DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schurmann et al. (US 10,618,840) with “Densities of Metals” as an evidentiary reference in view of Hayashi et al. (US 2010/0035165) and Ehm et al. (DE 10-2011-076014).
Regarding claim 8, Schurmann teaches a method for producing a reflector element and a reflector element for use over a broad spectrum including UV, VIS and IR ranges (Col. 1, Lines 12-13). The reflector elements include a substrate, an adhesive layer and a reactive multilayer system (Col. 7, Line 21-Col. 8, Line 4; Fig. 1A-1G). The elements further include a reflecting metal layer or a reflecting layer system, more particularly a dielectric interference layer system (“reflective coating”) wherein the adhesive layer and the reactive multilayer system is between the substrate and the reflecting metal layer (Col. 2, Lines 48-51; Col. 8, Lines 19-30; Fig. 1A-1G). The multilayer system is formed from a periodic layer stack of alternating layers which includes materials which can form a compound in an exothermic reaction (Col. 7, Lines 50-34).
Schurmann is silent with respect to the reflecting metal layer or the reflecting layer system being configured to reflect radiation in the EUV wavelength radiation range.
Hayashi teaches a reflective mask for EUV lithography (Paragraph [0001]). The mask includes a reflective multilayer system which has high EUV light reflectance, such as at a wavelength of 13.5 nm, and is formed from alternating high and low refractive index layers (Paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the reflecting layer system, which may be a dielectric interference system, from alternating high and low refractive index layers which are shown to have high EUV reflectance such that the devices of Schurmann are already designed to reflect a broad spectrum of light, including UV light at a wavelength of 13.5 nm.
Schurmann teaches the reactive multilayer systems as being ignited by an energy input (Col. 9, Lines 5-13; Fig. 1G).
Schurmann is silent with respect to the energy input causing a lateral variation in thickness.
Ehm teaches mirrors for use in a microlithography projection exposure apparatus in the EUV range (Paragraph [0001]-[0002]). The mirrors are required to have a sufficient surface shape in order to reduce imaging errors or wavefront errors (Paragraph [0003]). The mirrors include a substrate, a functional coating and a reflective coating in that order and a beam of hydrogen ions are directed to the mirrors to adjust the surface shape of the functional coating resulting in the appropriate shape without adversely affecting the substrate or the reflective coating (Paragraphs [0007]-[0008]; [0016]; [0025]-[0026]). The hydrogen ions cause an increase or a decrease in thickness in the area which they are applied to (Fig. 1A-1C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the reflector elements of Schurmann such that the energy input includes a beam of hydrogen ions in order to adjust the surface shape, in order to reduce imaging and wavefront errors, which results in a lateral variation in thickness, as taught by Ehm.
It is noted that the claim is directed to a final product of the method of claim 1 which only requires a reflective optical element for an EUV wavelength range comprising a substrate, a structurable coating with at least two different layers of materials which are mixed exothermically and a reflective coating. All of which is taught by Schurmann as discussed above. MPEP 2113: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 22, Schurmann in view of Ehm teaches the reflector elements as discussed above with respect to claim 8. Ehm further illustrates the lateral changes in thickness are present in figures 1B and 1C and are presented in less than all of the structures.
Claims 9, 11-12, 14-16, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schurmann et al. (US 10,618,840) with “Densities of Metals” as an evidentiary reference in view of Hayashi et al. (US 2010/0035165) and Ehm et al. (DE 10-2011-076014).
Regarding claim 9, Schurmann teaches a method for producing a reflector element and a reflector element for use over a broad spectrum including UV, VIS and IR ranges (“a reflective optical element for an EUV wavelength range”) (Col. 1, Lines 12-13). The reflector elements include a substrate, an adhesive layer and a reactive multilayer system (“structurable coating”) (Col. 7, Line 21-Col. 8, Line 4; Fig. 1A-1G). The elements further include a reflecting metal layer or a reflecting layer system, more particularly a dielectric interference layer system (“reflective coating”) wherein the adhesive layer and the reactive multilayer system is between the substrate and the reflecting metal layer (Col. 2, Lines 48-51; Col. 8, Lines 19-30; Fig. 1A-1G). The multilayer system is formed from a periodic layer stack of alternating layers which includes materials which can form a compound in an exothermic reaction (“wherein the structurable coating comprises a multilayer system disposed between the substrate and the reflective coating, and the structurable coating comprises at least two layers each of different materials, wherein the different materials of the at least two layers react exothermically with one another or mix exothermically”) (Col. 7, Lines 50-34).
Schurmann is silent with respect to the reflecting metal layer or the reflecting layer system being configured to reflect radiation in the EUV wavelength radiation range.
Hayashi teaches a reflective mask for EUV lithography (Paragraph [0001]). The mask includes a reflective multilayer system which has high EUV light reflectance, such as at a wavelength of 13.5 nm, and is formed from alternating high and low refractive index layers (Paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the reflecting layer system, which may be a dielectric interference system, from alternating high and low refractive index layers which are shown to have high EUV reflectance such that the devices of Schurmann are already designed to reflect a broad spectrum of light, including UV light such as at 13.5 nm.
Schurmann teaches the reactive multilayer systems as being ignited by an energy input (Col. 9, Lines 5-13; Fig. 1G).
Schurmann is silent with respect to the energy input causing a lateral variation in thickness.
Ehm teaches mirrors for use in a microlithography projection exposure apparatus in the EUV range (Paragraph [0001]-[0002]). The mirrors are required to have a sufficient surface shape in order to reduce imaging errors or wavefront errors (Paragraph [0003]). The mirrors include a substrate, a functional coating and a reflective coating in that order and a beam of hydrogen ions are directed to the mirrors to adjust the surface shape of the functional coating resulting in the appropriate shape without adversely affecting the substrate or the reflective coating (Paragraphs [0007]-[0008]; [0016]; [0025]-[0026]). The hydrogen ions cause an increase or a decrease in thickness in the area which they are applied to (Fig. 1A-1C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the reflector elements of Schurmann such that the energy input includes a beam of hydrogen ions in order to adjust the surface shape, in order to reduce imaging and wavefront errors, which results in a lateral variation in thickness, as taught by Ehm.
Regarding claim 11, Schurmann in view of Ehm teaches the reflector elements as discussed above with respect to claim 9 which include lateral variations in thickness.
Regarding claim 12, Schurmann teaches the reflector elements as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As discussed above, the multilayer system may include hafnium which has a density of 13.3 g/cc (“Densities of Metals”).
Regarding claim 14, Schurmann teaches the reflector elements as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As discussed above, the multilayer systems may comprise alternating layers of Ti and B or Hf and B.
Regarding claim 15, Schurmann teaches the reflector elements as discussed above with respect to claim 9. As discussed above, the multilayer systems may comprise alternating layers of Ti and B or Hf and B.
Regarding claim 16, Schurmann teaches the reflector elements as discussed above with respect to claim 15. As discussed above, the multilayer systems may comprise alternating layers of Ti and B or Hf and B.
Regarding claim 21, Schurmann teaches the reflector elements as discussed above with respect to claim 9.
As discussed above, Schurmann teaches the selection of materials, such as Ti/B and Hf/B, being capable of reacting with adiabatic temperatures of up to 3000°C (Col. 3, Lines 41-67). Furthermore, the alternating layers of Ti/B and Hf/B are preferred materials for the structurable coating and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that systems formed from alternating layers of Ti/B or Hf/B would have low and high mutual solubilities at temperatures of 300°C or higher (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 23, Schurmann in view of Ehm teaches the reflector elements as discussed above with respect to claim 9. Ehm further illustrates the lateral changes in thickness are present in figures 1B and 1C and are presented in less than all of the structures.
Claims 10, 17-20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schurmann et al. (US 10,618,840) with “Densities of Metals” as an evidentiary reference in view of Hayashi et al. (US 2010/0035165) and Ehm et al. (DE 10-2011-076014).
Regarding claim 10, Schurmann teaches a method for producing a reflector element and a reflector element for use over a broad spectrum including UV, VIS and IR ranges (“a reflective optical element for an EUV wavelength range”) (Col. 1, Lines 12-13). The reflector elements include a substrate, an adhesive layer and a reactive multilayer system (“structurable coating”) (Col. 7, Line 21-Col. 8, Line 4; Fig. 1A-1G). The elements further include a reflecting metal layer or a reflecting layer system, more particularly a dielectric interference layer system (“reflective coating”) wherein the adhesive layer and the reactive multilayer system is between the substrate and the reflecting metal layer (Col. 2, Lines 48-51; Col. 8, Lines 19-30; Fig. 1A-1G). The multilayer system is formed from a periodic layer stack of alternating layers which includes materials which can form a compound in an exothermic reaction (“wherein the structurable coating comprises a multilayer system disposed between the substrate and the reflective coating, and the structurable coating comprises at least two layers each of different materials”) (Col. 7, Lines 50-34).
Schurmann teaches the selection of materials, such as Ti/B and Hf/B, being capable of reacting with adiabatic temperatures of up to 3000°C (Col. 3, Lines 41-67). Furthermore, the alternating layers of Ti/B and Hf/B are preferred materials for the structurable coating and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that systems formed from alternating layers of Ti/B or Hf/B would have low and high mutual solubilities at temperatures of 300°C or higher (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0056]).
Schurmann is silent with respect to the reflecting metal layer or the reflecting layer system being configured to reflect radiation in the EUV wavelength radiation range.
Hayashi teaches a reflective mask for EUV lithography (Paragraph [0001]). The mask includes a reflective multilayer system which has high EUV light reflectance, such as at a wavelength of 13.5 nm, and is formed from alternating high and low refractive index layers (Paragraph [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the reflecting layer system, which may be a dielectric interference system, from alternating high and low refractive index layers which are shown to have high EUV reflectance such that the devices of Schurmann are already designed to reflect a broad spectrum of light, including UV light.
Schurmann teaches the reactive multilayer systems as being ignited by an energy input (Col. 9, Lines 5-13; Fig. 1G).
Schurmann is silent with respect to the energy input causing a lateral variation in thickness.
Ehm teaches mirrors for use in a microlithography projection exposure apparatus in the EUV range (Paragraph [0001]-[0002]). The mirrors are required to have a sufficient surface shape in order to reduce imaging errors or wavefront errors (Paragraph [0003]). The mirrors include a substrate, a functional coating and a reflective coating in that order and a beam of hydrogen ions are directed to the mirrors to adjust the surface shape of the functional coating resulting in the appropriate shape without adversely affecting the substrate or the reflective coating (Paragraphs [0007]-[0008]; [0016]; [0025]-[0026]). The hydrogen ions cause an increase or a decrease in thickness in the area which they are applied to (Fig. 1A-1C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the reflector elements of Schurmann such that the energy input includes a beam of hydrogen ions in order to adjust the surface shape, in order to reduce imaging and wavefront errors, which results in a lateral variation in thickness, as taught by Ehm.
Regarding claim 17, Schurmann teaches the reflector elements as discussed above with respect to claim 10. The multilayer systems may also be formed from vanadium and the adhesive layer between the substrate and the system, which is considered to be a part of the structurable coating, may include tungsten (Col. 7, Lines 33-67).
Regarding claim 18, Schurmann in view of Ehm teaches the reflector elements as discussed above with respect to claim 10 which include lateral variations in thickness.
Regarding claim 19, Schurmann teaches the reflector elements as discussed above with respect to claim 10. As discussed above, the multilayer system may include hafnium which has a density of 13.3 g/cc (“Densities of Metals”).
Regarding claim 20, Schurmann teaches the reflector elements as discussed above with respect to claim 10. As discussed above, the multilayer systems may comprise alternating layers of Ti and B or Hf and B.
Regarding claim 24, Schurmann in view of Ehm teaches the reflector elements as discussed above with respect to claim 10. Ehm further illustrates the lateral changes in thickness are present in figures 1B and 1C and are presented in less than all of the structures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-9, applicant argues that the combination of Schurmann, Hayashi, and Ehm fails to teach each of the limitations of claims 8, 9 and 10. Specifically, none of the cited references teach the permanent structures being formed as a result of the exothermic mixing or reacting of the adjacent layers. Indicating that these are structural limitations or recite the structure of the permanent structures. Schurmann fails to teach the permanent structures being present comprise a change in thickness. Ehm fails to teach the structures being formed from the exothermic mixing or reacting.
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments. Specifically, the claims as noted by the examiner, are directed to the product and thus, are examined as such. Reviewing the resulting final products of the claims, the claims require a substrate, a structurable coating, and a reflective coating. The structurable coating is formed from materials which are configured to or, in other words, are capable of reacting or mixing exothermically. Lastly, the final product contains the permanent structures comprising a change in thickness within the structurable coating.
Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to the methods of forming the final product such that the resulting exothermic reaction used in forming the final product achieves the final product. MPEP 2113(I): "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
However, as noted above, the claims must be considered to the extent of what the resulting final product is. Schurmann teaches a substrate, a reactive multilayer system and a reflecting metal layer (See rejection of claims 8, 9 and 10 above). The reactive multilayer system is formed from a plurality of alternating layers which are exothermically capable of reacting together (Col. 2, Lines 52-59). Therefore, the alternating layers are configured to react exothermically together. Schurmann is merely silent with respect to the final product having a permanent structure being a change in thickness. This is where the rejection turns to Ehm which teaches an adjustment of shape in reflector elements in order to reduce imaging and wavefront errors which are achieved through lateral variations in thickness (Paragraphs [0007]-[0008]; [0016]; [0025]-[0026]; Fig. 1A to 1C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to form the lateral variations in thickness in the structures of Schurmann in order to reduce imaging and wavefront errors. Furthermore, as shown in the figures of Ehm (1A to 1C), each of the layers with the exception of the substrate layer are shown to have the lateral variations in thickness. As such, the structurable coating would additionally have the lateral variations in thickness.
Ultimately, the examiner contends that the combination of Schurmann, Hayashi and Ehm teaches the final products of claims 8, 9 and 10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights