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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,650,512 B2 and claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,210,295 B2, both issued to Hsu et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of application 18/978369 are directed to the same invention of claims of U.S. 11,650,512 B2 and U.S. 12,210,295 B2. In this instance the claims of application 18/978369 are broader than that of U.S. 11,650,512 B2 and U.S. 12,210,295 B2. As such the claim of application 18/978369 is met by claims of U.S. 11,650,512 B2 and U.S. 12,210,295 B2. No further analysis is necessary.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al. [US 2014/0268074 A1] in view of Van Goch et al. [US 2024/0134289 A1].
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 18, Chien et al. discloses a method (Figs. 9-13), comprising:
receiving an indication that a particle is on a surface of a reticle (as shown in Figs. 1-8, see also paragraphs [0029], [0035]-[0039], [0065] and [0069] teaches the cleaning methods of the reticle and the various forces that are imparted on the reticle in the process).
Chien et al. does not teach determining a threshold amount of stress to be applied to the surface of the particle to remove the particle; signaling, to a reticle cleaning device, a movement operation to apply the threshold amount of stress to the surface of the reticle; receiving an indication of an amount of stress applied by the reticle cleaning device on the reticle; determining that the amount of stress exceeds the threshold amount of stress; and signaling, to the reticle cleaning device and based on the amount of stress exceeding the threshold amount of stress, a cease movement operation to cease movement of the reticle cleaning device.
However, Van Goch et al. discloses a method wherein data associated with a patterning device is detected and performing an action from a plurality of actions when a determination not to proceed is made (Abstract). Specifically, Van Goch et al. discloses determining a threshold amount of stress to be applied to the surface of the particle to remove the particle; signaling, to a reticle cleaning device, a movement operation to apply the threshold amount of stress to the surface of the reticle; receiving an indication of an amount of stress applied by the reticle cleaning device on the reticle; determining that the amount of stress exceeds the threshold amount of stress; and signaling, to the reticle cleaning device and based on the amount of stress exceeding the threshold amount of stress, a cease movement operation to cease movement of the reticle cleaning device (paragraphs [0067]-[0076], see also Figs. 5 and 6 teaches detecting reticle contamination and deformation (stress) and stopping when a threshold amount is exceeded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide detecting when the amount of stress exceeds a threshold amount in a reticle cleaning operation, as taught by Van Goch et al. in the method of Chien et al. because such a modification provides improved inspection techniques and protection for patterning devices of a lithographic apparatus before exposing a substrate (paragraph [0005] of Van Goch et al.).
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-17, 19 and 20, Chien et al. in view of Van Goch et al. discloses wherein the indication is received via a stress sensor of the reticle cleaning device, wherein the cease movement operation is signaled to an actuator of the reticle cleaning device, further comprising: determining the threshold based on the at least one of the material of the reticle or the material of the particle on the reticle, further comprising: receiving an indication of at least one of the material of the reticle or the material of the particle on the reticle, further comprising: signaling, to the reticle cleaning device, a movement operation to move the reticle cleaning device toward the particle on the reticle, further comprising: receiving an indication of the particle on the reticle, wherein the movement operation is signaled based on receiving the indication of the particle on the reticle, further comprising: determining controls for moving the reticle cleaning device to the surface of the reticle, wherein the movement operation is based on the controls, wherein the controls include a height relative to the reticle to which the reticle cleaning device is to be moved to contact the particle, further comprising: determining the height based on a height of the particle, wherein the height is a preconfigured height, further comprising: determining the threshold amount of stress based on at least one of a material of the reticle or a material of the particle, further comprising: receiving an indication of at least one of the material of the reticle or the material of the particle, wherein the reticle cleaning device comprises a contact surface and at least one of a loader or a support member, and wherein the movement operation is for the at least one of the loader or the support member to position the contact surface above the particle, further comprising: signaling, to the reticle cleaning device, a cease movement operation, further comprising: determining that an amount of stress applied by the reticle cleaning device on the reticle exceeds a threshold, wherein the cease movement operation is signaled based on determining that the amount of stress exceeds the threshold (in the combination of Chien et al. and Van Goch et al., as shown in Figs. 1-8, see also paragraphs [0029], [0035]-[0039], [0065] and [0069] of Chien et al. and paragraphs [0067]-[0076], see also Figs. 5 and 6 of Van Goch et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights