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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 11/24/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Application No. 17/685,427 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites that “the hydrogen barrier has a protective film or forms a protective film which covers the adhesive layer at least partly.” However, claim 15 depends upon claim 1 which recites that “the hydrogen barrier has a coating or forms a coating which covers the adhesive layer at least partly.” It is unclear how a hydrogen barrier having or forming “a protective film” would be different from a hydrogen barrier having or forming “a coating” as a protective film is a coating. As such, it is unclear what structure is required by the claims and if claim 15 further limits claim 1. For the purposes of examination, any structure that has a coating or forms a coating will be interpreted as reading on the hydrogen barrier of claim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,374,302; hereinafter – “Griffith”) in view of Chung (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2012/0120378).
Regarding claim 1, Griffith teaches a mirror arrangement comprising:
a substrate (14, 78), which has a front side having a mirror face (16, 50) for reflecting radiation, and a rear side facing away from the front side (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38-62; C. 6, L. 10-26),
a plurality of actuators (18, 22, 24) for generating deformations of the mirror face (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24 – C. 5, L. 6; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53),
a continuous adhesive layer (20, 82) on the rear side of the substrate that secures the plurality of actuators on the rear side of the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38-62; C. 6, L. 10-26), and
a hydrogen barrier (25, 26, 28, 52, 54, 62, 81) which is configured to protect the adhesive layer on the rear side of the substrate from hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24-38; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53),
wherein surface regions of the adhesive layer (20, 82) traverse interspaces between the actuators (18, 22, 24) such that the surface regions are protected by the hydrogen barrier (25, 26, 28, 52, 54, 62, 81) from the hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24-38; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53).
Griffith fails to explicitly disclose that the hydrogen barrier has a coating or forms a coating which covers the adhesive layer at least partly.
However, Chung teaches a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus comprising a substrate (401, 501) with a front side having a mirror face and a rear side, an actuator (403, 503), an adhesive layer (405, 505) between the actuator and the rear side of the substrate, and a hydrogen barrier (407, 507) which is configured to protect a hydrogen-sensitive material on the rear side of the substrate from hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0034 and 0038-0039), wherein surface regions (409) of the adhesive layer are protected by the hydrogen barrier from the hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0014, 0034, and 0038-0039), wherein the hydrogen barrier has a coating or forms a coating which covers the adhesive layer at least partly (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0029 and 0034).
Chung teaches this hydrogen barrier forming a coating that protects surface regions of the adhesive layer for “reducing the influence of the surrounding gas environment on the adhesive material, which could otherwise lead to additional and time-varying stress in the bonded parts” to “allow for lithography apparatuses and projection systems for EUV or UV lithography with high precision” (Paragraph 0014) and “to improve the bonding of two parts of a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus such that the probability of occurrence of additional stress over time in the bonded parts is lessened” (Paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Griffith such that the hydrogen barrier forms a coating that protects exposed surface regions of the adhesive layer as in Chung for “reducing the influence of the surrounding gas environment on the adhesive material, which could otherwise lead to additional and time-varying stress in the bonded parts” to “allow for lithography apparatuses and projection systems for EUV or UV lithography with high precision” and “to improve the bonding of two parts of a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus such that the probability of occurrence of additional stress over time in the bonded parts is lessened,” as taught by Chung (Paragraphs 0005 and 0014).
Regarding claim 3, Griffith in view of Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Griffith further teaches that the hydrogen barrier forms a water vapor diffusion barrier protecting the adhesive layer from water vapor (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24-38; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53).
Moreover, Chung further teaches that the hydrogen barrier forms a water vapor diffusion barrier protecting the adhesive layer from water vapor (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0014, 0034, and 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 13, Griffith in view of Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Griffith further teaches that the coating comprises at least one hydrogen barrier layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24-38; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53).
Regarding claim 14, Griffith in view of Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 13, as above.
Griffith further teaches that the at least one hydrogen barrier layer is applied on a further layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24-38; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53).
Regarding claim 15, Griffith in view of Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Griffith further teaches that the hydrogen barrier has a protective film or forms a protective film (25, 81) which covers the adhesive layer at least partly (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24-38; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53).
Regarding claim 16, Griffith in view of Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 15, as above.
Griffith further teaches that the protective film has a surface comprising at least one hydrogen barrier layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24-38; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53).
Regarding claim 17, Griffith in view of Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 15, as above.
Griffith further teaches that the protective film projects into an interspace between adjacent actuators and covers a depression in the adhesive layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24-38; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53).
Regarding claim 18, Griffith in view of Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Griffith further teaches that the actuators are configured as piezo actuators or as electrostrictive actuators (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24 – C. 5, L. 6; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53).
Regarding claim 19, Griffith in view of Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Griffith further teaches an optical arrangement in a lithography apparatus, comprising: at least one mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1 (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10; C. 1, L. 14-32; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24 – C. 5, L. 6; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53).
Regarding claim 20, Griffith teaches a mirror arrangement comprising:
a substrate (14, 78), which has a front side having a mirror face (16, 50) for reflecting radiation, and a rear side facing away from the front side (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38-62; C. 6, L. 10-26),
a plurality of actuators (18, 22, 24) for generating deformations of the mirror face (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24 – C. 5, L. 6; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53),
a continuous adhesive layer (20, 82) on the rear side of the substrate that secures the plurality of actuators on the rear side of the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38-62; C. 6, L. 10-26), and
a hydrogen barrier (25, 26, 28, 52, 54, 62, 81) which is configured to protect the adhesive layer on the rear side of the substrate from hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24-38; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53),
wherein surface regions of the adhesive layer (20, 82) extend into interspaces between the actuators (18, 22, 24) such that the surface regions are protected by the hydrogen barrier (25, 26, 28, 52, 54, 62, 81) from the hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 9-10; C. 3, L. 38 – C. 4, L. 18; C. 4, L. 24-38; C. 5, L. 32 – C. 6, L. 53).
Griffith fails to explicitly disclose that the hydrogen barrier has a coating or forms a coating which covers the adhesive layer at least partly.
However, Chung teaches a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus comprising a substrate (401, 501) with a front side having a mirror face and a rear side, an actuator (403, 503), an adhesive layer (405, 505) between the actuator and the rear side of the substrate, and a hydrogen barrier (407, 507) which is configured to protect a hydrogen-sensitive material on the rear side of the substrate from hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0034 and 0038-0039), wherein surface regions (409) of the adhesive layer are protected by the hydrogen barrier from the hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0014, 0034, and 0038-0039), wherein the hydrogen barrier has a coating or forms a coating which covers the adhesive layer at least partly (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0029 and 0034).
Chung teaches this hydrogen barrier forming a coating that protects surface regions of the adhesive layer for “reducing the influence of the surrounding gas environment on the adhesive material, which could otherwise lead to additional and time-varying stress in the bonded parts” to “allow for lithography apparatuses and projection systems for EUV or UV lithography with high precision” (Paragraph 0014) and “to improve the bonding of two parts of a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus such that the probability of occurrence of additional stress over time in the bonded parts is lessened” (Paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Griffith such that the hydrogen barrier forms a coating that protects exposed surface regions of the adhesive layer as in Chung for “reducing the influence of the surrounding gas environment on the adhesive material, which could otherwise lead to additional and time-varying stress in the bonded parts” to “allow for lithography apparatuses and projection systems for EUV or UV lithography with high precision” and “to improve the bonding of two parts of a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus such that the probability of occurrence of additional stress over time in the bonded parts is lessened,” as taught by Chung (Paragraphs 0005 and 0014).
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 11, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorkhover et al. (PCT Pub No. WO 2017/216007; hereinafter – “Gorkhover”) in view of Griffith et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,740,363; hereinafter – “Griffith’363”) and Chung. All citations to Gorkhover are directed toward the English machine translation of the WIPO document, provided as a reference.
Regarding claim 1, Gorkhover teaches a mirror arrangement comprising:
a substrate (13, 14, 15), which has a front side having a mirror face (13a, 14a, 15a) for reflecting radiation, and a rear side facing away from the front side (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0125-0129, 0164-0165, and 0188),
a plurality of actuators (24, 25, 26) for generating deformations of the mirror face, an adhesive layer that secures the plurality of actuators on the rear side of the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0139-0143, 0163-0166, and 0188), and
a hydrogen barrier (16, 29) which is configured to protect a hydrogen-sensitive material on the rear side of the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0066-0068, 0097-0102, 0129-0138, 0141-0143, 0148-0162, 0165-0173, and 0195-0198, e.g. Paragraph 0167: “the shell 16 in the example shown in Fig. 2 is formed from a metallic material, for example from aluminum, stainless steel, Inconel® or other materials that are largely inert to the conditions in the residual gas atmosphere in the interior 19, for example to hydrogen radicals”).
Gorkhover fails to explicitly disclose a continuous adhesive layer on the rear side of the substrate that secures the plurality of actuators on the rear side of the substrate wherein surface regions of the adhesive layer traverse interspaces between the actuators of the plurality of actuators such that the surface regions are protected by the hydrogen barrier from the hydrogen damage.
However, Griffith’363 teaches a deformable mirror comprising a substrate (50) with a front side having a mirror face and a rear side, a plurality of actuators (80, 84) for generating deformations of the mirror face, a continuous adhesive layer (82) that secures the plurality of actuators on the rear side of the substrate, and a hydrogen barrier (52, 54, 62) which is configured to protect the adhesive layer on the rear side of the substrate from hydrogen damage from hydrogen surrounding the mirror arrangement, wherein surface regions of the adhesive layer traverse interspaces between the actuators of the plurality of actuators such that the exposed surface regions are protected by the hydrogen barrier from the damage from the hydrogen, and the adhesive layer comprises the hydrogen-sensitive material (See e.g. Figs. 5-6; C. 4, L. 26-59).
Griffith’363 teaches this continuous adhesive layer “in order to ensure maximum (and uniform) coupling efficiency of stress from the piezoelectric element 80 to the substrate 78” (C. 4, L. 26-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Gorkhover with the continuous adhesive layer of Griffith’363 “in order to ensure maximum (and uniform) coupling efficiency of stress from the piezoelectric element 80 to the substrate 78,” as taught by Griffith’363 (C. 4, L. 26-44).
Gorkhover and Griffith’363 each fails to explicitly disclose that the hydrogen barrier has a coating or forms a coating which covers the adhesive layer at least partly.
However, Chung teaches a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus comprising a substrate (401, 501) with a front side having a mirror face and a rear side, an actuator (403, 503), an adhesive layer (405, 505) between the actuator and the rear side of the substrate, and a hydrogen barrier (407, 507) which is configured to protect a hydrogen-sensitive material on the rear side of the substrate from hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0034 and 0038-0039), wherein surface regions (409) of the adhesive layer are protected by the hydrogen barrier from the hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0014, 0034, and 0038-0039), wherein the hydrogen barrier has a coating or forms a coating which covers the adhesive layer at least partly (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0029 and 0034).
Chung teaches this hydrogen barrier forming a coating that protects surface regions of the adhesive layer for “reducing the influence of the surrounding gas environment on the adhesive material, which could otherwise lead to additional and time-varying stress in the bonded parts” to “allow for lithography apparatuses and projection systems for EUV or UV lithography with high precision” (Paragraph 0014) and “to improve the bonding of two parts of a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus such that the probability of occurrence of additional stress over time in the bonded parts is lessened” (Paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Gorkhover such that the hydrogen barrier forms a coating that protects exposed surface regions of the adhesive layer as in Chung for “reducing the influence of the surrounding gas environment on the adhesive material, which could otherwise lead to additional and time-varying stress in the bonded parts” to “allow for lithography apparatuses and projection systems for EUV or UV lithography with high precision” and “to improve the bonding of two parts of a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus such that the probability of occurrence of additional stress over time in the bonded parts is lessened,” as taught by Chung (Paragraphs 0005 and 0014).
Regarding claim 3, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the hydrogen barrier forms a water vapor diffusion barrier protecting the adhesive layer from water vapor (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0066-0068, 0097-0102, 0129-0138, 0141-0143, 0148-0162, 0165-0173, and 0195-0198).
Additionally, Griffith’363 further teaches that the hydrogen barrier forms a water vapor diffusion barrier protecting the adhesive layer from water vapor (See e.g. Figs. 5-6; C. 4, L. 26-59).
Moreover, Chung further teaches that the hydrogen barrier forms a water vapor diffusion barrier protecting the adhesive layer from water vapor (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0014, 0034, and 0038-0039).
Regarding claim 4, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that a surface of the hydrogen barrier that faces the surrounding hydrogen is hydrophobic and/or wherein the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one hydrophobic material (Paragraphs 0066-0069, 0152-0155, 0161-0162, and 0167-0170, e.g. Paragraph 0068: “Thin plastic components can be used as flexible plastic components, for example in the form of films, in particular in the form of Kapton® film (i.e. a polyimide film) or in the form of Teflon® (i.e. Polytetrafluoroethylene) film”).
Regarding claim 5, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the hydrogen barrier has a hydrogen diffusion coefficient of less than 5 x 10-14 m2/s (Paragraphs 0066-0069, 0152-0155, 0161-0162, and 0167-0170). Specifically, the materials of Gorkhover have a substantially identical composition and would be known to have the required hydrogen diffusion. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one material and/or a material combination which has a lower solubility for hydrogen than does the adhesive layer (Paragraphs 0066-0069, 0099-0102, 0152-0155, 0161-0162, and 0167-0170). Specifically, the materials of Gorkhover have a substantially identical composition and would be known to have the required hydrogen solubility. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one oxygen-containing chemical compound material having a free enthalpy of formation of less than -400 kJ/mol O2 (Paragraphs 0066-0069, 0152-0155, and 0167-0170, e.g. Paragraph 0068: “Thin plastic components can be used as flexible plastic components, for example in the form of films, in particular in the form of Kapton® film (i.e. a polyimide film) or in the form of Teflon® (i.e. Polytetrafluoroethylene) film”). Specifically, the materials of Gorkhover have a substantially identical composition and would be known to have the required free enthalpy of formation. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one nitrogen-containing chemical compound material having a free enthalpy of formation of less than -200 kJ/mol N2 (Paragraphs 0066-0069, 0152-0155, 0161-0162, and 0167-0170, e.g. Paragraph 0068: “Thin plastic components can be used as flexible plastic components, for example in the form of films, in particular in the form of Kapton® film (i.e. a polyimide film) or in the form of Teflon® (i.e. Polytetrafluoroethylene) film”). Specifically, the materials of Gorkhover have a substantially identical composition and would be known to have the required free enthalpy of formation. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting essentially of: Al, Au, Ag, Zn, Mo, Si, W, Ti, Sn, Sb, Pt, Ni, Fe, Co, Cr, V, Cu, Mn, Pb, their oxides, borides, nitrides and carbides, and also C and B4C (Paragraphs 0066-0069, 0152-0155, 0161-0162, and 0167-0170).
Regarding claim 13, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the coating comprises at least one hydrogen barrier layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0066-0068, 0097-0102, 0129-0138, 0141-0143, 0148-0162, 0165-0173, and 0195-0198).
Regarding claim 14, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 13, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the at least one hydrogen barrier layer is applied on a further layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0066-0068, 0097-0102, 0129-0138, 0141-0143, 0148-0162, 0165-0173, and 0195-0198).
Regarding claim 15, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the hydrogen barrier has a protective film or forms a protective film (29) which covers the adhesive layer at least partly (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0066-0068, 0097-0102, 0129-0138, 0141-0143, 0148-0162, 0165-0173, and 0195-0198).
Regarding claim 16, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 15, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the protective film has a surface comprising at least one hydrogen barrier layer (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0066-0068, 0097-0102, 0129-0138, 0141-0143, 0148-0162, 0165-0173, and 0195-0198).
Regarding claim 17, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 15, as above.
Gorkhover fails to explicitly disclose that the protective film projects into an interspace between adjacent actuators and covers a depression in the adhesive layer.
However, Griffith’363 further teaches that the protective film projects into an interspace between adjacent actuators and covers a depression in the adhesive layer (See e.g. Figs. 5-6 and 17; C. 4, L. 26-59; C. 6, L. 57 – C. 7, L. 3).
Griffith’363 teaches this structure “in order to ensure maximum (and uniform) coupling efficiency of stress from the piezoelectric element 80 to the substrate 78” (C. 4, L. 26-44) and as it “ensures that the holder's body affords the mirror an element of protection” (C. 2, L. 23-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Gorkhover such that exposed regions of the adhesive layer are protected by the hydrogen barrier as in Griffith’363 “in order to ensure maximum (and uniform) coupling efficiency of stress from the piezoelectric element 80 to the substrate 78” and as it “ensures that the holder's body affords the mirror an element of protection,” as taught by Griffith’363 (C. 2, L. 23-28; C. 4, L. 26-44).
While Griffith’363 teaches a structure reading on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, Examiner further submits reference Chung. Chung teaches a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus comprising a substrate (401, 501) with a front side having a mirror face and a rear side, an actuator (403, 503), an adhesive layer (405, 505) between the actuator and the rear side of the substrate, and a hydrogen barrier (407, 507) including a protective film wherein the protective film projects into an interspace between adjacent actuators and covers a depression in the adhesive layer (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0034 and 0038-0039), wherein exposed surface regions (409) of the adhesive layer are protected by the hydrogen barrier from the damage from the hydrogen (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0014, 0034, and 0038-0039).
Chung teaches this protective film for “reducing the influence of the surrounding gas environment on the adhesive material, which could otherwise lead to additional and time-varying stress in the bonded parts” to “allow for lithography apparatuses and projection systems for EUV or UV lithography with high precision” (Paragraph 0014) and “to improve the bonding of two parts of a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus such that the probability of occurrence of additional stress over time in the bonded parts is lessened” (Paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Gorkhover with the protective film Chung for “reducing the influence of the surrounding gas environment on the adhesive material, which could otherwise lead to additional and time-varying stress in the bonded parts” to “allow for lithography apparatuses and projection systems for EUV or UV lithography with high precision” and “to improve the bonding of two parts of a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus such that the probability of occurrence of additional stress over time in the bonded parts is lessened,” as taught by Chung (Paragraphs 0005 and 0014).
Regarding claim 18, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover fails to explicitly disclose that the actuators are configured as piezo actuators or as electrostrictive actuators.
However, Griffith’363 further teaches that the actuators are configured as piezo actuators or as electrostrictive actuators (See e.g. Figs. 5-6 and 17; C. 4, L. 26-59; C. 6, L. 57 – C. 7, L. 3).
Griffith’363 teaches these actuators to provide “low cost adaptive mirrors” and “a mirror 50 of much smaller size to be used to obtain the same stroke/bandwidth product” (C. 1, L. 33-47; C. 5, L. 2-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Gorkhover with the piezo actuators or electrostrictive actuators of Griffith’363 to provide “low cost adaptive mirrors” and “a mirror 50 of much smaller size to be used to obtain the same stroke/bandwidth product,” as taught by Griffith’363 (C. 1, L. 33-47; C. 5, L. 2-4).
Regarding claim 19, Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches an optical arrangement in a lithography apparatus, comprising: at least one mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1 (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0119-0138 and 0163-0164).
Regarding claim 20, Gorkhover teaches a mirror arrangement comprising:
a substrate (13, 14, 15), which has a front side having a mirror face (13a, 14a, 15a) for reflecting radiation, and a rear side facing away from the front side (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0125-0129, 0164-0165, and 0188),
a plurality of actuators (24, 25, 26) for generating deformations of the mirror face, an adhesive layer that secures the plurality of actuators on the rear side of the substrate (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 4-5; Paragraphs 0139-0143, 0163-0166, and 0188), and
a hydrogen barrier (16, 29) which is configured to protect a hydrogen-sensitive material on the rear side of the substrate from hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0066-0068, 0097-0102, 0129-0138, 0141-0143, 0148-0162, 0165-0173, and 0195-0198, e.g. Paragraph 0167: “the shell 16 in the example shown in Fig. 2 is formed from a metallic material, for example from aluminum, stainless steel, Inconel® or other materials that are largely inert to the conditions in the residual gas atmosphere in the interior 19, for example to hydrogen radicals”).
Gorkhover fails to explicitly disclose a continuous adhesive layer on the rear side of the substrate that secures the plurality of actuators on the rear side of the substrate wherein surface regions of the adhesive layer extend into interspaces between the actuators of the plurality of actuators such that the exposed surface regions are protected by the hydrogen barrier from damage from the hydrogen, and wherein the adhesive layer comprises the hydrogen-sensitive material.
However, Griffith’363 teaches a deformable mirror comprising a substrate (50) with a front side having a mirror face and a rear side, a plurality of actuators (80, 84) for generating deformations of the mirror face, a continuous adhesive layer (82) on the rear side of the substrate that secures the plurality of actuators on the rear side of the substrate, and a hydrogen barrier (52, 54, 62) which is configured to protect the adhesive layer on the rear side of the substrate from hydrogen damage, wherein surface regions of the adhesive layer extend into interspaces between the actuators of the plurality of actuators such that the surface regions are protected by the hydrogen barrier from the hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 5-6; C. 4, L. 26-59).
Griffith’363 teaches this continuous adhesive layer “in order to ensure maximum (and uniform) coupling efficiency of stress from the piezoelectric element 80 to the substrate 78” (C. 4, L. 26-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Gorkhover with the continuous adhesive layer of Griffith’363 “in order to ensure maximum (and uniform) coupling efficiency of stress from the piezoelectric element 80 to the substrate 78,” as taught by Griffith’363 (C. 4, L. 26-44).
Gorkhover and Griffith’363 each fails to explicitly disclose that the hydrogen barrier has a coating or forms a coating which covers the adhesive layer at least partly.
However, Chung teaches a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus comprising a substrate (401, 501) with a front side having a mirror face and a rear side, an actuator (403, 503), an adhesive layer (405, 505) between the actuator and the rear side of the substrate, and a hydrogen barrier (407, 507) which is configured to protect a hydrogen-sensitive material on the rear side of the substrate from hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0034 and 0038-0039), wherein surface regions (409) of the adhesive layer are protected by the hydrogen barrier from the hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0014, 0034, and 0038-0039), wherein the hydrogen barrier has a coating or forms a coating which covers the adhesive layer at least partly (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0029 and 0034).
Chung teaches this hydrogen barrier forming a coating that protects surface regions of the adhesive layer for “reducing the influence of the surrounding gas environment on the adhesive material, which could otherwise lead to additional and time-varying stress in the bonded parts” to “allow for lithography apparatuses and projection systems for EUV or UV lithography with high precision” (Paragraph 0014) and “to improve the bonding of two parts of a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus such that the probability of occurrence of additional stress over time in the bonded parts is lessened” (Paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Gorkhover such that the hydrogen barrier forms a coating that protects exposed surface regions of the adhesive layer as in Chung for “reducing the influence of the surrounding gas environment on the adhesive material, which could otherwise lead to additional and time-varying stress in the bonded parts” to “allow for lithography apparatuses and projection systems for EUV or UV lithography with high precision” and “to improve the bonding of two parts of a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus such that the probability of occurrence of additional stress over time in the bonded parts is lessened,” as taught by Chung (Paragraphs 0005 and 0014).
Claim(s) 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith in view of Chung, or Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ehm et al. (PCT Pub No. WO 2013/124224; hereinafter – “Ehm”)
Regarding claim 5, Griffith in view of Chung, or Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the hydrogen barrier has a hydrogen diffusion coefficient of less than 5 x 10-14 m2/s (Paragraphs 0066-0069, 0152-0155, 0161-0162, and 0167-0170). Specifically, the materials of Gorkhover have a substantially identical composition and would be known to have the required hydrogen diffusion. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
While Gorkhover teaches a hydrogen barrier of the same materials, Examiner further submits Ehm. Ehm teaches an optical system for EUV lithography having a hydrogen barrier (57) for protecting a hydrogen-sensitive material on a rear side of a substrate having a mirror face wherein the hydrogen barrier has a hydrogen diffusion coefficient of less than 5 x 10-14 m2/s (See e.g. Fig. 2; P. 3, L. 29 – P. 4, L. 30; P. 6, L. 20-28; P. 10, L. 12 – P. 11, L. 8; P. 12, L. 8 – P. 13, L. 3).
Ehm teaches this material for the hydrogen barrier “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds” (P. 26, L. 16-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Griffith or Gorkhover with the hydrogen barrier material of Ehm “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds,” as in Ehm (P. 26, L. 16-22), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 6, Griffith in view of Chung, or Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one material and/or a material combination which has a lower solubility for hydrogen than does the hydrogen-sensitive material (Paragraphs 0066-0069, 0099-0102, 0152-0155, 0161-0162, and 0167-0170). Specifically, the materials of Gorkhover have a substantially identical composition and would be known to have the required hydrogen solubility. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
While Gorkhover teaches a hydrogen barrier of the same materials, Examiner further submits Ehm. Ehm teaches an optical system for EUV lithography having a hydrogen barrier (57) for protecting a hydrogen-sensitive material on a rear side of a substrate having a mirror face wherein the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one material and/or a material combination which has a lower solubility for hydrogen than does the hydrogen-sensitive material (See e.g. Fig. 2; P. 3, L. 29 – P. 4, L. 30; P. 6, L. 20-28; P. 10, L. 12 – P. 11, L. 8; P. 12, L. 8 – P. 13, L. 3).
Ehm teaches this material for the hydrogen barrier “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds” (P. 26, L. 16-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Griffith or Gorkhover with the hydrogen barrier material of Ehm “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds,” as in Ehm (P. 26, L. 16-22), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, Griffith in view of Chung, or Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one oxygen-containing chemical compound material having a free enthalpy of formation of less than -400 kJ/mol O2 (Paragraphs 0066-0069, 0152-0155, and 0167-0170, e.g. Paragraph 0068: “Thin plastic components can be used as flexible plastic components, for example in the form of films, in particular in the form of Kapton® film (i.e. a polyimide film) or in the form of Teflon® (i.e. Polytetrafluoroethylene) film”). Specifically, the materials of Gorkhover have a substantially identical composition and would be known to have the required free enthalpy of formation. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
While Gorkhover teaches a hydrogen barrier of the same materials, Examiner further submits Ehm. Ehm teaches an optical system for EUV lithography having a hydrogen barrier (57) for protecting a hydrogen-sensitive material on a rear side of a substrate having a mirror face wherein the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one oxygen-containing chemical compound material having a free enthalpy of formation of less than -400 kJ/mol O2 (See e.g. Fig. 2; P. 3, L. 29 – P. 4, L. 30; P. 6, L. 20-28; P. 10, L. 12 – P. 11, L. 8; P. 12, L. 8 – P. 13, L. 3).
Ehm teaches this material for the hydrogen barrier “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds” (P. 26, L. 16-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Griffith or Gorkhover with the hydrogen barrier material of Ehm “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds,” as in Ehm (P. 26, L. 16-22), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 8, Griffith in view of Chung, or Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one nitrogen-containing chemical compound material having a free enthalpy of formation of less than -200 kJ/mol N2 (Paragraphs 0066-0069, 0152-0155, 0161-0162, and 0167-0170, e.g. Paragraph 0068: “Thin plastic components can be used as flexible plastic components, for example in the form of films, in particular in the form of Kapton® film (i.e. a polyimide film) or in the form of Teflon® (i.e. Polytetrafluoroethylene) film”). Specifically, the materials of Gorkhover have a substantially identical composition and would be known to have the required free enthalpy of formation. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
While Gorkhover teaches a hydrogen barrier of the same materials, Examiner further submits Ehm. Ehm teaches an optical system for EUV lithography having a hydrogen barrier (57) for protecting a hydrogen-sensitive material on a rear side of a substrate having a mirror face wherein the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one nitrogen-containing chemical compound material having a free enthalpy of formation of less than -200 kJ/mol N2 (See e.g. Fig. 2; P. 3, L. 29 – P. 4, L. 30; P. 6, L. 20-28; P. 10, L. 12 – P. 11, L. 8; P. 12, L. 8 – P. 13, L. 3).
Ehm teaches this material for the hydrogen barrier “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds” (P. 26, L. 16-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Griffith or Gorkhover with the hydrogen barrier material of Ehm “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds,” as in Ehm (P. 26, L. 16-22), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 9, Griffith in view of Chung, or Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover fails to explicitly disclose that the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one metal oxide which is preferably selected from the group consisting essentially of: Al2O3, MgO, CaO, La2O3, TiO2, ZrO2, Ta2O5, Y2O3, Ce2O3, and compounds thereof.
However, Ehm teaches an optical system for EUV lithography having a hydrogen barrier (57) for protecting a hydrogen-sensitive material on a rear side of a substrate having a mirror face wherein the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one metal oxide which is preferably selected from the group consisting essentially of: Al2O3, MgO, CaO, La2O3, TiO2, ZrO2, Ta2O5, Y2O3, Ce2O3, and compounds thereof (See e.g. Fig. 2; P. 3, L. 29 – P. 4, L. 30; P. 6, L. 20-28; P. 10, L. 12 – P. 11, L. 8; P. 12, L. 8 – P. 13, L. 3).
Ehm teaches this material for the hydrogen barrier “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds” (P. 26, L. 16-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Griffith or Gorkhover with the hydrogen barrier material of Ehm “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds,” as in Ehm (P. 26, L. 16-22), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 10, Griffith in view of Chung and Ehm, or Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363, Chung, and Ehm teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 9, as above.
Gorkhover fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one metal oxide is selected from the group consisting essentially of: Al2O3, MgO, CaO, La2O3, TiO2, ZrO2, Ta2O5, Y2O3, Ce2O3, and compounds thereof.
However, Ehm further teaches that the at least one metal oxide is selected from the group consisting essentially of: Al2O3, MgO, CaO, La2O3, TiO2, ZrO2, Ta2O5, Y2O3, Ce2O3, and compounds thereof (See e.g. Fig. 2; P. 3, L. 29 – P. 4, L. 30; P. 6, L. 20-28; P. 10, L. 12 – P. 11, L. 8; P. 12, L. 8 – P. 13, L. 3).
Ehm teaches this material for the hydrogen barrier “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds” (P. 26, L. 16-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Griffith or Gorkhover with the hydrogen barrier material of Ehm “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds,” as in Ehm (P. 26, L. 16-22), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 11, Griffith in view of Chung, or Gorkhover in view of Griffith’363 and Chung teaches the mirror arrangement as claimed in claim 1, as above.
Gorkhover further teaches that the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting essentially of: Al, Au, Ag, Zn, Mo, Si, W, Ti, Sn, Sb, Pt, Ni, Fe, Co, Cr, V, Cu, Mn, Pb, their oxides, borides, nitrides and carbides, and also C and B4C (Paragraphs 0066-0069, 0152-0155, 0161-0162, and 0167-0170).
While Gorkhover teaches a hydrogen barrier of the same materials, Examiner further submits Ehm. Ehm teaches an optical system for EUV lithography having a hydrogen barrier (57) for protecting a hydrogen-sensitive material on a rear side of a substrate having a mirror face wherein the hydrogen barrier comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting essentially of: Al, Au, Ag, Zn, Mo, Si, W, Ti, Sn, Sb, Pt, Ni, Fe, Co, Cr, V, Cu, Mn, Pb, their oxides, borides, nitrides and carbides, and also C and B4C (See e.g. Fig. 2; P. 3, L. 29 – P. 4, L. 30; P. 6, L. 20-28; P. 10, L. 12 – P. 11, L. 8; P. 12, L. 8 – P. 13, L. 3).
Ehm teaches this material for the hydrogen barrier “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds” (P. 26, L. 16-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Griffith or Gorkhover with the hydrogen barrier material of Ehm “to provide an optimized protective layer system for optical elements which can be used in optical systems for EUV lithography, in particular in the presence of reactive hydrogen and/or tin or tin compounds,” as in Ehm (P. 26, L. 16-22), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-11, filed 04/07/2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in view of Griffith and Chung or Gorkhover, Griffith’363, and Chung have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Specifically, Applicant has provided no arguments regarding the combination of Griffith and Chung or the combination of Gorkhover, Griffith’363, and Chung, as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth previously and above. Rather, Applicant merely argues that Chung and Gorkhover do not explicitly disclose a hydrogen barrier that has a coating or forms a coating which covers the adhesive layer at least partly.
However, Griffith and Gorkhover are not relied upon for teaching such a feature, as Chung teaches a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus comprising a substrate (401, 501) with a front side having a mirror face and a rear side, an actuator (403, 503), an adhesive layer (405, 505) between the actuator and the rear side of the substrate, and a hydrogen barrier (407, 507) which is configured to protect a hydrogen-sensitive material on the rear side of the substrate from hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0034 and 0038-0039), wherein surface regions (409) of the adhesive layer are protected by the hydrogen barrier from the hydrogen damage (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0014, 0034, and 0038-0039), wherein the hydrogen barrier has a coating or forms a coating which covers the adhesive layer at least partly (See e.g. Figs. 4 and 5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0029 and 0034) for “reducing the influence of the surrounding gas environment on the adhesive material, which could otherwise lead to additional and time-varying stress in the bonded parts” to “allow for lithography apparatuses and projection systems for EUV or UV lithography with high precision” (Paragraph 0014) and “to improve the bonding of two parts of a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus such that the probability of occurrence of additional stress over time in the bonded parts is lessened” (Paragraph 0005).
Therefore, Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror arrangement of Griffith or Gorkhover such that the hydrogen barrier forms a coating that protects exposed surface regions of the adhesive layer as in Chung for “reducing the influence of the surrounding gas environment on the adhesive material, which could otherwise lead to additional and time-varying stress in the bonded parts” to “allow for lithography apparatuses and projection systems for EUV or UV lithography with high precision” and “to improve the bonding of two parts of a component of an EUV or UV lithography apparatus such that the probability of occurrence of additional stress over time in the bonded parts is lessened,” as taught by Chung (Paragraphs 0005 and 0014).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights