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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 23, 2026 have been fully considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because reference 38 in Fig. 5B is not in specification. 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
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the limitation, “the reticle masking blade comprises one or more openings in the reticle masking blade”, some of the words seem redundant.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 16-35 are 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.
In claim16, “in a direction transverse to the area of the sensing system that did not receive the reflected EUV radiation”, in claim 25, “in a direction transverse to the at least one uncontaminated area of the sensing system” and in claim 30, “in a direction transverse to the at least one uncontaminated area of the optical sensor”, it is not clear why the direction is transverse to the area that did not received the reflected EUV radiation or uncontaminated. It is not clear why only the area that did not receive the reflected EUV radiation or uncontaminated area is mentioned when the height in the transverse direction of the area that received the EUV radiation and the contaminated area are also measured.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are rejected for incorporating the defects from the base claim by dependency.
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 (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); and using the measured heights to determine an amount, in a direction transverse to the area of the sensing system that receive the reflected EUV radiation (Fig. 1, 4, 5), 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 and the quantity per unit area refers to height of the contaminants, 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, measuring a height of an area of the sensing system that did not receive the reflected EUV radiation and determining the amount of contaminants in a direction transverse to the area of the sensing system that did not receive the reflected EUV radiation. 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 and to determine the amount of contaminant in a direction transverse to the area of the sensing system that did not receive the reflected EUV radiation since the masking blade of Dierichs would restrict the surface of the optical member that receive the reflected EUV radiation and some areas of the optical system would not receive the reflected EUV radiation. Since some areas of the optical system would not receive reflected EUV radiation, those areas would also be measured when the map of the entire surface of the optical element (para 0106 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, 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); and a processor (16, para 0105) configured to determine, based on the measured heights, an amount, in a direction transverse to the at least one contaminated area of the sensing system (Fig. 1, 4, 5), 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 a reticle masking blade; determining contamination of an optical sensor of a sensing system; and does not disclose a sensing system comprising an optical sensor provided in the substrate table; measuring a height of at least one uncontaminated area of the optical element and determining, in a direction transverse to at least one uncontaminated area of the sensing system, 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, and to determine the amount of contaminant in a direction transverse to the at least one uncontaminated area of the sensing system since the masking blade of Dierichs would restrict the surface of the optical member that receive the reflected EUV radiation and some areas of the optical system would be uncontaminated. Since some of the areas of the optical system of Kaller would not receive the reflected EUV radiation, those areas would be not contaminated and would also be measured when the map of the entire surface of the optical element (para 0106 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 one or more openings are provided in the reticle masking blade. Baselman discloses in Fig. 6, reticle masking blades having a plurality of 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 reticle masking blade comprises one or more openings and the one or more openings comprise a slot. 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) 30-35 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), the system 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, 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); 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. Kaller also does not disclose measuring a height of at least one uncontaminated area of the optical element and determining an amount, in a direction transverse to the at least one uncontaminated area of the optical sensor, of contamination. Kurt discloses that EUV radiation induced 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. Further, as shown by Kurt in Fig. 3, the surface of an optical sensor includes at least one contaminated area as well as at least one uncontaminated area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scan the entire surface of the optical sensor using the sensor of Kaller to measure the height of at least one contaminated area as well as at least one uncontaminated area to determine an amount, in a direction transverse to the at least one uncontaminated area of the optical sensor, of contamination in order to provide a reference to determine the height of the contaminated area.
Regarding claim 31, although Kaller does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to compare the measured height of the area of contamination with a modelled height, Kaller discloses in para 0076 and 0107 that a three-dimensional map of the surface of an optical element is produced. Kurt discloses the surface of an optical sensor including at least one contaminated area as well as at least one uncontaminated area (Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to compare the measured height of the area of contamination with a modelled height or ideal or uncontaminated area as a reference to determine the areas of contamination.
Regarding claim 32, although Kaller does not disclose wherein a model to generate the modelled height is generated using measured heights of uncontaminated areas of the optical sensor, Kaller discloses generating a three-dimensional map (para 0076, 0107) and discloses scanning the surface of the optical element to generate the map (para 0106). Kurt discloses the surface of an optical sensor including at least one contaminated area as well as at least one uncontaminated area (Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate the modelled height using the measured height of uncontaminated areas of the optical sensor as a reference.
Regarding claim 33, although Kaller does not disclose wherein the model comprises lines or curves that extend between the measured heights of uncontaminated areas of the optical sensor, Kaller discloses generating a three-dimensional map (para 0076, 0107). Kurt discloses the surface of an optical sensor including at least one contaminated area as well as at least one uncontaminated area (Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the model which comprises lines or curves, since a three-dimensional map would comprise lines or curves that extend between the measured heights of uncontaminated areas to show amount or height of the contaminants.
Regarding claim 34, although Kaller does not disclose wherein a model to generate the modelled height is generated using measured heights of multiple uncontaminated areas of the sensing system, Kaller discloses generating a three-dimensional map (para 0076, 0107) and discloses scanning the surface of the optical element to generate the map (para 0106). Kurt discloses the surface of an optical sensor including at least one contaminated area as well as at least one uncontaminated area (Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a model to generate the modelled height is generated using measured heights of multiple uncontaminated areas of the sensing system in order to provide a reference for the contaminated areas.
Regarding claim 35, Kaller discloses wherein the processor is configured to use a model to determine heights of peaks or dips caused by the contamination (a three-dimensional map, para 0076, 0107).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Kaller’s map is merely used to identify where contamination is located and that Kaller does not disclose measuring the height. However, Kaller disclose a three-dimensional map which show the quantity per unit area and the size of contaminants (para 0077) and producing a three-dimensional height profile (para 0109). If the map is merely used to identify the location of contaminants, the quantity per unit area and the size would not be necessary.
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).
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 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 August 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights