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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. [US 2010/0190095].
For claim 1, Lin teaches a foreign matter removing device comprising:
a vacuum ultraviolet light generating section (15, 115, 215 , see Figs. 1-4) generating vacuum ultraviolet light;
an irradiation container (16, 116) for irradiating the vacuum ultraviolet light onto a pellicle film (12, 112); and
a gas supplying section (source for gas supplying to port 18, 118, see [0021]) supplying inert gas to the irradiation container,
wherein the irradiation container has an irradiation chamber (16, 116) at which are provided a gas supply port (18, 118) for supplying the inert gas and a gas discharge port (19, 119) for discharging the inert gas, and
wherein the gas supplying section is connected to the gas supply port (supplying inert gas 17, 117).
For claim 2, Lin teaches at a border between the irradiation chamber and the vacuum ultraviolet light generating section, a transmitting portion that transmits the vacuum ultraviolet light (light source provided behind a transparent plate, see [0034]).
For claim 3, Lin teaches a stage (105, 205) that is disposed within the irradiation chamber and is for placement of the pellicle film.
For claim 4, Lin teaches the inert gas includes nitrogen gas (nitrogen, see [0021] and 0023]).
For claim 7, Lin teaches at a border between the irradiation chamber and the vacuum ultraviolet light generating section, a transmitting portion (light source provided behind a transparent plate, see [0034]) that transmits the vacuum ultraviolet light, wherein the irradiation container further has a distance adjusting section that adjusts a distance between the transmitting portion and the stage (movement along the base 103, see Fig. 4 and [0025] and [0027], and Figs. 1a and 1b of US 5,311,250).
For claim 10, Lin teaches irradiation chamber has two wall portions that face one another, the gas supply port is disposed at one of the two wall portions that face one another, and the gas discharge port is disposed at another of the two wall portions that face one another (sidewall portions of chamber 16, 116 that includes ports 18, 118 and 19, 119, see Figs. 1-4).
For claim 11, Lin teaches a pellicle producing device (pellicle mounting apparatus, see Figs. 1-4) comprising the foreign matter removing device of Claim 1.
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 5, 6, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Ikuta [US 2008/0092918].
For claim 12, Lin teaches a pellicle film producing method (pellicle mounting, see Figs. 1-4) comprising:
supplying inert gas to an irradiation chamber (inert gas supply at port 18, 118 to chamber 16, 116, see [0021] and [0023]); and
irradiating vacuum ultraviolet light onto a pellicle film in an inert gas atmosphere within the irradiation chamber (VUV from source 15, 115, 215 see Figs. 1-4).
Lin fails to teach a concentration of oxygen gas in the inert gas atmosphere within the irradiation chamber is 5 vol% or less.
Ikuta teaches a concentration of oxygen gas in the inert gas atmosphere within the irradiation chamber is 5 vol % or less (N2/O2, 95/5 vol % and 99.9/0.1 vol %, see process 1 in Examples 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed concentration as taught by Ikuta in the contamination removal method as taught by Lin, in order to remove inorganic contamination material attached to the surface.
For claims 5, 6, and 16-18, Lin fails to teach a cumulative amount of the vacuum ultraviolet light is from 0.1 J/cm2 to 100.0 J/cm2, wherein illuminance of the vacuum ultraviolet light is from 5 mW/cm2 to 100 mW/cm2, wherein an irradiation time of the vacuum ultraviolet light is from 1 second to 30 minutes.
Ikuta teaches a cumulative amount of the vacuum ultraviolet light is from 0.1 J/cm2 to 100.0 J/cm2, wherein illuminance of the vacuum ultraviolet light is from 5 mW/cm2 to 100 mW/cm2, wherein an irradiation time of the vacuum ultraviolet light is from 1 second to 30 minutes (luminance, exposure time, and application amount, see process 1 in Examples 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the desired luminance, exposure time, and application amount as taught by Ikuta in the application of VUV as taught by Lin, in order to remove inorganic contamination material attached to the surface using known conditions.
For claim 13, in the combination, Ikuta teaches the concentration of the oxygen gas within the irradiation chamber is 3 vol% or less (N2/O2, 99.9/0.1 vol %, see process 1 in Examples 2 and 3).
For claim 14, Lin teaches the inert gas includes nitrogen gas (nitrogen, see [0021] and 0023]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Takagi [US 2008/0264441].
For claims 8 and 9, Lin fails to teach the gas discharge port is disposed at a position that is lower than a height positioned at a center of the irradiation chamber, in a height direction of the irradiation chamber, wherein the gas supply port is disposed at a position that is higher than the height positioned at the center of the irradiation chamber, in the height direction of the irradiation chamber.
Takagi teaches the gas discharge port (315, see Fig. 3 and [0031]) is disposed at a position that is lower than a height positioned at a center of the irradiation chamber, in a height direction of the irradiation chamber, wherein the gas supply port (310) is disposed at a position that is higher than the height positioned at the center of the irradiation chamber, in the height direction of the irradiation chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the port arrangement as taught by Takagi in the port arrangement as taught by Lin in order to use gravity in combination with gas flow to remove contamination and reduce the likelihood of contamination from resettling.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Ikuta as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Takagi.
For claim 19, Lin teaches the irradiation chamber has, at a border of the irradiation chamber, a transmitting portion that transmits the vacuum ultraviolet light (light source provided behind a transparent plate, see [0034]).
Lin fails to teach an irradiation distance between the transmitting portion and the pellicle film is from 0.3 mm to 2.0 mm.
Takagi teaches an irradiation distance between the transmitting portion and the cleaning surface is from 0.3 mm to 2.0 mm (a distance in a range from about 0.5 mm to about 2.0 mm, see [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the source distance as taught by Takagi in the source arrangement as taught by Lin in order to ensure the a desired energy density is provided to clean the surface of attached material.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Ikuta as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Hsieh et al. [US 2023/0333465].
For claim 15, Lin fails to teach a flow rate of the inert gas is from 10 L/minute to 1000 L/minute.
Hsieh teaches a flow rate of the inert gas is from 10 L/minute to 1000 L/minute (10 liters per minute, see [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gas flow rate of Hsieh to the gas flow as taught by Lin in order to ensure that the flow rate is great enough to carry the contamination from the chamber.
For claim 20, Lin fails to teach a film thickness of the pellicle film is 100 nm or less.
Hsieh teaches a film thickness of the pellicle film is 100 nm or less (see [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the thickness of the pellicle of Hsieh in the pellicle as taught by Lin in order to provide a reticle suitable for use with an EUV wavelength.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. [US 5,368,675] in view of Hsieh.
For claim 21, Hamada teaches a pellicle comprising: a pellicle frame; and a pellicle film supported at the pellicle frame (film bonded to the pellicle frame, see col. 4 lines 8-37), wherein:, the pellicle film contains foreign matter of a size of from 1µm to 5 µm, and a number of pieces of the foreign matter is 35 or fewer (a particle diameter of 1 to 20 µm deposited on the pellicle membrane does not exceed 10 per 100 cm2 of the membrane, see col. 4 lines 8-37).
Hamada fails to teach the pellicle film has a film thickness of 100 nm or less.
Hsieh teaches a film thickness of the pellicle film is 100 nm or less (see [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the thickness of the pellicle of Hsieh in the pellicle as taught by Hamada in order to provide a reticle suitable for use with an EUV wavelength.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nikipelov et al. [US 2022/0008963], Ko et al. [US 2019/0258155], Zheng et al. [US 2002/0179852], and Aoki et al. [US 2001/0026355] teach cleaning a pellicle.
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