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.
Claims 3, 4 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear if “or” is between “the inner baseplate is positioned under the reticle via a first device” and “the reticle is released from the reticle stage via a first device” or if “or” is between “the inner baseplate is positioned under the reticle via a first device” and “the reticle is released from the reticle stage via a first device, and the inner baseplate is positioned under the inner cover via a second device”. In order to expedite prosecution, the former is assumed.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear is “a reticle” and “an inner baseplate” are the same as “a reticle” and “an inner base place” of claim 15. In order to expedite prosecution, it is assumed that they are the same.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are rejected for incorporating the defects from the base claim by dependency.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,698,591. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a method, comprising: positioning an inner baseplate under a reticle (inherent); releasing the reticle from a reticle stage for a plurality of support pins of the inner baseplate to support the reticle (claim 1, “unloading the reticle from the chuck onto a baseplate of a reticle pod; supporting the reticle on the baseplate with a plurality of support pins extending from the baseplate”); and positioning the inner baseplate, with the reticle positioned on the inner baseplate, under an inner cover (claim 7, “enclosing the reticle in an extreme ultraviolet pod including the baseplate below the reticle, a top plate above the reticle”). Claim of instant application is broader than claim 7 of the patent, and is fully met. No further analysis is necessary. For example, claim 7 of the patent is further directed to performing EUV photolithography process and discharging electrostatic charge.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al. (Phillips) (2007/0211232) in view of Lee et al. (Lee) (2020/0033717).
Regarding claim 1, Phillips discloses a method, comprising: positioning an end effector (640) under a reticle (606, Fig. 9B, para 0090); releasing the reticle from a reticle stage for a plurality of support pins (208) of an end effector to support the reticle (Fig. 3, para 0060, the released reticle would be place); and positioning reticle on an inner baseplate (110) with a plurality of support pins (114, Fig. 2), with the reticle positioned on the inner baseplate, under an inner cover (108, Fig. 1, 2, 9B, the reticle removed from chuck 604 would be place on the inner baseplate 110 under the inner cover as shown in Fig. 2). However, Phillips does not disclose positioning an inner baseplate under a reticle and positioning the reticle from the reticle stage directly to the inner baseplate. Phillips discloses releasing the reticle from the reticle stage to an end effector of a robotic arm (Fig. 3, 9) and then placing the reticle on the inner baseplate (110). Lee discloses in Fig. 1 and para 0023, providing the reticle (M) on a reticle pod (32, Fig. 1, para 0023) directly to the reticle stage (43) by placing the reticle pod with the reticle under the reticle stage (Fig. 1) and removing the reticle by placing the reticle pod under the reticle (para 0023, “switching module 30 is configured for grasping the reticle M before the reticle M is moved to a reticle stage 43 of the processing module 40 and after the reticle M is removed from the reticle stage 43”, “the reticle M is received on or within a reticle pod 32 grasped by the robotic arm 31”). Although Lee does not disclose explicitly receiving the reticle on an inner baseplate, Lee discloses in para 0023 that the reticle is received “on or within” a reticle pod 23, which suggests the reticle is “on” the inner baseplate of the reticle pod without the inner cover or “within” a reticle pod with the inner cover on the inner baseplate with the inner cover. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of releasing the reticle from the reticle stage directly to the inner base plate of a reticle pod to the invention of Phillips in order to provide a protective environment for the reticle as taught by Lee and to minimize mechanical contact reduce particle contamination.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Lee) (2020/0033717).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses an exposure tool (Fig 1), comprising: a chamber (40, 30, 20, para 0022, 0023); a reticle stage (43), in the chamber, configured to secure a reticle (M); and an exchanging station (30, para 0023), in the chamber, configured to: position reticle pod under the reticle (para 0023); and move the inner baseplate and the reticle away from the reticle stage after the reticle is released from the reticle stage (para 0023). Although Lee does not explicitly disclose positioning an inner base place under the reticle, Lee discloses in para 0023 that the reticle is received “on or within” a reticle pod 23, which suggests the reticle is “on” the inner baseplate of the reticle pod without the inner cover or “within” a reticle pod with the inner cover on the inner baseplate with the inner cover. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the inner baseplate under the reticle before the inner cover is placed, in order to provide a protective environment as taught by Lee in para 0023.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim) (2015/0131071) in view of Wang (2009/0038985).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method of loading the reticle (PM, Fig. 1, para 0072) comprising: separating an inner cover (cover or 244, Fig. 5, para 0072) and an inner baseplate (base plate or 242, Fig. 5) and transferring the reticle on the inner baseplate with the back side exposed to the to the reticle stage region (100A, Fig. 1, para 0072, 0073) under the reticle stage (110, Fig. 1, para 0072-0074). Although Kim does not explicitly disclose the method of releasing the reticle from the reticle stage, releasing of the reticle after processing would be the exact reverse of the loading process disclosed in Kim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the inner baseplate (242) under a reticle (PM), releasing the reticle from the reticle stage (110) onto the inner baseplate (242); and positioning the inner baseplate with the reticle on the inner baseplate under the inner cover (244) in order to maintain a protective environment for the reticle that was kept during the loading process for the reverse process of unloading of the reticle. However, Kim does not disclose a plurality of support pins of the inner baseplate to receive the reticle. Kim discloses the reticle is held on the stage by an electrostatic force (para 0058, 0060). Wang discloses a reticle pod (Fig. 1) comprising a baseplate (104) comprising a plurality of support pins (112) to support the reticle (114) to dissipate static charge (para 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an inner baseplate with a plurality of pins to support the reticle to the invention of Kim in order to dissipate the static charge as taught by Wang in para 0024.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kim discloses wherein positioning the inner baseplate comprises: moving the inner baseplate from a first location (100F) to a second location (100A) that is under the reticle (para 0072). As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to perform unloading of the reticle by performing the exact reverse steps of loading the reticle for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kim discloses wherein: at least one of: the inner baseplate is positioned under the reticle via a first device, or the reticle is released from the reticle stage via a first device (114, 116, electrostatic chuck, para 0058, 0060), and the inner baseplate is positioned under the inner cover via a second device (173, para 0068, 0072). As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to perform unloading of the reticle by performing the exact reverse steps of loading the reticle for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses wherein the first device is an exchanging station (114, 116, electrostatic chuck, different reticles are held by electrostatic chuck or exchanged at the reticle stage by electrostatic chuck) and the second device is a reticle transport device (173, para 0068).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kim discloses wherein positioning the inner baseplate comprises: positioning the inner baseplate, with the reticle positioned on the inner baseplate, under the inner cover as discussed above in claim 1. Although the modified Kim does not disclose a cover rack, Kim discloses that the inner cover and the inner baseplate are separated in the load lock chamber 100F (para 0072). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cover rack since the separated inner cover should be placed away from the inner base plate and the reticle while they are transported towards the reticle stage and a cover rack would provide a place for the inner cover until it is ready to be put together with the inner baseplate and the reticle after the processing.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kim discloses moving the inner cover and the inner baseplate, with the reticle enclosed therein, in a chamber (100F, para 0071). As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to perform unloading of the reticle by performing the exact reverse steps of loading the reticle for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kim discloses moving the inner cover and the inner baseplate, with the reticle enclosed therein, from the chamber onto a lower shell (outer pod 184, para 0071). As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to perform unloading of the reticle by performing the exact reverse steps of loading the reticle for the reasons stated above.
Claim(s) 8, 9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses an exposure tool (Fig. 1) comprising a chamber (100A, para 0057), a reticle stage (110, para 0057) , in the chamber, configured to secure a reticle (PM); and an exchanging station (173), in the chamber, configured to: load and unload the reticle (para 0068), position an inner baseplate (242, Fig. 5) and the reticle under the reticle stage to load the reticle onto the stage (para 0068, 0072). Although Kim does not explicitly disclose the method of releasing the reticle from the reticle stage, releasing of the reticle after processing would be the exact reverse of the loading process disclosed in Kim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the exchanging station (173) to position an inner baseplate (242) under the reticle (PM) held on the stage (110); and move the inner baseplate and the reticle away from the reticle stage after the reticle is released from the reticle stage in order to maintain a protective environment for the reticle that was kept during the loading process for the reverse process of unloading of the reticle.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Kim discloses wherein the reticle is secured to the reticle stage via a clamp (electrostatic chuck is a type of a clamp, para 0058, 0060).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Kim discloses wherein the inner baseplate comprises a plurality of support pins configured to support the reticle (14, 16, electrostatic chuck, para 0058, 0060).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Kim discloses a reticle transport device (173), configured to: retrieve the inner baseplate (242) and the reticle (PM) from the exchange station (173); and position, after retrieving the inner baseplate and the reticle, the inner baseplate and the reticle under an inner cover (244, para 0072). As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to perform unloading of the reticle by performing the exact reverse steps of loading the reticle for the reasons stated above. Further, although Kim does not disclose a separate reticle transport device and an exchange station, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a separate transport device and an exchange station since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, although Kim does not disclose a cover rack comprising the inner cover, Kim discloses that the inner cover and the inner baseplate are separated in the load lock chamber 100F (para 0072). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a cover rack since the separated inner cover should be placed away from the inner base plate and the reticle while they are transported towards the reticle stage and a cover rack would provide a place for the inner cover until it is ready to be put together with the inner baseplate and the reticle after the processing.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Kim discloses wherein another reticle transport device (174) is further configured to: move the inner cover (244) and the inner baseplate (242), with the reticle enclosed therein, outside of the chamber and into a second chamber (100G, para 0068, 0071). As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to perform unloading of the reticle by performing the exact reverse steps of loading the reticle for the reasons stated above. Further, although Kim does not disclose that the same reticle transport device is used to move the inner cover and the inner baseplate with the reticle to the second chamber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide one reticle transport device configured to move the inner baseplate and the reticle to under the inner cover and then move the inner baseplate and the inner cover with the reticle to another chamber since providing a one transport device that moves from a first location to a second location to further move to a third location would be an obvious modification that requires only the routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses a system (Fig. 1) comprising a first reticle transport device (173, para 0068) that loads and unloads the reticle PM to and from the reticle stage (110, para 0068, 0072) by separating the inner cover (244) from the inner baseplate (242) and positioning the inner baseplate (242) of the inner pod (182) with the reticle (PM) at the reticle stage (11), and a second reticle transport device (174, para 0068) that loads and unloads the inner pod (182) from the outer pod (184, para 0068, 0071) by separating the inner pod (182) from the outer pod (184) and positioning the inner pod with the reticle at an exchanging station (100F). Although Kim does not explicitly disclose the method of releasing the reticle from the reticle stage, releasing of the reticle after processing would be the exact reverse of the loading process disclosed in Kim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first reticle transport that retrieve an inner baseplate supporting a reticle (PM); position, after retrieving the inner baseplate (242), the inner baseplate and the reticle under an inner cover (242); and move the inner baseplate and the inner cover, with the reticle enclosed therein and to provide the second reticle transport that retrieve the inner baseplate and the inner cover, with the reticle enclosed therein; and place the inner baseplate and the inner cover, with the reticle enclosed therein, onto a lower shell of a reticle carrier (184, 180), in order to maintain a protective environment for the reticle that was kept during the loading process for the reverse process of unloading of the reticle. Although Kim does not disclose a chamber to place the inner pod containing the reticle before the inner pod is transported to the lower shell of the outer pod or reticle carrier, Kim discloses putting together the inner cover and the inner baseplate with the reticle at a load lock chamber before the inner pod is transported to the outer pod in the mask load port 100G. Since the chamber is provided to maintain vacuum or clean environment for processing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a separate load lock chamber between the load port where the outer pod is located and the area where the inner pod and the reticle are put together in order to avoid any particle contamination.
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses a reticle stage (110, Fig. 1) configured to secure a reticle (PM). The modified Kim discloses the first transport device to position an inner baseplate (242) under the reticle (PM) when secured by the reticle stage; and move the inner baseplate and the reticle away from the reticle stage after the reticle is released from the reticle stage (para 0072). As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to perform unloading of the reticle by performing the exact reverse steps of loading the reticle for the reasons stated above. Further, although Kim does not disclose an exchanging stage separate from the first reticle transport device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a separate reticle transport device and an exchange station since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses a first exposure tool (100A-C) comprising the first reticle transport device (173). Although Kim does not disclose a second exposure tool comprising the second reticle transport device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art to provide a second exposure tool comprising the second reticle transport device, in order to improve throughput since such arrangement is well known in the art and it has been held that mere duplication of the working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Kim discloses wherein an upper shell of the reticle carrier (184) is placed on the lower shell after the inner baseplate, and the inner cover, with the reticle enclosed therein, is placed on the lower shell (para 0071). As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to perform unloading of the reticle by performing the exact reverse steps of loading the reticle for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Kim does not disclose a second exposure tool, and the modified Kim does not disclose the chamber outside of the first exposure tool and the second exposure tool and does not disclose the chamber connected to the first exposure tool and the second exposure tool. However, since as stated above it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a second exposure tool for the reasons stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the load lock chamber (100F) of Kim outside of the two exposure tools and connected to the two exposure tools in order to provide protection for the reticle and to be able to readily provide the reticle to either exposure tools as needed and to provide a second reticle to be provided to one of the exposure tools that is idle while the other exposure tool is being used in order to improve throughput.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 10, the further difference between the modified Kim and the claimed invention is wherein the inner baseplate comprises a plurality of support pins configured to support the reticle. Kim discloses the reticle is held on the stage by an electrostatic force (para 0058, 0060). Wang discloses a reticle pod (Fig. 1) comprising a baseplate (104) comprising a plurality of support pins (112) to support the reticle (114) to dissipate static charge (para 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an inner baseplate with a plurality of pins to support the reticle to the invention of Kim in order to dissipate the static charge as taught by Wang in para 0024.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chilese et al. (2013/0255407) discloses a reticle pod (Fig. 2) comprising an outer pod (12, 13) and an inner pod comprising an inner baseplate (16) and an inner cover (15) for holding a reticle (150). Chilese et al. discloses removing the inner cover (Fig. 4) and providing the inner baseplate holding the reticle to a reticle carrier (153, Fig. 6).
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 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights