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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 30, “a processor” is recited twice. It is unclear if there are two different processors being claimed. In order to expedite prosecution, it is assumed that “the processor” is “configured to determine a height…”.
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) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaller et al. (Kaller) (2007/0132989) in view of Dierichs et al. (Dierichs) (2012/0075610) and Kurt et al. (Kurt) (EP 1452851 in IDS).
Regarding claim 16, Kaller discloses a method of method of determining contamination of an optical element in a lithographic apparatus (Fig. 4, although EUV lithographic apparatus is not shown, Kaller discloses in para 0039 and 0130 that the disclosure is also applicable to EUV lithographic apparatus), the method comprising: directing EUV radiation onto a patterning device (32, para 0112, also applies to reflective patterning device as indicated in para 0130); projecting EUV radiation reflected by the patterning device (1, Fig. 4, through projection lens 5, para 0113, also applies to reflective projecting system as indicated in para 0130) and thereby causing build-up of an area of contamination (para 0003, UV light and contamination causes contamination); measuring a height of the area of contamination and a height of an area of the optical element (4) that did not receive the reflected EUV radiation (1, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, 3, para 0106-0109, prepare a three-dimensional map of the entire surface 3 of optical element 4, which means the height of areas of contamination is measured as well as the height of areas of no contamination); and using the measured heights to determine an amount of contamination on the optical sensor of the sensing system (para 0076, “comprises the preparation of a two-dimensional or three-dimensional map of the surface”, para 0077, “during evaluation of the measuring data, in particular by determining the quantity per unit area and the size of the scattering structures…is calculated”, scattering structures are contamination, para 0109, ”By scanning displacement of the housing 8 parallel to the surface 3, for each of the two distances a two-dimensional map 18a, 18b of the surface can be generated, which corresponds to a section of the surface at a certain height. From the two-dimensional maps, by superposition in the data processing unit 16 of FIG. 1 a three-dimensional height profile of the surface 3 can be produced”).
However, Kaller does not disclose determining contamination of an optical sensor of a sensing system, and Kaller does not disclose directing EUV radiation through an opening in a reticle masking blade and onto a patterning device and projecting the radiation reflected by the patterning device onto the sensing system. Dierichs discloses in Fig. 2 and 5, masking blades (MD, MB1, MB2, para 0031, 0051) for controlling irradiation of a reticle (MA, para 0031) in an EUV lithography apparatus (Fig. 2, para 0042, 0043) so that EUV radiation reflects from the patterning device and is directed to other optical elements in the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a masking blades of Dierichs to the invention of Kaller in order to control the irradiation of the patterning device (32) of Kaller. Further, Kurt discloses that EUV radiation induces contamination in para 0009, and discloses detecting contamination on the sensor (200, Fig. 3, para 0026, 0027). Since the sensor is an optical element and contaminants can build up on the sensor as taught by Kurt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the invention of Kaller to determine the amount of contamination on an optical sensor of a sensing system in order to improve the performance of the sensing system.
Regarding claim 19, although Kaller in view of Dierichs and Kurt does not explicitly disclose wherein the EUV radiation is directed onto one or more areas of the patterning device that are less than 50% covered by an absorber, since Dierichs discloses independently movable blades (MB1, MB2) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cover less than 50% of the patterning device depending on the requirements of the process. Further, although Dierichs does not disclose an absorber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an absorber on the masking blades so that EUV radiation does not get reflected from the masking blade causing stray light.
Claim(s) 17, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaller et al. (Kaller) in view of Dierichs et al. and Kurt et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Baselmans et al. (Baselmans) (2011/0216297).
Regarding claims 17, the further difference between the modified Kaller and the claimed invention is wherein the EUV radiation is directed through multiple openings in the reticle masking blade thereby creating multiple areas of contamination, and wherein the heights of multiple areas of contamination are measured. Baselman discloses in Fig. 6, reticle masking blades having multiple openings (para 0062-0066). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the reticle masking blades having multiple openings as taught by Baselmans to the invention of Dierichs to control the position of the EUV light directed to the patterning device of Kaller, and as a result multiple openings would provide more EUV light to be reflected from the patterning device creating multiple areas of contamination to be measured.
Regarding claim 18, the further difference between the modified Kaller and the claimed invention is wherein the EUV radiation is directed onto one or more alignment marks provided on the patterning device. Baselmans discloses in para 0044 aligning patterning device MA and substrate W using patterning device alignment marks M1, M2 and substrate alignment marks P1, P2, which means radiation is directed to one or more alignment marks provided on the patterning device, which in turn would cause contamination build up on alignment sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art further modify Kaller by providing alignment marks on the patterning device of Kaller in order to align the patterning device and the substrate and to direct the EUV radiation for that purpose.
Regarding claim 20, the further difference between the modified Kaller and the claimed invention is wherein the one or more openings in the reticle masking blade are slots. Baselmans discloses in Fig. 6, reticle masking blades having multiple openings that are adjustable providing small slots of openings (Fig. 6 A-C, para 0062-0065). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the reticle masking blades wherein the one or more openings in the reticle masking blade are slots in order to ensure that the EUV radiation is directed to precise regions of the patterning device.
Claim(s) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaller et al. (Kaller) in view of Dierichs et al., Kurt et al. and Baselmans et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Arlemark et al. (Arlemark) (WO 2014/095266 in IDS).
Regarding claim 21, the further difference between the modified Kaller and the claimed invention is wherein the measured height of the area of contamination is compared with a modelled height, or/and, wherein the optical sensor is an imaging sensor. Arlemark discloses in Fig. 4a, TIS sensor (430) located on the substrate table (420, para 0061, 0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Kaller by providing an image sensor for positioning and alignment.
Regarding claims 22-24, claim 21 contains the alternative language “wherein the measured height of the area of contamination is compared with a modelled height, or/and, wherein the optical sensor is an imaging sensor” and is rejected by satisfying the second alternative condition, “wherein the optical sensor is an imaging sensor”. Once one alternative condition has been met, the entire alternative limitation can be rejected. Since the second alternative condition is already satisfied, the entire alternative claim limitation is also rejected. As a result, any further claims directed to the first alternative condition similarly stand rejected.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaller et al. (Kaller) (2007/0132989) in view of Dierichs et al. (Dierichs) (2012/0075610), Kurt et al. (Kurt) (EP 1452851 in IDS) and Arlemark et al. (Arlemark) (WO 2014/095266 in IDS).
Regarding claim 25, Kaller discloses a lithographic apparatus (Fig. 1, 4, para 0002, 0003, 0102, 0114) comprising: a patterning device (32) support structure (inherent); a projection system (5); a level sensor (1, Fig. 1, para 0106-0109); and a substrate table (inherent); and wherein the level sensor is configured to measure a height of at least one contaminated area of an optical element (4) and at least one uncontaminated area of the optical element (1, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, 3, para 0106-0109, prepare a three-dimensional map of the entire surface 3 of optical element 4, which means the height of areas of contamination is measured as well as the height of areas of no contamination); and a processor (16, para 0105) configured to determine a height of the at least one contaminated area of the sensing system, and thereby determine an amount of contamination on the optical element (4, para 0076, “comprises the preparation of a two-dimensional or three-dimensional map of the surface”, para 0077, “during evaluation of the measuring data, in particular by determining the quantity per unit area and the size of the scattering structures…is calculated”, scattering structures are contamination, para 0109, ”By scanning displacement of the housing 8 parallel to the surface 3, for each of the two distances a two-dimensional map 18a, 18b of the surface can be generated, which corresponds to a section of the surface at a certain height. From the two-dimensional maps, by superposition in the data processing unit 16 of FIG. 1 a three-dimensional height profile of the surface 3 can be produced”).
However, Kaller does not disclose determining contamination of an optical sensor of a sensing system, reticle masking blades wherein at least one opening is provided in the reticle masking blade; and does not disclose a sensing system comprising an optical sensor provided in the substrate table and determining an amount of contamination on the optical sensor. Dierichs discloses in Fig. 2 and 5, masking blades (MD, MB1, MB2, para 0031, 0051) for controlling irradiation of a reticle (MA, para 0031) in an EUV lithography apparatus (Fig. 2, para 0042, 0043) so that EUV radiation reflects from the patterning device and is directed to other optical elements in the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a masking blades of Dierichs to the invention of Kaller in order to control the irradiation of the patterning device (32) of Kaller. Further, Kurt discloses that EUV radiation induces contamination in para 0009, and discloses detecting contamination on the sensor (200, Fig. 3, para 0026, 0027), and Arlemark discloses a sensor (430, Fig. 4a, 460, Fig. 7a, para 0057, 0064, 0074) on a substrate table. Since the sensor is an optical element, located on a substrate table, as taught by Arlemark, and contaminants can build up on the sensor, as taught by Kurt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the invention of Kaller to determine the amount of contamination on an optical sensor of a sensing system in order to improve the performance of the sensing system.
Regarding claim 28, Kaller does not disclose wherein the optical sensor is an imaging sensor, or/and wherein the processor is configured to use a model to determine heights of peaks or dips caused by the contamination. Arlemark discloses in Fig. 4a, TIS sensor (430) located on the substrate table (420, para 0061, 0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an image sensor of Arlemark to the invention of Kaller for positioning and alignment.
Regarding claim 29 contains the alternative language “wherein the optical sensor is an imaging sensor, or/and wherein the processor is configured to use a model to determine heights of peaks or dips caused by the contamination” and is rejected by satisfying the first alternative condition, “wherein the optical sensor is an imaging sensor”. Once one alternative condition has been met, the entire alternative limitation can be rejected. Since the first alternative condition is already satisfied, the entire alternative claim limitation is also rejected. As a result, any further claims directed to the second alternative condition similarly stand rejected.
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaller et al. (Kaller) in view of Dierichs et al., Kurt et al. and Arlemark et al. as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Baselmans et al. (Baselmans) (2011/0216297).
Regarding claim 26, the further difference between the modified Kaller and the claimed invention is wherein wherein a plurality of openings are provided EUV in the reticle masking blade. Baselman discloses in Fig. 6, reticle masking blades having multiple openings (para 0062-0066). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the reticle masking blades having multiple openings as taught by Baselmans to the invention of Dierichs to control the position of the EUV light directed to the patterning device of Kaller.
Regarding claim 27, the further difference between the modified Kaller and the claimed invention is wherein the one or more openings in the reticle masking blade are slots. Baselmans discloses in Fig. 6, reticle masking blades having multiple openings that are adjustable providing small slots of openings (Fig. 6 A-C, para 0062-0065). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the reticle masking blades wherein the one or more openings in the reticle masking blade are slots in order to ensure that the EUV radiation is directed to precise regions of the patterning device.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaller et al. (Kaller) (2007/0132989) in view of Kurt et al. (Kurt) (EP 1452851 in IDS).
Regarding claim 30, Kaller discloses a system (Fig. 1, 4) for determining an amount of contamination on an optical sensor for a lithographic apparatus (Fig. 1, 4, para 0002, 0003, 0102, 0114), comprising: a level sensor (1, Fig. 1, para 0106-0109), and a processor (16, para 0105), wherein the level sensor is configured to measure a height of at least one contaminated area of an optical element (4) and at least one uncontaminated area of the optical element (1, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, 3, para 0106-0109, prepare a three-dimensional map of the entire surface 3 of optical element 4, which means the height of areas of contamination is measured as well as the height of areas of no contamination); and a processor configured to determine a height of the at least one contaminated area of the optical element, and thereby determine an amount of contamination on the optical element (4, para 0076, “comprises the preparation of a two-dimensional or three-dimensional map of the surface”, para 0077, “during evaluation of the measuring data, in particular by determining the quantity per unit area and the size of the scattering structures…is calculated”, scattering structures are contamination, para 0109, ”By scanning displacement of the housing 8 parallel to the surface 3, for each of the two distances a two-dimensional map 18a, 18b of the surface can be generated, which corresponds to a section of the surface at a certain height. From the two-dimensional maps, by superposition in the data processing unit 16 of FIG. 1 a three-dimensional height profile of the surface 3 can be produced”).
However, Kaller does not disclose determining contamination of an optical sensor of a sensing system. Kurt discloses that EUV radiation induces contamination in para 0009, and discloses detecting contamination on the sensor (200, Fig. 3, para 0026, 0027). Since the sensor is an optical element and contaminants can build up on the sensor as taught by Kurt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the invention of Kaller to determine the amount of contamination on an optical sensor of a sensing system in order to improve the performance of the sensing system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Storm et al. (2008/0151201) discloses EUV radiation causes deposition of contamination on an optical surface of an optical element EM (para 0032).
Lin et al. (2022/0283508) discloses detector 32 for measuring thickness of contamination layer 56 in an EUV system (Fig. 1, 2, para 0023).
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 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights