DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 08/05/2022 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 remain pending in the application, where the independent claims have been amended.
Response to Arguments
2- Examiner has considered Applicants’ proposed amendments and acknowledges they overcome the 35 USC 101 and 112 rejections of the pending claims as set forth in the non-final office action mailed on 4/20/2026. The above rejections are therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
3- Applicants’ amendments and their corresponding arguments with respect to the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive to overcome the prior art used in the previous office action, despite the fact that the amendments have changed the scope of the invention and overcome the rejection as written in the previous office action.
4- Therefore, the amendments necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection using additional teachings from the same references used in the previous office action. The new limitations are addressed in the rejections here under in more details.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4- 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5- Claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11, 13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (PGPUB No. 2019/01011838)
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
As to claims 8, 15, 1 and 16, Chen teaches a lithographic apparatus, its system for measuring contamination of an optical sensor, its corresponding method of use and NTCRM with respective instructions (Abstract and Figs. 1-; system 100) comprising: a patterning device support structure (110/106), a projection system (118), a substrate table (124) provided with an optical sensor (¶ 20, 130a-c which can be cameras, i.e. 2D arrays of pixels to be monitored), and a processor (controller 138) configured to: cause relative movement between the optical sensor and a patterned EUV radiation beam (Fig. 1 and ¶ 19-21, 29, 31; the actuator 124 and the arm robot 136 cause relative movement between the patterns projected on substrate 122 and the sensors 134) and measures intensity of EUV of radiation is measured and the measurement includes a minimum between higher intensity values, and use the measured intensity between the higher intensity values to measure contamination of the optical sensor (Figs. 2 and ¶ 21, 31-33, and 63. ¶ 44-47 and annotated Figs. 2 detail the measuring of the decreasing levels of relative intensity, because of the presence of contamination on the sensor, and when trespassing a threshold limit in the intensity, i.e. a minimum between proximate higher intensities, a local cleaning process is undertaken).
Chen does not teach explicitly to move the optical sensor such that the intensity of EUV radiation measured by the optical sensor varies as a function of sensor position.
However, Chen, in ¶ 21, 41-42, 63, particularly points to the local mini-cleaning of the contaminants, to not recontaminate the sensor(s) or the electronics around the sensors, which necessarily requires the spatial detection of the position of the contaminants at the local positions of the contamination on the sensor). One PHOSITA would find it obvious to measure the radiation intensity as a function of position of/on the sensor in order to determine the local position of the contaminant. This would save resources, cleaning time and minimizes the downtime of the operation of the lithographic system as suggested in ¶ 41-42. (See MPEP § 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus, method and NTCRM of Chen in view of its different methods’ suggestions so that to move the optical sensor such that the intensity of EUV radiation measured by the optical sensor varies as a function of sensor position, with the advantage of effectively optimizing and saving resources, cleaning time, and minimizing the downtime of the operation of the lithographic system (¶ 41-42) .
Moreover, Chen suggests:
(claims 9, 2, 17) wherein the processor is configured to use a depth of the minimum to measure the contamination of the optical sensor, or / and wherein the movement of the optical sensor is generally perpendicular to a direction of the patterned EUV radiation beam (Figs. 2; ¶ 44-45 for ex; by comparing the relative intensity iTIS to iTIS0 and imin, is construed as a a measurement of the depth of the decreasing intensities to evaluate the contamination).
(claims 11, 4, 19) wherein the movement of the optical sensor is generally parallel to a direction of the patterned EUV radiation (¶ 19 for ex.; since no particular direction of the projected EUV radiation is presented, the motion of the stage/sensor 124/130 matches at least one of the arbitrary directions associated with the 3D shape of the radiation projected).
(claims 13, 7) wherein the measured contamination is compared with a threshold value ((Figs. 2; ¶ 44-45 for ex; the contamination signal relative intensity iTIS is compared to thresholds iTIS0 and imin).
6- Claims 3, 5-7, 10, 12, 18, 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Luxton et al. (Patent No. 10317345)
As to claims 10, 12, 3, 5-7, 18, 20-21, Chen teaches the lithographic apparatus of claim 9, the method of claim 2 and the NTCRM of claim 16.
Moreover, Chen teaches (claims 12, 5-7, 20) wherein the optical sensor has an area which is greater than an area of an aerial image of an alignment pattern used to perform alignment measurements in connection with the optical sensor (¶ 20-21; the multiple cd camera sensors 130x are used detecting an aerial image of an alignment pattern of reticle 104 to align it with substrate 122. The multiplicity of the cameras may have a total area that is greater than at least a small part of the alignment pattern image).
Chen does not teach explicitly wherein the processor is configured to use the shape of the measured intensity to obtain information about a cross-sectional shape of the contamination; (Claims 12, 7, 21) wherein the measurement of the contamination takes into account an intensity of background radiation incident upon the optical sensor.
However, in a similar optical detection field, Luxton teaches an apparatus and method for analyzing surfaces with contaminants (Figs. 1-9 and Abstract), wherein a light intensity profile of a surface scan is measured, with the use of a LED/Camera system (Fig. 3), that results in a spatial curve, Fig. 4c, that shows a dip A representative of the position (in pixel size) and size of the contaminant on the examined surface (Fig. 4a; Col/ll. 10/25-29). Moreover, Luxton teaches among the information gathered via the parameters of the light spot and the dip characteristics, degree of dirt accumulation is determined, which is construed as size and shape of the contaminant (Col/ll 2/18-29). As to Claims 12, 7 and 21, Luxton teaches measuring the background light and to reduce it (Col/ll 4/4-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus, method and NTCRM of Chen in view of Luxton’ suggestions so that the processor is configured to use the shape of the measured intensity to obtain information about a cross-sectional shape of the contamination; wherein the measurement of the contamination takes into account an intensity of background radiation incident upon the optical sensor, with the advantage of optimally characterizing the contaminant in order for an effective cleaning.
Relevant Prior art
US 20100149505, JP 2012028759 relevant to the use of relative movement between the sensors and light projections and where the light intensity variation is examined .
US 20020084425, US 20050104015 appear to teach most the elements of the claimed apparatus and its method of use but fail the claimed invention as a whole
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).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights