DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on September 11, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II share the same special technical feature. This is found persuasive. Therefore, the restriction requirement between Groups I and II is withdrawn, and Applicant’s election of Group II is being treated as Applicant’s election of Groups I and II (claims 2-4, 8, and 11). Claims 5-7, 10, and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement between Groups I and II, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim in Groups I or II that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Applicant’s further traversal is on the ground(s) that the common special technical feature is not disclosed or suggested by Park et al. (US 2021/0293701; hereinafter Park) and Lee et al. (US 2022/0005715; hereinafter Lee), since the references are not analogous to each other. This is not found persuasive. Prior art references must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, these references are in the field of EUV mask analysis.
The requirement between the first Group (i.e., Groups I and II), Group III, and Group IV is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2021/0293701; hereinafter Park) and Lee et al. (US 2022/0005715; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Park discloses an EUV mask inspection apparatus (fig. 1) with a corresponding method comprising: a light source (100) for generating EUV light; a mirror (300) for changing a path of light such that the EUV light generated from the light source (100) is emitted to a mask (2000); and a detection array (500) for collecting the EUV light diffracted through the mask (2000) to obtain a diffraction pattern of the diffracted EUV light.
However, Park fails to disclose a mirror stage coupled to the mirror to control a position of the mirror such that an incident angle of the EUV light emitted to the mask is controlled, wherein an illumination system is implemented by combining diffraction patterns of first EUV light and second EUV light emitted at different angles to a same region of the mask.
Lee teaches a mirror stage (200) coupled to the mirror (220) to control a position of the mirror such that an incident angle of the EUV light emitted to the mask (2000; par. 45) is controlled, wherein an illumination system is implemented by combining diffraction patterns of first EUV light and second EUV light emitted at different angles to a same region of the mask (pars. 38-50, 57-58, and 80-83).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Park with the teaching of Lee, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for more sensitivity (Lee: par. 3).
Furthermore, since the Examiner finds that the prior art (i.e., Park) contained a “base” upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”, and since the Examiner finds that the prior art (i.e., Lee) contained a “comparable” system that has been improved as recited in the claimed invention, the Examiner thus finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique to the “base” and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, such a claimed combination would have been obvious.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Lee teaches wherein the detection array implements the illumination system by obtaining a target diffraction pattern by synthesizing a first diffraction pattern for the first EUV light and a second diffraction pattern for the second EUV light (figs. 8a-8b), and obtains an aerial image of a region of the mask irradiated with the first EUV light and the second EUV light through the target diffraction pattern (par. 48).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches wherein the illumination system implemented by synthesizing the diffraction patterns for the first EUV light and the second EUV light includes a dipole illumination system having two poles spaced apart from each other at an angle of 180° (fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches wherein the first EUV light is irradiated to a first region of the mask with a large angle pole (LAP) at an angle greater than 6° of an incidence angle with respect to a normal on an upper surface of the mask, and the second EUV light is irradiated to the first region of the mask with a small angle pole (SAP) at an angle smaller than 6° of the incidence angle with respect to the normal on the upper surface of the mask (figs. 8a-8b).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches wherein the illumination system implemented by synthesizing the diffraction patterns for the first EUV light and the second EUV light is implemented using one among: a V-dipole illumination system having two poles spaced apart from each other at an angle of 180° in a vertical direction (fig. 5a), an H-dipole illumination system having two poles spaced apart from each other at an angle of 180° in a horizontal direction, a quadrupole illumination system having four poles spaced apart from each other at an angle of 90°, a circular illumination system having a circular pole, and an annular illumination system having an annular pole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
/Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
