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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/18/25 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a light-emitting unit in claim 1-2, 5, and 8 (2 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0036]: e.g., The light-emitting unit 2 includes a first light-emitting unit 2 that irradiates one surface (in the example herein, the rear surface) of an EUV pellicle, which is a specimen W, with the inspection light L1, and a second light-emitting unit 2′ that irradiates the other surface (in the example herein, the front surface) of the specimen W with the inspection light L1).
a scattered light detection unit in claim 1-2 (3 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0040]: e.g., The scattered light detection unit 3 is for detecting scattered light L2 resultant of irradiating the specimen W with the inspection light L1, and includes a first scattered light detection unit 31 disposed on the side of the rear surface of the specimen W and a second scattered light detection unit 32 disposed on the side of the front surface of the specimen W).
a diffracted light detection unit in claim 1, 3 (4 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0043]: e.g., the diffracted light detection unit 4 is disposed offset from the light axis of the inspection light L1 (specifically, the optical path of the transmitted light L4 having transmitted through the specimen W), and includes a collecting optical system 41 for collecting the diffracted light L3, and a diffracted light detector 42 for detecting the diffracted light L3 collected by the collecting optical system 41).
a signal processing unit in claim 1-2 and 10 (5 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0049]: e.g., The signal processing unit 5 receives the light intensity signals from the first scattered light detector 312, the second scattered light detector 322, and the diffracted light detector 42).
a first light-emitting unit and a second light-emitting unit in claim 2 (2, 2’@ figure 1 and paragraph [0058]).
a first scattered light detection unit and a second scattered light detection unit in claim 2 (31, 32 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0057]: e.g., The scattered light detection unit 3 may include only one of the first scattered light detection unit 31 and the second scattered light detection unit 32).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US Patent No. 5,359,407 hereinafter “Suzuki”) in view of Neukermans et al (US Patent No. 5,076,692 hereinafter “Neukermans”).
Regarding claims 1 and 12-13; Suzuki discloses an inspection device, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium including an inspection program used in an inspection device (figure 3 and col.2 lines 26-31: e.g., a surface-state inspection apparatus which can detect a surface state with high precision while preventing the influence of flare light caused by scattering, particularly when light is incident on an end surface of a substrate with a simple configuration of a lens system ) comprising:
a light-emitting unit (100 @ figure 3) that irradiates one surface of a specimen (108 @ figure 3 and col.5 lines 40-43: e.g., an edge surface of a substrate, such as a reticle or the like, is coarse, strong scattered light is directed in substantially all directions if a laser light beam irradiates the edge surface) having a film-like shape and having optical transparency (col.9 lines47-49: e.g., a transparent substrate, but also to an opaque substrate, such as a Si wafer) with inspection light;
a scattered light detection unit (115 @ figure 3) that is disposed on a side of the one surface (P @ figure 3) of the specimen (108 @ figure 3), the side being a same side as where the light-emitting unit (100 @ figure 3) is disposed, and that detects scattered light from the specimen (col.4 lines 34-57: e.g., the upper and lower beams Bu and Bl are completely separated within the cross sections of FIGS. 2 and 3. Hence, scattered light generated at an edge of the reticle 108 by one light beam will never be incident upon a detection system for another light beam directly…the same processing as described above is performed also when a foreign particle is present on the lower surface of the reticle 108);
a scattered light detection unit (115 @ figure 3) that is disposed on a side of another surface (upper surface with point Q @ figure 3) of the specimen (108 @ figure 3), the side being on an opposite side of where the light-emitting unit (100 @ figure 3) is disposed, and that detects scattered light from the specimen (108 @ figure 3 and col.4 lines 34-57); and
a signal processing unit (1000 @ figure 3) that determines presence of a contaminant (col. 4 lines 40-45: e.g., a foreign particle is present within an inspection area, for example, on the upper surface of the reticle 108, scattered light generated when scanning light is incident upon the foreign particle is condensed by a lens 112 provided within the light-receiving optical system shown above the reticle 108) attached to the specimen (108 @ figure 3) and presence of a pinhole (P, Q @ figure 3 and col. 6 lines 1-10) formed in the specimen (108 @ figure 3), based on a scattered light intensity signal from the scattered light detection unit (115 @ figure 3 “upper surface of reticle 108”) and a scattered light intensity signal from the scattered light detection unit (115 @ figure 3 “lower surface of reticle 108”). See figures 1-11
Suzuki discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a diffracted light unit for detecting diffracted light from the specimen and the signal processing unit, coupled to the diffracted light unit, for determining presence of contaminant and pinhole formed the specimen. However, Neukermans teaches that it is known in the art to provide a diffracted light unit (76 @ figure 7 and col.8 lines 14-21: e.g., Light 74 diffracted by the grating patterns 70 are directed by a lens 72, used in a telecentric fashion, to a set of detectors 76 positioned for receiving at least the first order and preferably additional orders of diffracted light. Lens 72 images the scan-line onto the detectors 76 so that the diffracted light will be received at the same locations regardless of the position of the beam 64 in the scan) for detecting diffracted light (74 @ figure 7) from the specimen (66 @ figure 7) and the signal processing unit (86 @ figure 7), coupled to the diffracted light unit (76 @ figure 7) and the scattered light unit (84 @ figure 7), for determining presence of contaminant and pinhole formed the specimen (col.5 lines 15-31, col.6 lines 40-48, and col.8 lines 7-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the inspection device of Suzuki with a diffracted light unit for detecting diffracted light from the specimen and the signal processing unit, coupled to the diffracted light unit, for determining presence of contaminant and pinhole formed the specimen as taught by Neukermans for the purpose of determining an accurate count of the number of particles within the grating pattern areas.
Regarding claim 3; Suzuki discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the diffracted light detection unit includes: a collecting optical system disposed at a position offset from an optical axis of the inspection light and that collects the diffracted light; and a diffracted light detector that detects the diffracted light collected by the collecting optical system. However, Neukermans teaches that it is known in the art to provide the diffracted light detection unit (76 @ figure 7) includes: a collecting optical system (72 @ figure 7) disposed at a position offset from an optical axis of the inspection light (64 @ figure 7) and that collects the diffracted light (74 @ figure 7); and a diffracted light detector (76 @ figure 7) that detects the diffracted light (74 @ figure 7) collected by the collecting optical system (72 @ figure 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the inspection device of Suzuki with limitation above as taught by Neukermans for the purpose of determining an accurate count of the number of particles within the grating pattern areas.
Regarding claim 5; Suzuki discloses the light-emitting unit (100 @ figure 3) includes a scanning optical system (105 @ figure 3) that scans the inspection light across the specimen (108 @ figure 3) in a predetermined direction, and the collecting optical system (102, 104, 105, 109, 110, 111 @ figure 3) includes a collecting mirror (110, 111 @ figure 3) having a cross-sectional shape that is constant along an axis that is parallel with a direction in which the inspection light is scanned (figure 3).
Regarding claim 7; Suzuki discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the collecting optical system is for collecting first-or higher-order diffracted light. However, Neukermans teaches that it is known in the art to provide the collecting optical system (29 @ figure 4) for collecting first-or higher-order diffracted light (30, 32 @ figure 4 and col.5 lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the inspection device of Suzuki with limitation above as taught by Neukermans for the purpose of determining an accurate count of the number of particles within the grating pattern areas.
Regarding claim 11; Suzuki discloses the specimen (108 @ figure 8) is a pellicle (col.9 lines 11-16).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Neukermans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toyoki (JP 2009 145141 A submitted by IDS).
Regarding claim 2; Suzuki in view of Neukermans combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light-emitting unit includes: a first light-emitting unit that irradiates the one surface of the specimen with inspection light; and a second light-emitting unit that irradiates the other surface of the specimen with the inspection light, the scattered light detection unit includes: a first scattered light detection unit disposed on the side of the one surface of the specimen; and a second scattered light detection unit disposed on the side of the other surface of the specimen, and the signal processing unit determines whether the contaminant is attached on a front surface or on a rear surface of the specimen based on a first scattered light intensity signal from the first scattered light detection unit and a second scattered light intensity signal from the second scattered light detection unit. However, Toyoki teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light-emitting unit (31, 41 @ figure 1) includes: a first light-emitting unit (31, 311 @ figure 1) that irradiates the one surface (Wa @ figure 1) of the specimen (W @ figure 1) with inspection light (L1 @ figure 1); and a second light-emitting unit (41, 411 @ figure 1) that irradiates the other surface (Wb @ figure 1) of the specimen (W @ figure 1) with the inspection light (L1 @ figure 1), the scattered light detection unit (32, 42 @ figure 1) includes: a first scattered light detection unit (32, 322 @ figure 1) disposed on the side of the one surface (Wa @ figure 1) of the specimen (W @ figure 1); and a second scattered light detection unit (42, 422 @ figure 1) disposed on the side of the other surface (Wb @ figure 1) of the specimen (W @ figure 1), and the signal processing unit (5 @ figure 1 and Tech-Solution: e.g., Receiving the calculation result of the defect position calculation unit, and using the positional relationship between the position of the front surface irradiation detection defect and the position of the back surface irradiation detection defect as a parameter, the front surface irradiation detection defect and the back surface irradiation detection defect are the same defect. Ah A defect determining unit for determining. Here, the “substrate” refers to a thin plate or reticle used for manufacturing a semiconductor such as a semiconductor wafer, a mask, display glass, a recording medium for disk storage, a transparent crystal wafer, and the like. “Defects” include foreign matter, uneven coating, poor exposure, scratches, and the like) determines whether the contaminant is attached on a front surface (Wa @ figure 1) or on a rear surface (Wb @ figure 1) of the specimen (W @ figure 1) based on a first scattered light intensity signal from the first scattered light detection unit (32, 322 @ figure 1) and a second scattered light intensity signal from the second scattered light detection unit (42, 422 @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the inspection device of Suzuki with limitation above as taught by Toyoki for the purpose of improving the versatility of the defect inspection apparatus.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Neukermans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyai et al (US 2017/0256045 hereinafter “Miyai”).
Regarding claim 6; Suzuki in view of Neukermans combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the collecting mirror is an elliptic cylindrical concave mirror. However, Miyai teaches that it is known in the art to provide the collecting mirror (22 @ figure 1) is an elliptic cylindrical concave mirror (paragraph [0033]: e.g., The detection optical system 20 includes a concave mirror with a hole formed therein (hereinafter also referred to as a “concave mirror with hole”) 21, a convex mirror 22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the inspection device of Suzuki with limitation above as taught by Miyai for the purpose of accurately adjusting the focus light and improving the accuracy of the shape.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Neukermans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (US 2016/0153918 hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 8; Suzuki in view of Neukermans combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light-emitting unit emits inspection light having a wavelength exhibiting a transmittance of 40% or less through the specimen. However, Kim teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light-emitting unit emits inspection light having a wavelength exhibiting a transmittance of 40% or less through the specimen (paragraph [0065]: e.g., the graph shows a transmittance of the photomask pattern 21b of FIG. 2 in an ultraviolet wavelength range UV of about 100 nm to about 400 nm, a visible light wavelength range VL of about 400 nm to about 780 nm, and an infrared wavelength range IR of about 780 nm to about 1 mm. When a light beam in the infrared wavelength range IR is emitted, the transmittance is about 15% to about 30%). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the inspection device of Suzuki with limitation above as taught by Kim for the purpose of improving an accurate inspection of the shadow area in the photomask pattern.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Neukermans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shishodo et al (US Patent No. 5,539,514 hereinafter “Shishido”).
Regarding claim 9; Suzuki in view of Neukermans combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the scattered light detection unit includes: a polarizing filter for transmitting scattered light from the contaminant but removing scattered light from the pinhole; and a scattered light detector for detecting scattered light having transmitted through the polarizing filter. However, Shishido teaches that it is known in the art to provide the scattered light detection unit (51, 551 @ figure 1) includes: a polarizing filter (44, 445 @ figure 1) for transmitting scattered light from the contaminant (15, 80 @ figure 3 and 34-36) but removing scattered light from the pinhole (70 @ figures 13-14 and 34-36); and a scattered light detector (51, 551 @ figures 4A, 12B, 13-14) for detecting scattered light having transmitted through the polarizing filter (44, 445 @ figure 1 and col.12 line 57 to col.14 line 50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the inspection device of Suzuki with limitation above as taught by Shishido for the purpose of improving transfer resolution on a transparent or translucent substrate for defects, such as minute foreign particles having sizes on the submicron order adhering to the circuit pattern.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious an inspection device comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including of wherein the collecting optical system includes: a reflection mirror for changing an optical path of the diffracted light having been collected by the collecting mirror; and a light guide for converging the diffracted light having been reflected on the reflection mirror, to a light detection area of the diffracted light detector in set forth of claim 4.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious am inspection device comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including of the signal processing unit is configured to: determine that the pinhole is present when the scattered light intensity signal is lower than a predetermined value and the diffracted light intensity signal is higher than or equal to a predetermined value, and determine that the contaminant is present when the scattered light intensity signal is higher than or equal to the predetermined value and a diffracted light intensity signal is lower than the predetermined value in set forth of claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kohno (US Patent No. 4,999,511) discloses a surface state inspecting device, usable with a sample having substantially parallel first and second surfaces coupled by a side wall, for inspecting the state of each of the surfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
September 25, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights