparatus (Figs. 1-5, 7-9, 12, 13, paras. [0016], [0035]-[0037], [0041]-[0045], [0052]-[0054], [0071], [0073]-[0075], the blades 31a, 31b are supported by supports 29 on second table 9, and the blades 31a, 31b are moved with second table 9).
Regarding claim 24, Kubo discloses wherein the reticle stage is configured to load or unload the reflective reticle onto or from the support respectively, when the at least one shielding element is in the second position (the limitation “wherein the reticle stage is configured to load or unload the reflective reticle onto or from the support respectively, when the at least one shielding element is in the second position” is functional language that recites the manner of operating the device and does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the structure as taught by Kubo. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 1-5, 7-9, 12, 13, paras. [0010], [0015]-[0016], [0041]-[0048], [0052]-[0054], [0070]-[0071], [0073]-[0075], the mask is mounted on the mask stage, and blades are movable to change the distance between the blades configured to load or unload the mask).
Regarding claim 28, Kubo discloses a lithographic apparatus comprising the reticle stage of claim 16 (see claim 16 rejection above, Figs. 1-9, 12, 13, paras. [0009], [0032]-[0033], an exposure apparatus includes the mask stage).
Regarding claim 29, Kubo discloses a lithographic system comprising an EUV radiation source and a lithographic apparatus of claim 28 (see claim 28 rejection above, Figs. 1-9, 12, 13, paras. [0009], [0032]-[0033], [0050], [0062], the exposure apparatus includes the mask stage and comprises light source 91 that emits EUV light).
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 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Ahn et al. (US PGPub 2012/0088196, Ahn hereinafter).
Regarding claim 17, Kubo discloses wherein the at least one shielding element comprises at least one elongate member (Figs. 1-9, paras. [0041]-[0045], [0052], [0056]-[0058], the blades 31a and 31b, or 28a and 28b, or 74 to 81), but Kubo does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one elongate member is selectively pivotable or rotatable between the first position and the second position, wherein the second position is substantially perpendicular to the first position.
Ahn discloses wherein the at least one shielding element comprises at least one elongate member selectively pivotable or rotatable between the first position and the second position, wherein the second position is substantially perpendicular to the first position (Figs. 2, 4, 7-8, 10, 12A-E, paras. [0058], [0065]-[0076], [0081]-[0086], [0089]-[0096], the blind 134 is rotated between perpendicular positions (see at least Figs. 7 and 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the at least one shielding element comprises at least one elongate member selectively pivotable or rotatable between the first position and the second position, wherein the second position is substantially perpendicular to the first position as taught by Ahn as the at least one shielding element in the reticle stage as taught by Kubo since including wherein the at least one shielding element comprises at least one elongate member selectively pivotable or rotatable between the first position and the second position, wherein the second position is substantially perpendicular to the first position is commonly used to improve reliability for controlling light blocking during exposure (Ahn, paras. [0010]-[0011], [0070], [0081]).
Regarding claim 26, Kubo does not appear to explicitly describe wherein in a cross section orthogonal to a plane defined by the support of at least one of: the at least one shielding element comprises a substantially triangular cross-section; and surfaces of a shielding portion of the at least one shielding element are configured to face away from the patterned side of the reflective reticle in use are further configured to limit absorption of a portion of the radiation beam for patterning a substrate.
Ahn discloses wherein in a cross section orthogonal to a plane defined by the support of at least one of: the at least one shielding element comprises a substantially triangular cross-section; and surfaces of a shielding portion of the at least one shielding element are configured to face away from the patterned side of the reflective reticle in use are further configured to limit absorption of a portion of the radiation beam for patterning a substrate (Figs. 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10, 12A-E, paras. [0036]-[0038], [0058], [0065]-[0076], [0081]-[0084], [0086], [0089]-[0096], the blind 134e, 134f has a cross sectional shape that is triangular in the x-y plane, which is orthogonal to the x-z plane defined by the support of the mask 132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in a cross section orthogonal to a plane defined by the support of at least one of: the at least one shielding element comprises a substantially triangular cross-section; and surfaces of a shielding portion of the at least one shielding element are configured to face away from the patterned side of the reflective reticle in use are further configured to limit absorption of a portion of the radiation beam for patterning a substrate as taught by Ahn as the shape of the at least one shielding element in the reticle stage as taught by Kubo since including wherein in a cross section orthogonal to a plane defined by the support of at least one of: the at least one shielding element comprises a substantially triangular cross-section; and surfaces of a shielding portion of the at least one shielding element are configured to face away from the patterned side of the reflective reticle in use are further configured to limit absorption of a portion of the radiation beam for patterning a substrate is commonly used to improve reliability for controlling light blocking during exposure while allowing balance to be maintained during rotation of the blind (Ahn, paras. [0010]-[0011], [0070], [0081], [0096]-[0097]).
Claims 20-21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Karuishi et al. (KR2009/0128436, Karuishi hereinafter; English translation accompanies this Office Action).
Regarding claim 20, Kubo discloses an actuator configured to transition the at least one shielding element between the first and second positions (Figs. 1-5, 7-9, 12, 13, paras. [0016], [0041]-[0045], [0052]-[0054], [0071], [0073]-[0075], the blades 31a and 31b, or 28a and 28b are driven by actuators to change the positions of the blades), but Kubo does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one shielding element is disposed at an opposite side of the support to the actuator.
Karuishi discloses an actuator configured to transition the at least one shielding element between the first and second positions, wherein the at least one shielding element is disposed at an opposite side of the support to the actuator (Figs. 37-40, pages 36-37 of English translation, drive mechanism 445 drives the mask support body 444 between positions, and the mask support body 444 is on the opposite side of mask holding part 71 to the drive mechanism 445).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an actuator configured to transition the at least one shielding element between the first and second positions, wherein the at least one shielding element is disposed at an opposite side of the support to the actuator as taught by Karuishi as the arrangement of the actuator and shielding element in the reticle stage as taught by Kubo since including an actuator configured to transition the at least one shielding element between the first and second positions, wherein the at least one shielding element is disposed at an opposite side of the support to the actuator is commonly used to prevent the mask from falling (Karuishi, pages 36-37), thereby preventing damage.
Regarding claim 21, Kubo as modified by Karuishi discloses wherein the actuator is configurable to move the reticle stage within the lithographic apparatus (Kubo, Figs. 1-5, 7-9, 12, 13, paras. [0016], [0035]-[0037], [0041]-[0045], [0052]-[0054], [0071], [0073]-[0075], the blades 31a, 31b and second table 9 are moved with the same linear motor).
Regarding claim 25, Kubo does not appear to explicitly describe wherein: a reticle-facing surface of the at least one shielding element is curved and/or the reticle-facing surface of the at least one shielding element is configured to support the reticle upon detachment from the support.
Karuishi discloses wherein: a reticle-facing surface of the at least one shielding element is curved and/or the reticle-facing surface of the at least one shielding element is configured to support the reticle upon detachment from the support (Figs. 37-40, pages 36-37, mask drop preventing means 443 includes mask support body 444 that contacts the outer peripheral edge of the mask M to prevent the mask dropping).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a reticle-facing surface of the at least one shielding element is curved and/or the reticle-facing surface of the at least one shielding element is configured to support the reticle upon detachment from the support as taught by Karuishi in the reticle stage as taught by Kubo since a reticle-facing surface of the at least one shielding element is curved and/or the reticle-facing surface of the at least one shielding element is configured to support the reticle upon detachment from the support is commonly used to prevent the mask from falling (Karuishi, pages 36-37), thereby preventing damage.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mizusawa et al. (US Patent No. 5,390,227, Mizusawa hereinafter).
Regarding claim 22, Kubo does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one shielding element comprises a fluid channel for thermally conditioning the at least one shielding element.
Mizusawa discloses wherein the at least one shielding element comprises a fluid channel for thermally conditioning the at least one shielding element (Figs. 1, 5, 6, col. 4, lines 55-61, col. 6, lines 30-68, col. 7, lines 1-30, the blades BLD are provided with pipes CLI and CLO for cooling, and cooling passages CLP are provided inside the blades).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the at least one shielding element comprises a fluid channel for thermally conditioning the at least one shielding element as taught by Mizusawa in the at least one shielding element in the reticle stage as taught by Kubo since including wherein the at least one shielding element comprises a fluid channel for thermally conditioning the at least one shielding element is commonly used to suppress the increase in temperature in the shielding element to enable precise alignment and position control of the exposure region (col. 1, lines 50-58, col. 2, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 23, Kubo as modified by Mizusawa discloses comprising a system for inducing a flow of fluid in the fluid channel (Mizusawa, Figs. 1, 5, 6, col. 4, lines 55-61, col. 6, lines 30-68, col. 7, lines 1-30, a controller CNT controls the proportional controlling valve LNV to provide cooling water from cooling water containers TNK1 and TNK2 to the passage in blade BLD).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ota (US PGPub 2002/0070355).
Regarding claim 27, although Kubo discloses wherein the portion corresponds to at least one test pattern region located in a border portion of the patterned side of the reflective reticle (Kubo, Figs. 1-10, 12, 13, paras. [0006], [0016], [0032]-[0037], [0041]-[0045], [0052]-[0054], [0071], [0073]-[0075], the mask on the mask stage includes a test pattern in a border portion, and the blades move to limit the exposure range on the mask to expose only the test pattern or to block the test pattern), Kubo does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the portion corresponds to at least one reticle alignment mark.
Ota discloses in combination with the reflective reticle, wherein the portion corresponds to at least one reticle alignment mark located in a border portion of the patterned side of the reflective reticle (Figs. 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14-16, paras. [0090], [0098]-[0099], [0102]-[0108], [0120], [0153]-[0155], [0166], [0173], the reticle R supported on reticle stage RST includes reticle alignment marks RM1 to RM12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the portion corresponds to at least one reticle alignment mark located in a border portion of the patterned side of the reflective reticle as taught by Ota in the border portion of the reticle in the reticle stage as taught by Kubo since including in combination with the reflective reticle, wherein the portion corresponds to at least one reticle alignment mark located in a border portion of the patterned side of the reflective reticle is commonly used to improve alignment accuracy between the reticle and the wafer to minimize overlay errors (Ota, paras. [0017], [0024]-[0025], [0108], [0153]-[0155], [0163]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (US PGPub 2002/0070355) in view of Kubo (US PGPub 2005/0237503).
Regarding claim 30, Ota discloses a method of operating an EUV lithographic apparatus, the method comprising:
determining a relative position and/or orientation of a reticle on a support of a reticle stage by sensing radiation reflected from at least one reticle alignment mark on a patterned side of the reflective reticle (Figs. 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, paras. [0090], [0098]-[0099], [0102]-[0108], [0119]-[0121], [0153]-[0166], [0173], the reticle R supported on reticle stage RST includes reticle alignment marks RM1 to RM12. The alignment of the reticle is determined by illuminating the alignment marks RM1 to RM12 with exposure light and detecting positions using photoelectric conversion devices in aerial image sensor FM);
configuring at least one shielding element to transition from a position for exposing the at least one reticle alignment mark to a position for shielding the at least one reticle alignment mark from an EUV radiation beam (Figs. 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 14-16, paras. [0090], [0098]-[0100], [0102]-[0108], [0119]-[0121], [0153]-[0166], [0173], movable blind 42 and slit plate 44 determine the illumination area on the reticle R. The slit plate 44 is moved from a position exposing the reticle alignment marks RM1 to RM12 to a position blocking the marks from the EUV light EL);
exposing the reflective reticle to EUV radiation, wherein radiation reflected from the reflective reticle is for patterning a substrate (Figs. 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14-16, paras. [0088]-[0089], [0098]-[0100], [0102]-[0108], [0119]-[0121], [0153]-[0159], [0164], [0173], [0175], [0185], [0187], [0215-[0217], the EUV light irradiates the reticle R to pattern the EUV light to expose wafer W). Ota does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the at least one shielding element is coupled to the support.
Kubo discloses configuring at least one shielding element coupled to the support (Figs. 1-9, paras. [0041]-[0045], [0052]-[0054], [0071], [0073]-[0075], the blades 31a and 31b, or 28a and 28b are coupled to main base 1) to transition from a position for exposing the at least one test portion to a position for shielding the at least one test portion from an EUV radiation beam (Figs. 1-10, 12, 13, paras. [0006], [0016], [0032]-[0037], [0041]-[0045], [0052]-[0054], [0071], [0073]-[0075], the mask on the mask stage includes a test pattern in a border portion, and the blades move to limit the exposure range on the mask to expose only the test pattern or to block the test pattern).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included at least one shielding element coupled to the support as taught by Kubo in the method as taught by Ota since including at least one shielding element coupled to the support is commonly used to improve exposure performance by arranging the masking blade in the vicinity of the mask (Kubo, paras. [0009]-[0011]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights