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 .
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 1-3, 5-7, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,687,012. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are broader than and anticipated by the patent claims.
Claims 8-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,287,590. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are broader than and anticipated by the patent claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Su et al. [US 2022/0404719] in view of Hill et al. [US 2022/0334504].
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
For claims 1, 8, and 14, Su teaches a method as associated system, comprising: cleaning a surface of a reticle in a first exposure device (212, see Fig. 2) by irradiating the surface of the reticle with ultraviolet UV radiation of a first UV source for an irradiation time T1 (a surface of the reticle is treated by releasing ozone fluid over the surface of the reticle and irradiating the surface of the reticle by UV radiation of a UV source for a predetermined amount of time, see [0039] and Figs. 7A-7E and 9); using an image detector to continuously scan the surface of the reticle by continuously sampling a detected image of the reticle to generate a detected scanned signal at the first exposure device during the cleaning of the surface of the reticle (the incident UV radiation beam 51 scans and treats an entire surface 706 of the reticle 80, see [0029], reflected UV radiation beam 51′ is focused on a single point by the light detector system 710 and the light detector system 710 detects and generates a light signal 732, see [0030]), wherein the detected scanned signal at each time corresponds to a location on the surface of the reticle (regions associated with the scan, see [0029]); monitoring the detected scanned signal of each location during the irradiation time T1 (the analyzer module 830 such that the analyzer module 830 monitors the detected signal during the irradiation time, see [0039]; and stopping the cleaning when an increase in the detected scanned signal of each location is below a threshold value S1 within the irradiation time T1 (the analyzer module 830 sends a signal to the main controller to stop the irradiation time and to stop the treatment of the surface of the reticle when a percentage increase of the detected signal is below a threshold value in a specific amount of time, see [0039]), a second exposure device (214, 400, see Fig. 4) comprising a second EUV light source (100) that is configured to project a layout pattern of the reticle onto a photo resist layer formed on a wafer; a development system configured to develop the photo resist layer to generate a developed photo resist pattern (see [0118]); an imaging device configured to capture an image of the developed photo resist pattern (635, see Fig. 6); an analyzer module configured to determine a critical dimension uniformity (CDU) of the developed photo resist pattern on the wafer (630, see [0027]-[0028]); and a controller configured to control an irradiation time T1 based on the CDU determined by the analyzer module (analyzer module 630 determines that the predetermined amount of time to clean the surface of the reticle from particle, see [0027], [0037], and [0047]).
Su fails to teach the cleaning includes a first exposure device by irradiating the surface of the reticle with extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation of a first EUV source.
Hill teaches the cleaning includes a first exposure device by irradiating the surface of the reticle with extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation of a first EUV source (cleaning by irradiation with an EUV source, see [0026] and [0050] and Fig. 1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective fling date of the claimed invention to provide the cleaning EUV device as taught by Hill as the cleaning device as taught by Su in order to predictably clean the surface of the reticle with a known light source in the presence of ozone gas taught by both references.
For claims 2 and 9, Su teaches after the cleaning, transferring the reticle from the first exposure device to a second exposure device for a lithography operation (S940, see Fig. 9); and projecting a layout pattern of the reticle in the second exposure device (s950, see Fig. 9), using EUV radiation of a second EUV source, onto a photo resist layer of a wafer (see Fig. 4).
For claims 3 and 10, Su teaches after projecting the layout pattern, developing the photo resist layer to generate a photo resist pattern on the wafer (see [0018]).
For claim 4, Su teaches the reticle is a reflective reticle (reflective reticle, see [0029]), the method further comprising: using the image detector to generate a detected reflected image; monitoring the detected reflected image during the irradiation time; and stopping the cleaning when an intensity increase in each point of the detected reflected image is below a threshold value within the irradiation time T1 (intensity change over time, see [0033]-[0034]).
For claims 5, 11, and 15, Su teaches analyzing the detected scanned signal by one of a pattern recognition algorithm, a data mining algorithm, or a neural network algorithm to determine corresponding locations of the surface of the reticle to be cleaned (analyzer module 630 performs one or more image processing and/or image recognition algorithms, see [0026] and adjusting the predetermined irradiation time to the irradiation time that corresponds to the threshold CDU, see [0047]).
For claims 6, 12, and 16, Su teaches a known EUV radiation at 13.5 nm (see [0048]) and Hill teaches first EUV source of the first exposure device produces EUV radiation (see [0026])
For claims 7, 13, and 17, Su teaches maintaining the first exposure device and the second exposure device under a vacuum environment (the vacuum pressure controller 406 to maintain a vacuum environment inside the treatment device 212 and the exposure device 214, see [0037]).
For claim 18, Su teaches the controller is further configured to increase the cleaning time when an intensity increase in each point of the image is below a threshold within a specific time (increase time, see [0027] and [0028]).
For claim 19, Su teaches a rapid exchange device having an extendable robot arm, wherein the controller is configured to cause the rapid exchange device to transfer the reticle, by the extendable robot arm, from the first exposure device to the second exposure device (transferred by device 206, see [0041]).
For claim 20, Su teaches the controller is further configured to increase the cleaning time between 0.5 percent to 1.5 percent when the CDU does not satisfy a criterion (see [0028]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kioke [US 2014/0242733] teaches in paragraph [0026] that the reflection rate of the mask 10 changes at a high sensitivity according to the film thickness of the contamination, and in [0054] that a change in critical dimension can be used to determine contamination thickness. Tawarayama [US 2011/0285975], and Su et al. [US 11,550,229; US 11,829,076, and US 12,153,351] teaches cleaning a reticle based on a measured reflectance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights