DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 March 2016 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 9-13, 15, 21-22, 25-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Rejections under 35 USC § 112(a):
The claims have been amended to overcome the last rejection by clarifying the coils are surrounding or covering. However, the claims have been amended to raise new issues discussed herein below.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103
The remarks have been found persuasive. Specifically, the combined device submitted with the office action of 14 January 2026 fails to disclose the third coil surrounding or covering at least a convex rear side of the collector mirror and a circumferential edge of the collector mirror. However, upon further search and consideration an additional reference has been found to modify Beak. The additionally amended subject matter is addressed in detail herein below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-12, 14-16, 21-23 and 25-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12 and 21 lack written description for requiring “a gas inlet for providing a source gas including one or more of a Si containing gas and a Zr containing gas”. Specifically, the specification discloses two separate purposes for the Si containing gas and only one purpose for the Zr containing gas. Specifically, with regards to the Si and the Zr containing gas, paragraph [0039] of the published application recites:
“ silicon containing gas and/or zirconium containing gas is/are used to form a passivation coating layer of ZrO.sub.2 and/or SiO.sub.2 on parts inside the laser chamber. In some embodiments, zirconium tetra-tert-butoxide (Zr(OC(CH.sub.3).sub.3).sub.4) is used for a Zr source gas, and SiH.sub.4 is used for a Si source gas. An oxygen source gas can be O.sub.2”. That is, the disclosed Zr containing gas is only disclosed to be zirconium tetra-tert-butoxide to generate the passivation coating layer. The Si containing gas is only disclosed to be SiH4.
In the second purpose of using an Si containing gas, paragraph [0038] recites:
“the metal contamination is removed by using inductively coupled plasma (ICP) to produce halogen radicals, such as Cl radicals, to remove tin debris and/or to prevent tin debris from depositing on the collector mirror or other parts of the EUV radiation source. In some embodiments, a gas injection with a tunable gas flow and gas type for different types of radical/ion production is employed. In some embodiments, a halogen containing gas is utilized. In certain embodiments, a Cl containing gas is used to generate Cl radicals/ions that remove the tin by etching through the formation of SnCl.sub.4. The Cl containing gas can be Cl.sub.2, CH.sub.xCl.sub.y (x+y=4, y is not zero), SiCl.sub.4 or SiH.sub.2Cl.sub.2. One or more carrier gases including Ar, He, Xe and/or H.sub.2 are also supplied in some embodiments. In addition, in some embodiments, the plasma position distribution is tunable to control the tin etching spatial distribution. In some embodiments, multiple circuits for ICP sources are used to tune the current ratio between different circuits and to change the plasma distribution, which dominates the spatial etching rate. In some embodiments, the source gas for the ICP plasma includes one or more of He, Ar, Xe, Cl.sub.2, H.sub.2, O.sub.2, SiH.sub.4 and SiCl.sub.4.”
That is, separately particular Si containing gases are disclosed generate halogen radicals to remove tin debris and/or to prevent tin debris from depositing on the collector mirror or other parts of the EUV radiation source. The Si containing gas includes SiCL4, SiH2CL2.
In other words, the claims have breath to cover any Si containing gas or zirconium containing gas, however the specification has only shown possession of a single zirconium containing gas and three silicon containing gases sufficient to achieve the disclosed results.
MPEP 2163 (II) (3)(a) (ii) recites “Satisfactory disclosure of a "representative number" depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are "representative of the full variety or scope of the genus," or by the establishment of "a reasonable structure-function correlation." Such correlations may be established "by the inventor as described in the specification," or they may be "known in the art at the time of the filing date." See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ”
Here, the claims cover any Si or Zr containing gas covering widely variant species of gases, however the specification only discloses a single Zr containing gas and Si containing gas to achieve the disclosed first purpose (see above) and only two Si containing gases to achieve the second purpose. Since the specification does not adequately reflect the structural diversity of Si and Zr containing gases, the specification fails to provide evidence that the applicant had possession of all Si and Zr containing gases as claimed. Si and Zr containing gasses are a huge class of gases with a wide variety of properties, therefore because the disclosure of only a few without any gas structure-function correlation, the specification fails to show possession of the entire Si and Zr containing gases. Moreover, with regards to the above second purpose, using the Si containing gas, the specification is clear that Cl is also required, therefore the second purpose cannot be achieved without the addition of Cl. With respect to the first purpose, a single Si and Zr containing gas is not sufficient to show that any Si or Zr containing gas would result in passivation.
Moreover, MPEP 2163.03 (V) recites “While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when …(2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).”
Here, the specification only discloses a narrow species for each of the Si and Zr containing gases with no evidence that the broader species was contemplated.
This issue may be resolved by defining the Si and Zr containing gases to be the supported species within the specification.
Moreover, Claims 1, 12 and 21 fail to meet the written description requirement for reciting “a third coil surrounding or covering…a circumferential edge of the mirror”. MPEP 2163 (I) (B) recites:
“"The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and, therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not found in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, the written description requirement prevents an applicant from claiming subject matter that was not adequately described in the specification as filed. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971)"
Here, there is no disclosure of disposing coils around the circumferential edge. Indeed the drawings show all the coils on the rear or back side of the collector as seen below.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, claims 1, 21 and 21 additionally fail to meet the written description requirement under 35 USC § 112(a).
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-16, 22-23 and 25-33 fail to meet the written description requirement by virtue of their dependencies on respective independent claims 1, 12 and 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damen (WO2014/121873) (copy of publication submitted herewith) in view of Derra et al. (US pgPub 2010/0051827) in view of Zhao et al. (US pgPub 2016/0209753) and further in view of Xia (US pgPub 2021/0063899) or alternatively, Bykanov et al. (US pgPub 2009/0154642) and further in view of Baek et al. (US pgPub 2017/0215265) in view of Bakanov (US 8519366) (herein B2) and further in view of Banna (US pgPub 2013/0106286).
Alternatively, claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damen (WO2014/121873) (copy of publication submitted herewith) in view of Derra et al. (US pgPub 2010/0051827) in view of Zhao et al. (US pgPub 2016/0209753) (second interpretation of Zhoa) and further in view of Labetski et al. (WO2018127565) and further in view of Xia Baek in view of B2 and further in view of Banna.
Regarding claim 1, Damen teaches an extreme ultra violet (EUV) radiation source apparatus (fig. 3), comprising:
a collector mirror (50);
a target droplet generator (71) for generating a tin (Sn) droplet ([0032]);
a debris collection device (304, see paragraph [0040]);
coils (fig 6 or fig 7 showing coils 524);
a chamber (47) enclosing at least the collector mirror and the debris collection device (47 encloses 50 and 304),
wherein the coils are configured such that the heat is spaced apart from the collector mirror (heat generated at vanes 304 thus spaced from collector mirror 50)
the coils include at least one first coil covering the debris collection device (figs. 6 or 7 showing coils on vanes that collect debris).
Damen teaches inductive heating to remove tin deposits from vanes, thus fails to disclose generating plasma; a gas inlet for providing a source gas including one or more of Si containing gas and Zr containing gas, for ICP.
However, Derra teaches generating inductively coupled discharge instead of heat ([0021] teaches ICP having coils arranged at the same positions as the heatable elements); a first gas inlet (fig. 10 shows gas inlet 10) for providing a source gas including one or more of Sih4 and Zr(OC(CH3)3)4 containing gas (gas inlet passage inherently provides a source gas. Since the claim is written as the function of the gas inlet for providing Si or Zr containing gas, the gas inlet of Derra is capable of providing any gas, since it is merely an opening to receive a gas1), for ICP ([0018] teaches gases passing over hot surfaces to generate radicals, which may be replaced ICP ([0021]), thus for ICP), wherein the gas inlet and the one or more coils are configured such that the ICP is spaced apart from the collector mirror (as seen in figure 10 when substituted for ICP coils disclosed in paragraph [0021]).
Derra modifies Damen by suggesting ICP as an alternative to heat to remove tin deposits.
Since both inventions are directed towards heating elements of an EUV source to remove contamination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the heatable elements of Demon for the ICP coils of Derra because it would lead to the predictable results of generating radical such that a higher lifetime of the optical components can be achieved ([0015], 0017 and [0021]). Moreover, the substitution would result in the ICP plasma being spaced apart from the collector 50 of Damen.
The combined device fails to disclose a lower cone provided between the rotatable debris collection device and an EUV output port; wherein the first gas inlet is located at a position between the lower cone and the EUV output port; a gas outlet for exhausting the source gas located between the lower cone and the rotatable debris collection device.
However, Zhoa teaches a lower cone (fig. 19, 95) provided between the rotatable debris collection device (6) and an EUV output port (outside of 4221); wherein the first gas inlet (fig. 20, 111 and paragraph [0108]) is located at a position between the lower cone and the EUV output port (see discussion in response to arguments in the final rejection of 10/07/2024) a gas outlet (fig. 19 drain in 91 is an outlet for fuel debris ([0105]), therefore any gas that is not evacuated by 112 may also exit via the drain 91) for exhausting (the drain in 91 is suitable for exhausting both fuel debris and gas) the source gas located between the lower cone and the rotatable debris collection device (91 is between 95 and 6, thus the drain is also between 95 and 6) and a rotatable collection device (fig. 4, fan 6 including blades 41, see paragraphs [0071]-[0072], note similar to Damen the blades may have attached heating elements see paragraph [0083]).
Zhoa modifies the combined device by suggesting rotation of the debris collection device and a gas inlet between the exit cone and EUV outlet.
Since both inventions are directed towards debris traps in an EUV light source, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the trap of Damon to be rotatable as suggested in Zhoa because the fan in conjunction with inlet and either interpretation of the outlet generates “ a gas flow away from the optical axis of the source module, pump gas, guide or collect particles, reduce or prevent contamination from spitting particles, and reduce or prevent gas flow towards the collector” ([0071]) therefore reduces contamination by the debris to the system by ensuring that a recirculating or back flow does not arise and gas flow from the vicinity of the collector is directed away ([0071]). Moreover, the dynamic gas lock 110 (including 111) near effectively prevents particles from exiting the exit aperture ([0110]) therefore reducing contamination to components downstream of the exit aperture.
While Zhoa teaches a lower cone 95, the combined device further fails to disclose at least one second coil on the lower cone.
However, Xia et al. teach a coil covering a cone (figs. 9a-9B showing cone 512_9 covered and surrounded by coil 560_9).
Xia modifies the combined device by suggesting plasma cleaning of interior surface.
Since both inventions are directed towards cones, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the claimed invention to add the coils to the lower cone of Zhoa because it would create plasma particles at the location next to the exposed interior surface of the line to ensure high removal rate of debris on the surface of the liner.
It is noted that because Deman teaches coils located on the debris mitigation device and Zhoa teaches a lower cone with the outlet between the lower cone and the debris mitigation device and Xia suggests placing coils covering or surrounding the lower cone of Zhoa, the evidence suggests that such a combination would also result in positioning the gas outlet between the first coils and the second coil. That is, the modification does not change the position of the outlet between the debris mitigation device and the lower cone, it only adds a coil to the lower cone of Zhoa resulting in the claimed limitation.
Alternatively to Xia, Bykanov et al. teaches at least one second coil covering or surrounding the lower cone (Figure 7 shows an embodiment of 1014B which has ICP coils 1070 ([0111]) around the conical structure 1022 (i.e. the lower cone)).
Bykanov et al. modifies the Damen in view of Derra et al. in view of Zhao et al. by suggesting ICP coils around the lower cone.
Since both inventions are directed towards debris mitigation via ICP coils, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the coils of Bykanov et al. to the lower cone of Damen as modified by Derra as modified by Zhoa as suggested in Bykanov et al. because the plasma may reduce flow within the reduced cross-sectional area 1030 (i.e. conical area) thereby suppressing contaminant flow downstream of the intermediate focus (]0113]).
It is noted that because Deman teaches coils located on the debris mitigation device and Zhoa teaches a lower cone with the outlet between the lower cone and the debris mitigation device and Bykanov suggests placing coils on the lower cone of Zhoa, the evidence suggests that such a combination would also result in positioning the gas outlet between the first coils and the second coil. That is, the modification does not change the position of the outlet between the debris mitigation device and the lower cone, it only adds a coil to the lower cone of Zhoa resulting in the claimed limitation.
Alternatively, Zhoa (second interpretation of Zhoa) teaches a lower cone (fig. 19, 95) provided between the rotatable debris collection device (6) and an EUV output port (outside of 4221); wherein the first gas inlet (fig. 20, 111 and paragraph [0108]) is located at a position between the lower cone and the EUV output port (see discussion in response to arguments in the final rejection of 10/07/2024) a gas outlet (fig. 20, 112) for exhausting the source gas (as indicated by arrows from 111 to 112) located in the lower cone and downstream the rotatable debris collection device.
Zhoa teaches a single cone 95 including a crossbar 93 wherein the single cone 95 has the outlets 112 and therefore fails to disclose the gas outlet positioned between the lower cone and the rotatable debris collection device and at least one coil on the lower cone.
However, Labetski teaches an outlet 112 (fig. 9b), which may be either arranged symmetrically around a perimeter of the inner vessel wall (similar to the outlets 112 of Zhoa) or may extend around a full perimeter of the inner vessel wall ([000192]) at least one coil on the lower cone (fig. 9B showing lower cone formed by 112 extending around the full perimeter of the inner vessel wall 104, wherein figure 17 shows a flow splitter 150 as port of the exit portion of the cone 104, thus part of lower cone. Paragraph [000264] teaches flow splitter 150 may be inductively heated by a coil, thus a coil on the lower cone).
Labetski modifies the combined device by suggesting extending the gas outlet 112 of Zhoa around the full perimeter of the inner vessel wall. Such a modification would place the outlet 112 of Zhoa between the lower cone 95 (segmented by the exhaust 112 extending around the whole perimeter) and the rotatable debris collection device 6 (as seen in figure 20 of Zhoa).
Since both inventions are directed towards dynamic gas locks and exhausting gas in an cone of an EUV light source, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the single symmetric exit ports 112 of the combined device in view of Zhoa for that of the exhaust 112 extending around a full perimeter of the inner vessel wall 104 (lower cone) because it would lead to predictable results of exhausting the gas. That is, the combined device in view of Zhoa is a finding that the prior art contained a device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of a exhaust port extending around the entire perimeter for an individual exhaust ports. Labetski is evidence that an exhaust extending around the entire perimeter of the cone was known to the art. Labetski is further evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted an individual ports for a single port extending around the entire perimeter of the cone. Therefore the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results of exhausting the gas input from the gas source. Moreover, an exhaust extending around the entire perimeter of the cone would improve the ability to exhaust the gas because the output of source gas would be accessible around the entire perimeter of the cone instead of individual ports.
Xia modifies this interpretation as discussed above.
It is noted that because Deman teaches coils located on the debris mitigation device and Zhoa teaches a lower cone with the outlet between the lower cone and the debris mitigation device and Xia suggests placing coils on the lower cone of Zhoa, the evidence suggests that such a combination would also result in positioning the gas outlet between the first coils and the second coil. That is, the modification does not change the position of the outlet between the debris mitigation device and the lower cone, it only adds a coil to the lower cone of Zhoa resulting in the claimed limitation.
In any of the three combinations above, the combined device fails to disclose a second gas inlet, the second gas inlet is located at a position between the rotatable debris collection device and the collector mirror and at least one third coil on the collector mirror.
However, Baek et al. teaches second gas inlet (figures 8-9, 802), the second gas inlet is located at a position between the debris collection device and the collector mirror (figures 8-9 show hydrogen nozzles directly above collector 30, thus between debris collection device (150) and collector 30 of figure 1) and a coil on the collector mirror (figures 8-9, coil is on the collector mirror (i.e. as in the specification a space between mirror and coil), see paragraph [0076] teaching inductive coil 804 disposed between nozzles and rim 30b of collector 30).
Baek modifies the combined device by suggesting a induction coil around the perimeter of the collector.
Since both devices are directed towards debris mitigation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the induction coil with the collector as suggested by Baek because it would allow for in situ cleaning of not only the EUV vessel but also the EUV collector simultaneously, therefore not requiring interruption of EUV generation to clean the EUV collector.
While Baek teaches the coil along the perimeter of the collector, Baek fails to disclose the coil surrounding or covering at least a convex rear side of the collector mirror and a circumferential edge.
However, B2 teaches the coil surrounding or covering at least a convex rear side of the collector mirror and a circumferential edge (fig. 4 shows coil 250 covering rear side and circumferential edge of collector 30).
B2 modifies the combined device by suggesting extending the coil of Baek to surround the rear convex portion of the collector of the combined device in view of Baek.
Since both inventions are directed towards coils on the collector mirror and providing magnetic fields from the coils, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined device to extend the coils to the rear surface of the collector as suggested by B2 because ions generated from the plasma would be deflected by the magnetic field thus the mirror to protected from debris (col. 3, lines 35-39 and col. 8, lines 36-39).
It is noted here that the combination teaches all three coils and two inlets and outlets in the claimed arrangement, modifications are only to the addition of coils and inlets/outlet. This combination would result in the second gas inlet is positioned between the one first coil and the at least one second coil (Baek teaches the inlet between the collector with the third coil around the collector (as modified by B2) and the debris collection device. In the combination since the first coil of Damen is located on the debris device and the third coil is located on the collector (Beak as modified by B2), the second gas inlet of Baek is also between the first and third coil) and the first and second gas inlets are positioned on opposite sides of the gas outlet along an axis of the EUV radiation source (Zhao inlet 111 at EUV outlet and Baek inlet near collector mirror, thus on opposite sides of the EUV source along the axis of EUV radiation).
That is, this limitation does not further distinguish the claim than what is already suggested by the combination.
The combined device teaches an EUV radiation source apparatus, the combined device further fails to disclose the apparatus is configured to adjust a distribution of the ICP by tuning a ratio between a first current of the at least one first coil and a second current of the at least one second coil.
However, Banna teaches a RF power source configured to adjust a distribution of the ICP ([0038] control of plasma characteristics in zone (i.e. distribution of ICP, note: plasma is ICP see title and paragraph [0003]). Note by changing the relative RF power (i.e. current, see discussion above) the distribution of the plasma inherently changes as it is generated by the RF current ([0003])) by tuning a ratio between a first current of the at least one first coil and a second current of the at least one second coil ([0038] “the relative quantity of RF power provided by the RF power source 108 to the respective first, second, and third RF coils 110, 112, 113…controlling the amount of RF power”, wherein the relative quantity to first, second and third RF coils is a ratio. RF power source provides RF current ([0008]) thus relative RF power is the relative RF current, which is controlled (i.e. tuned) by the power source. Further note: paragraph [0064] teaches a power divider used to tune and control the RF power delivery and a variable capacitor to determine the current ratio between coils).
Banna modifies the combined device by providing each of the coils with independent control and opposite phases (i.e. the first coil around the rotatable debris collection device and the second coil on the lower cone as suggested by Damen as modified by Derra by Zhoa as modified by Labetski or Bykanov).
Since both inventions are directed towards coils for generating ICP, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the phase difference and independently controllable coils of Banna in the combined device because the independent control allows control of plasma characteristics in zones corresponding to each coil ([0038]) thus allowing control of non-uniformities ([0004]), whereas the 180 degree phase difference improves plasma uniformity ([0034]). That is, the arrangement of the power supplies of Banna would facilitate more uniform exposure thus providing for more thorough and even cleaning in the combined device.
Claims 2-3 are rejected for the same reasons above. That is, because the gas inlet is claimed functionally for supplying a particular gas and Derra teaches a gas inlet, the claim is not structurally distinguished over the combined device. See footnote 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Demon in view of Derra in view of Zhoa teach wherein at least one coil surrounds or covers the rotatable debris collection device (see position of coils in figures 6-7 of Damon around each blade of 304 the covers the debris collection device, modified as above by Zhoa to teach rotatable).
Regarding claim 7, Demon in view of Derra fail to disclose a second gas inlet for providing the source gas is located at a position between the rotatable debris device and the collector mirror.
However, Zhoa teach wherein the gas inlet for providing a second source gas is located at a position between the rotatable debris device and the collector mirror (Zhoa, fig. 4, 51, note paragraph [0070] teaches the inlet may be around the edges of the collector thus between the vanes of fan 6 and the collector CO of figure 42).
Zhoa modifies the combined device by disclosing how a cleaning gas may be supplied and exhausted to the LPP-EUV system of Damen.
Since both the combined device and Zhoa are directed towards supplying a cleaning gas to an EUV light source, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined device to supply and exhaust the cleaning gas as suggested in Zhoa because the gas outlets generate a gas flow in the opposite direction to the propagation of the projection beam therefore preventing debris from exit through the aperture ([0108]).
Regarding claim 9, Damen teaches a AC power for supplying AC power to at least one first coil and the at least one second coil ([0045]).
Regarding claims 10-11, Demon teaches two or more coils are provided (figs. 6-7), however the combined device fails to disclose for each of the two or more coils is independently tunable.
However, Banna teaches wherein current for each of the coils is independently tunable ([0038]) and wherein a phase of the current flowing in two or more of the coils is different by 180 degrees from a phase of the current flowing in another two or more of the coils ([0032]).
Banna modifies the combined device by providing each of the coils with independent control and opposite phases.
Since both inventions are directed towards coils for generating ICP, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the phase difference and independently controllable coils of Banna in the combined device because the independent control allows control of plasma characteristics in zones corresponding to each coil ([0038]) thus allowing control of non-uniformities ([0004]), whereas the 180 degree phase difference improves plasma uniformity ([0034]). That is, the arrangement of the power supplies of Banna would facilitate more uniform exposure thus providing for more thorough and even cleaning in the combined device.
Claim 12 is broader in scope than claim 1, thus taught as in the citations discussed herein above.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim reasons as claim 6 above.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 12, 16, 21, 22 and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US pgPub 2016/0209753)3 in view of Derra et al. (US pgPub 2010/0051827) in view of Bykanov et al. (US pgPub 2009/0154642) in view of Baek et al. in view of B2 and further in view of Banna (US pgPub 2013/0106286).
Regarding claim 1, Zhoa et al. teach an extreme ultra violet (EUV) radiation source apparatus (figs. 3, 4 and 18), comprising:
a collector mirror (3);
a target droplet generator (1) for generating a tin (Sn) droplet ([0070]);
a rotatable debris collection device (6e);
heating device for generating heat ([0083]);
a lower cone (fig. 18-20, 95) provided between the rotatable debris collection device (6e/6d) and an EUV output port (outside of 4221);
a first gas inlet (fig. 20, 111 and paragraph [0108]) for providing a source gas ([0108] and [0070]) for providing a source gas including one or more of Si or Zr containing gas ([0070] teaches radicles for cleaning purposes. See discussion above regarding MPEP 2114, wherein the first gas inlet is located at a position between the lower cone and the EUV output port (figures 19-20111 between 111 and 4221)
wherein the first gas inlet is located at a position between the lower cone and the EUV outlet (fig. 20 111 located between 95 and EUV outlet 4221 seen in figure 19)
a gas outlet (fig. 18 see two interpretations above for gas outlet) for exhausting (see discussion above) the source gas located between the lower cone and the rotatable debris collection device (91 is between 95 and 6, thus the drain is also between 95 and 6);
a chamber (fig. 2 shows the source chamber 4220) enclosing at least the collector mirror and the rotatable debris collection device (as seen in figure 2, 4220 enclosures contaminant trap 4230 not seen in figure 3 and figure 3 shows the collector mirror enclosed by chamber 4220), wherein the heating device are configured such that the heat is spaced apart from the collector mirror ([0083] teaches heating elements attached to blades thus spaced apart from collector CO)
the heating device includes at least one first heating device surrounding or covering the rotatable debris collection device ([0083] teaches heating device attached each vane thus covering both 6d and 6e).
Zhoa teaches heating elements attached to the blade thus fails to disclose one or more coils for generating an inductively coupled plasma (ICP), a gas inlet for the ICP.
However, Derra teaches generating inductively coupled discharge instead of heat ([0021] teaches ICP having coils arranged at the same positions as the heatable elements); a gas inlet (fig. 10 shows gas inlet 10) for providing a source gas including one or more of Si containing gas and Zr containing gas (gas inlet passage inherently provides a source gas. Since the claim is written as the function of the gas inlet for providing Si or Zr containing gas, the gas inlet of Zhoa is capable of providing any gas, since it is merely an opening to receive a gas4), for ICP ([0018] teaches gases passing over hot surfaces to generate radicals, which may be replaced ICP ([0021]), thus for ICP) wherein the gas inlet and the one or more coils are configured such that the ICP is spaced apart from the collector mirror (as seen in figure 10 when substituted for ICP coils disclosed in paragraph [0021])..
Derra modifies Zhoa by suggesting ICP with coils as an alternative to heat to remove tin deposits.
Since both inventions are directed towards heating elements of an EUV source to remove contamination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the heatable elements of Zhoa for the ICP coils of Derra because it would lead to the predictable results of generating radical such that a higher lifetime of the optical components can be achieved ([0015], 0017 and [0021]). The substitution would result in the plasma being spaced from the collector 50 of Zhoa.
The combined device fails to disclose at least one second coil covering or surrounding the lower cone.
Bykanov et al. teaches at least one second coil covering or surrounding the lower cone (figure 7 shows an embodiment of structure 14 as 1014B which has ICP coils 1070 ([0111]) around the conical structure 1022 (i.e. the lower cone)).
Bykanov et al. modifies the Damen in view of Derra et al. in view of Zhao et al. by suggesting ICP coils around the lower cone.
Since both inventions are directed towards debris mitigation via ICP coils, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the coils of Bykanov et al. to the lower cone of Damen as modified by Derra as modified by Zhoa as suggested in Bykanov et al. because the plasma may reduce flow within the reduced cross-sectional area 1030 (i.e. conical area) thereby suppressing contaminant flow downstream of the intermediate focus (]0113]).
It is noted that because Zhoa in view of Derra teaches coils located on the debris mitigation device and Zhoa teaches a lower cone with the outlet between the lower cone and the debris mitigation device and Bykanov suggests placing coils on the lower cone of Zhoa, the evidence suggests that such a combination would also result in positioning the gas outlet between the first coils and the second coil. That is, the modification does not change the position of the outlet between the debris mitigation device and the lower cone, it only adds a coil to the lower cone of Zhoa resulting in the claimed limitation.
The combined device fails to disclose a second gas inlet, the second gas inlet is located at a position between the rotatable debris collection device and the collector mirror and at least one third coil on the collector mirror.
However, Baek et al. teaches second gas inlet (figures 8-9, 802), the second gas inlet is located at a position between the debris collection device and the collector mirror (figures 8-9 show hydrogen nozzles directly above collector 30, thus between debris collection device (150) and collector 30 of figure 1) and a coil on the collector mirror (figures 8-9, coil is on the collector mirror (i.e. as in the specification a space between mirror and coil), see paragraph [0076] teaching inductive coil 804 disposed between nozzles and rim 30b of collector 30).
Baek modifies the combined device by suggesting an induction coil around the perimeter of the collector.
Since both devices are directed towards debris mitigation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the induction coil with the collector as suggested by Baek because it would allow for in situ cleaning of not only the EUV vessel but also the EUV collector simultaneously, therefore not requiring interruption of EUV generation to clean the EUV collector.
While Baek teaches the coil along the perimeter of the collector, Baek fails to disclose the coil surrounding or covering at least a convex rear side of the collector mirror and a circumferential edge.
However, B2 teaches the coil surrounding or covering at least a convex rear side of the collector mirror and a circumferential edge (fig. 4 shows coil 250 covering rear side and circumferential edge of collector 30).
B2 modifies the combined device by suggesting extending the coil of Baek to surround the rear convex portion of the collector of the combined device in view of Baek.
Since both inventions are directed towards coils on the collector mirror and providing magnetic fields from the coils, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined device to extend the coils to the rear surface of the collector as suggested by B2 because ions generated from the plasma would be deflected by the magnetic field thus the mirror to protected from debris (col. 3, lines 35-39 and col. 8, lines 36-39).
It is noted here that the combination teaches all three coils and two inlets and outlets. This combination would result in the second gas inlet is positioned between the one first coil and the at least one second coil (Baek teaches the inlet between the collector with the third coil around the collector (as modified by B2) and the debris collection device. In the combination, since the first coil of Zhoa is located on the debris device and the third coil is located on the collector (Beak), the second gas inlet of Baek is also between the first and third coil) and the first and second gas inlets are positioned on opposite sides of the gas outlet along an axis of the EUV radiation source (Zhao inlet 111 at EUV outlet and Baek inlet near collector mirror, thus on opposite sides of the EUV source along the axis of EUV radiation).
That is, this limitation does not further distinguish the claim than what is already suggested by the combination.
The combined device teaches an EUV radiation source apparatus, the combined device further fails to disclose the apparatus is configured to adjust a distribution of the ICP by tuning a ratio between a first current of the at least one first coil and a second current of the at least one second coil.
However, Banna teaches a RF power source configured to adjust a distribution of the ICP ([0038] control of plasma characteristics in zone (i.e. distribution of ICP, note: plasma is ICP see title and paragraph [0003]). Note by changing the relative RF power (i.e. current, see discussion above) the distribution of the plasma inherently changes as it is generated by the RF current ([0003])) by tuning a ratio between a first current of the at least one first coil and a second current of the at least one second coil ([0038] “the relative quantity of RF power provided by the RF power source 108 to the respective first, second, and third RF coils 110, 112, 113…controlling the amount of RF power”, wherein the relative quantity to first, second and third RF coils is a ratio. RF power source provides RF current ([0008]) thus relative RF power is the relative RF current, which is controlled (i.e. tuned) by the power source. Further note: paragraph [0064] teaches a power divider used to tune and control the RF power delivery and a variable capacitor to determine the current ratio between coils).
Banna modifies the combined device by providing each of the coils with independent control and opposite phases (i.e. the first coil around the rotatable debris collection device and the second coil on the lower cone as suggested by Damen as modified by Derra by Zhoa as modified by Labetski or Bykanov).
Since both inventions are directed towards coils for generating ICP, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the phase difference and independently controllable coils of Banna in the combined device because the independent control allows control of plasma characteristics in zones corresponding to each coil ([0038]) thus allowing control of non-uniformities ([0004]), whereas the 180 degree phase difference improves plasma uniformity ([0034]). That is, the arrangement of the power supplies of Banna would facilitate more uniform exposure thus providing for more thorough and even cleaning in the combined device.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Zhoa in view of Derra wherein at least one coil surrounds or covers the lower cone (Zhoa, [0083] teaches heating elements attached to blades thus around the lower cone, modified by Derra to substitute for ICP coils as discussed above).
Regarding claim 7, Zhoa teaches wherein the gas inlet for providing a second source gas is located at a position between the rotatable debris device and the collector mirror (Zhoa, fig. 4, 51, note paragraph [0070] teaches the inlet may be around the edges of the collector thus between the vanes of fan 6 and the collector CO of figure 45).
Claim 12 is broader in scope, thus taught above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 21 is a combination of claims 1, 4 and 7 and is rejected for the same reasons discussed in those claims above.
Regarding claim 22, Zhoa et al. teach the rotatable debris collection device includes a plurality of rotating vanes supported by a first end support of the rotatable debris collection device (Zhoa, fig. 16, 10 bottom bearing) and a second end support of the rotatable debris collection device(Zhoa, fig. 16 10 top bearing), and the second end support of the rotatable debris collection device has a smaller diameter than the first end support of the rotatable debris collection device (Zhoa, as seen in figure 10, see also fig. 19).
Regarding claims 25-27, the combined device teaches where the at least one third coil includes two or more third coils covering the convex rear side of the collector mirror and at least another one coil of the two or more third coils surround or cover the circumferential edge of the collector mirror (B2, note, 300A-c, see figure 6 and figure 4 see coil 250 surrounding edge of 30).
The combined device in view of B2 fails to disclose independently tunable
However, Banna teaches wherein current for each of the coils is independently tunable ([0038]) and wherein a phase of the current flowing in two or more of the coils is different by 180 degrees from a phase of the current flowing in another two or more of the coils ([0032]).
Banna modifies the combined device by providing each of the coils with independent control and opposite phases.
Since both inventions are directed towards coils for generating ICP, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the phase difference and independently controllable coils of Banna in the combined device because the independent control allows control of plasma characteristics in zones corresponding to each coil ([0038]) thus allowing control of non-uniformities ([0004]), whereas the 180 degree phase difference improves plasma uniformity ([0034]). That is, the arrangement of the power supplies of Banna would facilitate more uniform exposure thus providing for more thorough and even cleaning in the combined device.
Regarding claim 28, the combined device in view of Baek teach wherein the ICP generated by the at least one first coil touches the rotatable debris collection device (Zhoa teaches providing heat to blades by attachment of heating elements as modified by Derra, ICP replaces heating elements ([0021]). Thus since electrodes are placed at the same position by substitution, the electrodes are on the blades of Zhao, therefore resulting plasma touches the blades. Moreover, the gas flow in Derra is disclosed to be controlled ([0072]), therefore Zhoa in view of Derra is capable of achieving the claimed result by adjusting the gas flow. That is, the instant specification teaches the result of touching is achieved by adjusting gas flow amounts ([0040] of the published application), since the gas flow rate may be adjusted in Zhoa in view of Derra, the same result may be achieved.), the ICP generated by the at least one second coil touches the lower cone (Bykanov, similarly teaches gas flows may be adjusted ([0112]), therefore capable of achieving the claimed result. That is, the instant specification teaches the result of touching is achieved by adjusting gas flow amounts ([0040] of the published application), since the gas flow rate may be adjusted in Bykanov, the same result may be achieved.), and the ICP (Baek, fig. 8, 810) generated by the at least one third coil (Baek, 804) is spaced apart from the collector mirror (Baek, figure 8 shows 810 spaced from collector 30).
Regarding claim 29, Zhao teaches the rotatable debris collection device includes a plurality of rotating vanes (6, best seen in figure 5) supported by a first end support of the rotatable debris collection device and a second end support of the rotatable debris collection device (bearing 10 supports both ends of vanes 6 best seen in figure 16).
Regarding claim 30, Zhoa teaches the second end support of the rotatable debris collection device has a smaller diameter than the first end support of the rotatable debris collection device (fig. 16 shows conical shape, upper end is the second end of smaller diameter).
Regarding claim 31, Zhoa teaches wherein: the first end support of the rotatable debris collection device and the second end support of the rotatable debris collection device are frustoconical support frames (as seen in figure 15 and 16).
Regarding claim 32, Zhao teaches the rotatable debris collection device includes a plurality of rotating vanes (6, best seen in figure 5) supported by a first end support of the rotatable debris collection device and a second end support of the rotatable debris collection device (bearing 10 supports both ends of vanes 6 best seen in figure 16).
Regarding claim 33, Zhoa teaches wherein: the first end support of the rotatable debris collection device and the second end support of the rotatable debris collection device are frustoconical support frames (as seen in figure 15 and 16).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20210063899 to Xia teaches an ICP coil around a collector mirror (see fig. 10a-10d, electrical conduct 560_10 generating plasma particles 575 towards the exposed collector 1043). Xia also teaches a coil around a cone for the same purposes, see figures 8A-9B.
US20050199829 also teaches coils behind a collector mirror as seen in figure 5a.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
1 MPEP 2114 (II) recites “”[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Here since the claim does not structurally distinguish the gas inlet over the prior art and Derra teaches a gas inlet, it is capable of supplying a source gas including Si or Zr containing gases.
2 “gas supply 51 (which functions as a buffer gas unit) through the aperture in collector CO by which the laser pulse is delivered to the fuel. In an embodiment, the buffer gas is H.sub.2, He, Ar, N or another inert gas. H radicals, e.g. for cleaning purposes, can also be provided or can be generated by ionization of the buffer gas. The buffer gas can also be provided through other apertures in the collector (not shown) and/or around the edges of the collector.”
3 Note the interpretation of Zhoa discussed on pages 20-21 of the Final Rejection of 14 January 2026 is still applicable to at least claims 1, 12 and 21. However, a new interpretation is taken such that Zhoa may additionally teach claims 29-33.
4 MPEP 2114 (II) recites “”[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Here since the claim does not structurally distinguish the gas inlet over the prior art and Derra teaches a gas inlet, it is capable of supplying a source gas including Si or Zr containing gases.
5 “gas supply 51 (which functions as a buffer gas unit) through the aperture in collector CO by which the laser pulse is delivered to the fuel. In an embodiment, the buffer gas is H.sub.2, He, Ar, N or another inert gas. H radicals, e.g. for cleaning purposes, can also be provided or can be generated by ionization of the buffer gas. The buffer gas can also be provided through other apertures in the collector (not shown) and/or around the edges of the collector.”