DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 08/10/2026.
3. Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-19 are pending. Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-16 are under examination on the merits. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 8,12 are previously cancelled. Claims 17-19 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention from further consideration.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-16 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 04/19/2019 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-7, 9-11,13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruner et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0064676 A1, hereinafter “’676”) in view of Fujihara et al. (Chemical processing for inorganic fluoride and oxyfluoride materials having optical functions, Journal of Fluorine Chemistry 130, 2009,1106-1110, hereinafter “Fujihara”) or Dominic N. Lo Lacono (US Pat. No. 6.620,347 B1, hereinafter “’347”).
Regarding claims 1-2: ‘676 teaches an optical element for the vacuum-ultraviolet (VUV) wavelength range as attenuation filter (Page 1, [0007]) comprising: a substrate (Page 5, [0040]), and a coating as an absorption layer (i.e., read on a fluorine scavenger layer) applied to the substrate (Page 2, [0014]; Page 5, [0041]), wherein the absorption layer comprising a fluoride material such as CaF2 doped with a dopant ion such as lead (Pb) CAF2:Pb (Page 5, [0041]), and not forming a solid solution, e.g., in principle, the doped fluoride material of the fluorine scavenger layer (i.e. the material of the fluorine scavenger layer) should generally have the following chemical structural formula (in the absence of a solid solution Mx+Fx-:Ax+; see instant Pub. No. 2023/0147463 A1, Page 3, [0029]), and wherein the coating has a wavefront correction layer (i.e., read on a fluoride layer) and the absorption layer is applied to a side of the wavefront correction layer remote from the substrate (Page 3, [0031]). ‘676 does not expressly teach the at least one fluoride scavenger layer is fully transparent to radiation in the VUV wavelength range.
However, Fujihara teaches chemical processing for synthesizing inorganic metal fluoride and oxyfluoride materials for applications in optics and photonics, wherein a variety of fluoride materials including alkaline earth fluorides (MgF2, CaF2, SrF2 and BaF2), rare-earth fluorides (LaF3, NdF3, GdF3, etc.), which can be utilized as anti-reflective coatings, luminescent
materials, VUV materials, IR materials, and so forth. Fujihara summarizes fundamentals and possible applications of optically useful inorganic fluoride and oxyfluoride materials, with emphasis on porous single-layer anti-reflective coatings and visible photoluminescence of doped Eu3+ or Eu2+ ions (i.e., transparent to radiation in the VUV wavelength range; Page 1106, Abstract, lines 1-11) with providing fluoride and oxyfluoride coating films, oxyfluoride glass-ceramics, and oxide/fluoride nanocomposite thin films (Page 1106, left Col., Introduction, 2nd para., lines 12-15).
Alternatively, ‘347 teaches a crystal filter and a method of making a crystal filter capable of transmitting radiation within a particular pass band is disclosed. The crystal filter is particularly appropriate for a UV detection system, where the pass band is between about 200 to about 350 nm (Col. 2, lines 10-14). ‘347 teaches the crystal filter 15 is an alkaline earth fluoride which is co-doped with a lanthanide or actinide fluoride and a lanthanide or actinide nitride, boride, carbide, oxide or hydroxide. The fluoride host crystal can be an alkaline earth fluoride, zinc fluoride (ZnF2) or cadmium fluoride (CdF2). The alkaline earth fluorides include magnesium fluoride (MgF2), calcium fluoride (CaF-2), strontium fluoride (SrF2), and barium fluoride (BaF2). These single-crystal host materials transmit in the 200-350 nm region, each having a UV absorption edge of around 150 nm. The lanthanide and actinide elements include Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, and U (i.e., transparent to radiation in the VUV wavelength range). The combination of lanthanide or actinide fluoride dopant, and lanthanide or actinide nitride, boride, oxide, carbide or hydroxide doping, provides optical absorption bands which limits the transmissions of the crystal filters to the useful range of wavelengths and in wavelengths above the absorption band, away from the useful range of wavelength, i.e. creates a pass-band having the desired characteristics (Col. 4, lines 23-40).
In an analogous art the optical element for the VUV wavelength range of, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the at least one fluorine scavenger layer comprising a fluoride material doped with a dopant ion by ‘676, so as to include alkaline earth fluorides (MgF2, CaF2, SrF2 and BaF2) doped with Eu3+ or Eu2+ ions as taught by Fujihara, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing an optical element for the VUV material comprising fluoride and oxyfluoride coating films, oxyfluoride glass-ceramics, and oxide/fluoride nanocomposite thin films as suggested by Fujihara (Page 1106, left Col., Introduction, 2nd para., lines 12-15).
In an analogous art the optical element for the VUV wavelength range of, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the at least one fluorine scavenger layer comprising a fluoride material doped with a dopant ion by ‘676, so as to include alkaline earth fluorides include magnesium fluoride (MgF2), calcium fluoride (CaF-2), strontium fluoride (SrF2), and barium fluoride (BaF2) doped with the lanthanide and actinide elements include Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, and U as taught by ‘347, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing optical absorption bands which limits the transmissions of the crystal filters to the useful range of wavelengths and in wavelengths above the absorption band, away from the useful range of wavelength, i.e. creates a pass-band having the desired characteristics as suggested by ‘347 (Col. 4, lines 23-40).
"Where ... the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical ... the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (citations and footnote omitted). The mere recitation of a property or characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability to a composition or a method of using that composition. See In re Skoner, 51 7 F .2d 94 7, 950 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claims 3-7: The disclosure of ‘676 in view of Fujihara or ‘347 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘676 teaches the optical element as attenuating filter (Page 1, [0006]) for the VUV wavelength range (Page 1, [0007]), comprising a substrate and a coating as absorption layer applied to the substrate (Page 2, [0018]), wherein the coating has at least one fluorine scavenging layer (i.e., an absorption layer) comprising a fluoride material such as CaF2 which is doped with at least one metallic doping ion such as lead (Pb) (Page 5, [0041]), wherein the average value of lattice constant was found to be 5.4739 Å for Pb doped CaF2 and 5.46868 Å for undoped CaF2 sample (see Chauhan et al., Page 130, left Col., 1st para, lines 7-8). ‘676 teaches the host lattice ion of the fluoride material has the same valency as the at least one dopant ion (Ca2+ and Pb2+) (Page 5, [0041]). ‘676 teaches cerium (Ce) having an electron configuration of [Xe]4f15d16s2 with one unpaired valence electron (Page 5, [0041]).
Regarding claims 9-11: The disclosure of ‘676 in view of Fujihara or ‘347 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘676 teaches the optical element as attenuating filter (Page 1, [0006]) for the VUV wavelength range (Page 1, [0007]), comprising a substrate and a coating as absorption layer applied to the substrate (Page 2, [0018]), wherein the coating has at least one fluorine scavenging layer comprising a fluoride material such as CaF2, BaF2 (Page 5, [0040]) which is doped with at least one metallic doping ion such as lead (Pb), cerium (Ce) or yttrium (Y) (Page 5, [0041]). ‘676 does not expressly teach the dopant ion is selected from the group consisting of: Gd³⁺, Eu²⁺, Mn²⁺, Fe³⁺, Ru³⁺ and T1+ and, wherein the doped fluoride material of the at least one fluorine scavenger layer is selected from the group consisting of: SrF2:Eu²⁺, BaF2:Eu²⁻, LaF₃:Gd³⁺.
However, Fujihara teaches chemical processing for synthesizing inorganic metal fluoride and oxyfluoride materials for applications in optics and photonics, wherein a variety of fluoride materials including alkaline earth fluorides (MgF2, CaF2, SrF2 and BaF2), rare-earth fluorides (LaF3, NdF3, GdF3, etc.), which can be utilized as anti-reflective coatings, luminescent
materials, VUV materials, IR materials, and so forth. Fujihara summarizes fundamentals and possible applications of optically useful inorganic fluoride and oxyfluoride materials, with emphasis on porous single-layer anti-reflective coatings and visible photoluminescence of doped Eu3+ or Eu2+ ions (i.e., transparent to radiation in the VUV wavelength range; Page 1106, Abstract, lines 1-11) with providing fluoride and oxyfluoride coating films, oxyfluoride glass-ceramics, and oxide/fluoride nanocomposite thin films (Page 1106, left Col., Introduction, 2nd para., lines 12-15).
Alternatively, ‘347 teaches a crystal filter and a method of making a crystal filter capable of transmitting radiation within a particular pass band is disclosed. The crystal filter is particularly appropriate for a UV detection system, where the pass band is between about 200 to about 350 nm (Col. 2, lines 10-14). ‘347 teaches the crystal filter 15 is an alkaline earth fluoride which is co-doped with a lanthanide or actinide fluoride and a lanthanide or actinide nitride, boride, carbide, oxide or hydroxide. The fluoride host crystal can be an alkaline earth fluoride, zinc fluoride (ZnF2) or cadmium fluoride (CdF2). The alkaline earth fluorides include magnesium fluoride (MgF2), calcium fluoride (CaF-2), strontium fluoride (SrF2), and barium fluoride (BaF2). These single-crystal host materials transmit in the 200-350 nm region, each having a UV absorption edge of around 150 nm. The lanthanide and actinide elements include Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, and U (i.e., transparent to radiation in the VUV wavelength range). The combination of lanthanide or actinide fluoride dopant, and lanthanide or actinide nitride, boride, oxide, carbide or hydroxide doping, provides optical absorption bands which limits the transmissions of the crystal filters to the useful range of wavelengths and in wavelengths above the absorption band, away from the useful range of wavelength, i.e. creates a pass-band having the desired characteristics (Col. 4, lines 23-40).
In an analogous art the optical element for the VUV wavelength range of, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the at least one fluorine scavenger layer comprising a fluoride material doped with a dopant ion by ‘676, so as to include alkaline earth fluorides (MgF2, CaF2, SrF2 and BaF2) doped with Eu3+ or Eu2+ ions as taught by Fujihara, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing an optical element for the VUV material comprising fluoride and oxyfluoride coating films, oxyfluoride glass-ceramics, and oxide/fluoride nanocomposite thin films as suggested by Fujihara (Page 1106, left Col., Introduction, 2nd para., lines 12-15).
In an analogous art the optical element for the VUV wavelength range of, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the at least one fluorine scavenger layer comprising a fluoride material doped with a dopant ion by ‘676, so as to include alkaline earth fluorides include magnesium fluoride (MgF2), calcium fluoride (CaF-2), strontium fluoride (SrF2), and barium fluoride (BaF2) doped with the lanthanide and actinide elements include Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, and U as taught by ‘347, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing optical absorption bands which limits the transmissions of the crystal filters to the useful range of wavelengths and in wavelengths above the absorption band, away from the useful range of wavelength, i.e. creates a pass-band having the desired characteristics as suggested by ‘347 (Col. 4, lines 23-40).
Regarding claims 13-14: The disclosure of ‘676 in view of Fujihara or ‘347 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘676 teaches the optical element as attenuating filter (Page 1, [0006]) for the VUV wavelength range (Page 1, [0007]), wherein the at least one fluorine scavenger layer forms a capping layer of the coating or wherein the at least one fluorine scavenger layer forms a diffusion barrier between the fluoride layer and an additional layer, wherein the additional layer comprises a fluoride layer (Page 3, [0031]).
8. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruner et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0064676 A1, hereinafter “’676”) in view of Fujihara et al. (Chemical processing for inorganic fluoride and oxyfluoride materials having optical functions, Journal of Fluorine Chemistry 130, 2009,1106-1110, hereinafter “Fujihara”) or Dominic N. Lo Lacono (US Pat. No. 6.620,347 B1, hereinafter “’347”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alexandra Pazidis (DE 102018211498 A1, hereinafter “’498”).
Regarding claims 15-16: The disclosure of ‘676 in view of Fujihara or ‘347 is adequately set forth in paragraph 7 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘676 in view of Fujihara or ‘347 does not expressly teach the coating forms a reflective coating or an antireflection coating for radiation in the VUV wavelength range, and an optical arrangement configured as a wafer inspection system
However, ‘498 teaches an optical arrangement comprising at least one reflective optical
element with a reflective surface, in particular for the vacuum ultraviolet wavelength range, with
at least one electrode and with at least one voltage source. Furthermore, ‘498 teaches a device for wafer and/or mask inspection or to a lithography device with such an optical arrangement (Page 5/40, [0001]) with benefit of providing an optical arrangement which contributes to
improving the radiation resistance of reflective optical elements, in particular in the shorter-wave
ultraviolet wavelength range (Page 6/40, [0004]).
In an analogous art the optical element for the VUV wavelength range of, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the optical element by ‘676, so as to include the coating forms a reflective coating or an antireflection coating for radiation in the VUV wavelength range, and an optical arrangement configured as a wafer inspection system as taught by ‘498, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing an optical arrangement which contributes to improving the radiation resistance of reflective optical elements, in particular in the shorter-wave ultraviolet wavelength range as suggested by ‘498 (Page 6/40, [0004]).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the scavenger layer of Gruner’676 absorbs radiation, not transmit radiation, and further it would not have been obvious to modify the Gruner’676 absorption layer to be transparent because the entire purpose of the laver is to be absorptive, i.e., to NOT be transparent. Any proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Furthermore, it is noted that the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant, In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 91 9 F.2d 688,16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Also, while there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provides the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention, Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300,1302 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
‘676 teaches typical radiation sources for microlithography with ultraviolet radiation are mercury vapor lamps having a working wavelength of 365 nm, KrF excimer lasers having a working wavelength of 248 nm, ArF excimer lasers having a working wavelength of 193 nm and F.sub.2 excimer lasers having a working wavelength of 157 nm. A range of 370 to 315 nm is frequently referred to as near UV range, a range of 315 to 280 nm is frequently referred to as medium UV range, a range of 280 to 200 nm is frequently referred to as deep UV range (DUV), and a range of 200 nm to 150 nm is frequently referred to as vacuum UV range (VUV) (Page 2, [0011]). ‘676 teaches in special variants, the attenuation filter is designed for the defined attenuation of the intensity of ultraviolet radiation having a specified working wavelength of only part of or one of the wavelength ranges stated, preferably of the VUV range (Page 2, [0012]). The local distribution can be specified for example by way of the properties of the projection lens without attenuation filter being measured and by determining the local distribution from a comparison of the measured properties with the desired properties of the projection lens (Page 2, [0013]). ‘676 teaches the absorption strength of the absorption layer can vary for example continuously or in steps of 0.1 to 1%, for example in the range of 0% to 20%, in particular in the range of 0% to 10% (Page 2, [0016]). At a maximum absorption of 20%, at most 20% of the incident ultraviolet radiation is absorbed at one location (i.e., 80% of the incident ultraviolet radiation is transmitted), with the result that a large portion of the ultraviolet radiation can pass through the attenuation filter (Page 2, [0017]). For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation since more than 80% of the incident ultraviolet radiation is transmitted in the VUV wavelength range. Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had both an apparent reason or suggestion to modify the prior art and predictability or a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success …. For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, Fujihara or Lacono’347 cures the deficiency in Gruner’676 relied upon in rejecting independent claim.
The applicant is invited to submit any declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 to overcome the rejection based upon reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as set forth in this Office action to compare their invention product (i.e., an optical element for the VUV wavelength range) and show the product is actually different from and unexpectedly better than the teachings of the references. It is submitted that the burden is on the applicant to establish that the results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, and of statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). See also Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), and such a showing also must be commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, i.e., must bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of the claimed invention.
10. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
03/25/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights