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 .
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 pellicle splitter disposed at a downstream side of the focusing mirror in claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Fig. 9, which is the only figure showing an arrangement of the focusing mirror and the pellicle splitter, shows the pellicle splitter upstream of the focusing mirror 820 while para 00113 of the specification discloses that having the pellicle splitter downstream of the focusing mirror is preferred.
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
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 27 ends with a comma not a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintanilha et al. (Quintanilha) (2017/0184981) in view of Sasaki et al. (Sasaki) (JP 2010-127670, translation provided with the Office Action, page numbers refer to the translation) and Auksorius et al. (Auksorius) (2019/0167109).
Regarding claim 16, Quintanilha discloses a metrology apparatus (Fig. 2, 3) comprising: an illumination branch (330, 332, para 0077) comprising illumination optics configured to direct a measurement radiation onto a structure (T, Fig. 2, W, Fig. 3); a beam splitter (318) in the illumination branch (332), the beam splitter operable to split a source radiation beam from an illumination source into a reference radiation beam (320) and the measurement radiation (304); a measurement detector (313, para 0074) configured to detect the measurement radiation subsequent to it being scattered or diffracted by the structure; a reference detector (314, para 0075) configured to detect the reference radiation beam. However, Quintanilha does not disclose a pellicle splitter comprising a pellicle membrane, and a focusing mirror, wherein the pellicle splitter is disposed at a downstream side of the focusing mirror. Sasaki discloses a metrology apparatus (100, Fig. 2) comprising an illumination branch (110, 120, page 4) to direct a measurement radiation onto a structure (W), a pellicle splitter (125, pages 4-5) comprising a pellicle membrane operable to split a source radiation (122) into a reference radiation beam and the measurement radiation (page 5, “The beam splitter 125 separates the light from the concave mirror 122. The beam splitter 125 transmits one of the separated lights (approximately half the amount of light) and guides it to the surface to be measured of the substrate W as measurement light, and the other of the separated lights (approximately half the amount of light). The light is reflected and guided to the reference surface of the reference mirror 131 as reference light.”); a measurement detector (138) and a focusing mirror (122), wherein the pellicle splitter (125) is disposed at a downstream side of the focusing mirror (122, Fig. 2). Auksorius suggests that any beam splitting elements such as a cube beam splitter, a diffraction grating or a pellicle splitter can be interchangeably used (para 0079). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pellicle splitter to the invention of Qunitanilha in order to maintain the quality of the split beams without producing unwanted diffraction orders since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a focusing mirror disposed at a upstream side of the pellicle splitter to ensure that the split beams are properly focused towards the structure for the measurement beam and towards the reference detector for the reference beam.
Regarding claim 17, although Quintanilha does not disclose a dispersing element disposed between the pellicle splitter and the reference detector, operable to spectrally disperse the reference radiation beam, Quintanilha discloses a reference spectrum detector 314 and that the grating beam splitter 318 generates reference spectrum (para 0091). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a dispersing element disposed between the pellicle splitter and the reference detector in order to generate reference spectrum since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art and where a pellicle splitter is utilized instead of a diffraction grating for the reasons stated above, a dispersing element would be needed to generate reference spectrum.
Regarding claim 18, although Quintanilha does not disclose wherein the dispersing element is a transmissive dispersing element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a transmissive dispersing element instead of a reflective dispersing element since both type of known in the art and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Regarding claim 19, Quintanilha discloses wherein the diffraction grating (318) disposed at an oblique angle of incidence to the source radiation (Fig. 2), and Sasaki discloses the pellicle splitter (125) disposed at an oblique angle of incidence to the source radiation (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pellicle splitter to the invention of Quintanilha for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 20, although Quintanilha does not disclose wherein the oblique angle of incidence is between 46 to 60 degrees or 30 and 44 degrees, Quintanilha disclose an oblique angle and since it is known that transmission and reflection depends on the angle of incidence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the angle of incidence as claimed according to the intended use requiring desired ratio of transmission and reflection without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 21, Quintanilha discloses wherein the source radiation beam comprises 23wavelength in the range of 1 nm to 50 nm (EUV, para 0072).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Quintanilha discloses wherein the pellicle splitter is disposed directly before the target (S, W) without before any another optical element (Fig. 2, 3).
Claim(s) 23-26 and 28-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quintanilha et al. (Quintanilha) in view of Sasaki et al. (Sasaki) and Auksorius et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Im (KR 20210048152, translation provide with Office Action, page number refer to the translation).
Regarding claim 23, the further difference between the modified Quintanilha and the claimed invention is a pellicle membrane for use in the metrology apparatus of claim 16, comprising three or more layers, wherein the three or more layers comprising at least one inner layer and at least one outer layer on either side of the at least one inner layer. Im discloses a pellicle member (Fig. 6g) comprising three or more layers, wherein the three or more layers comprising at least one inner layer (220) and at least one outer layer (230) on either side of the at least one inner layer. Im discloses the pellicle used in an EUV apparatus (page 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pellicle of Im to further modify Quintanilha by providing a pellicle splitter with three layers as claimed in order to provide a main core inner layer (220) and protective outer layer (230) as taught by Im on page 13.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the modified Quintanilha discloses wherein the at least one inner layer comprises one or more of a silicon or a silicon compound layer, and/or a boron layer or a Boron compound layer, and/or zirconium, beryllium, niobium, yttrium, molybdenum, carbon and/or a mixture of these materials and wherein the at least one inner layer comprises one or more of a silicon nitride, zirconium silicide, and zirconium diboride (silicon nitride Si3N4, page 11 of Im).
Regarding claim 26, although the modified Quintanilha does not disclose wherein a total thickness of the at least one inner layer is of less than 20 nm and greater than 6 nm, Im discloses on page 9, the thinner the inner layer the greater the transmittance to EUV and discloses that the inner layer of Im is less than 50 nm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide even thinner inner layer in order to increase the transmittance since Im discloses the range that overlaps the claimed range and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 28, the modified Quintanilha discloses wherein the at least one inner layer fully closed by the at least one outer layer on either side of the at least one inner layer (Fig. 6g of Im).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, the modified Quintanilha discloses wherein at least one of the at least one outer layer comprises an oxide material and wherein the oxide material comprising one or more of a silicon oxide, an aluminium oxide, a zirconium oxide, and a Yttrium oxide (aluminum oxide, AL2O3, page 13 of Im).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Quintanilha discloses wherein the at least one outer layer on either side of the at least one inner layer are the same (Si3N4 for both or AL2O3 for both, pages 11 and 13 of Im)
Regarding claim 32, the modified Quintanilha discloses wherein the at least one outer layer on either side of the at least one inner layer are the different (inner layer - silicon nitride Si3N4, page 11 of Im, outer layer - aluminum oxide, AL2O3, page 13 of Im).
Regarding claim 33, although the modified Quintanilha does not disclose wherein at least one of the at least one outer layer comprises Ruthenium, Im discloses a heat conductive layer of Ru outside of the out layer (page 13 of Im). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Ru as the outer layer of the pellicle splitter in order to effectively discharge heat as taught by Im.
Regarding claim 34, although the modified Quintanilha does not disclose wherein size of the pellicle membrane is less than 10 mm2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pellicle membrane of less than 10 mm2 since providing a known structure of a particular size depending on the intended use would require only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the prior art teaches or disclose wherein a thickness of the at least one outer layer on either side of the at least one inner layer is between 1.5 nm and 2.5 nm. Im discloses the outer layer 230 of 3 to 10 nm thickness. The range of Im does not touch or overlap the claimed range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (2014/0217298) discloses a metrology apparatus (200, Fig. 2) comprising a spectral purity filter (222) for split a source radiation into a reference radiation and measurement radiation (para 0036, 0037).
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 September 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights