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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1, 10, and 20 recite, “a condition in which the EUV light concentrating mirror in the chamber is removed.” While there is a previous reference to both an “EUV light concentrating mirror” and a “chamber,” there in no discussion of the mirror being inside of the chamber, let alone being removable from the chamber. Accordingly, the limitation lacks antecedent basis and the claims are rejected as indefinite.
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 12-16 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.
Claim 12 requires that the EUV light concentrating mirror be arranged in an angle range between 21 and 127 degrees. The claim depends upon claim 1, which requires the EUV light concentrating mirror is arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region. While the original disclosure describes EUV light concentrating mirrors at said angles (see e.g., Figs. 9 and 15) and it describes EUV light concentrating mirrors arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region (see e.g., Fig. 3), it does explicitly, inherently, or implicitly describe these features together. In fact, judging from instant Fig. 4, it would be impossible to realize the claimed subject matter for any angle below 90 degrees, which includes the majority of the claimed range. As such, the combination of these limitations is new matter, and the claim is rejected for failing the written description requirement.
Claim 13 requires that the EUV light concentrating mirror be arranged in an angle range between 40 and 80 degrees. The claim depends upon claim 1, which requires the EUV light concentrating mirror is arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region. While the original disclosure describes EUV light concentrating mirrors at said angles (see e.g., Fig. 9) and it describes EUV light concentrating mirrors arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region (see e.g., Fig. 3), it does explicitly, inherently, or implicitly describe these features together. In fact, judging from instant Fig. 4, it would be impossible to realize the claimed subject matter for any angle below 90 degrees, which includes the entire claimed range. As such, the combination of these limitations is new matter, and the claim is rejected for failing the written description requirement.
Claim 14 requires that the EUV light concentrating mirror be arranged in an angle range between 35 and 100 degrees. The claim depends upon claim 1, which requires the EUV light concentrating mirror is arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region. While the original disclosure describes EUV light concentrating mirrors at said angles (see e.g., Fig. 9) and it describes EUV light concentrating mirrors arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region (see e.g., Fig. 3), it does explicitly, inherently, or implicitly describe these features together. In fact, judging from instant Fig. 4, it would be impossible to realize the claimed subject matter for any angle below 90 degrees, which includes the majority of the claimed range. As such, the combination of these limitations is new matter, and the claim is rejected for failing the written description requirement.
Claims 15 and 16 require that the EUV light concentrating mirror have a through hole. The claim depends upon claim 1, which requires the EUV light concentrating mirror is arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region. While the original disclosure describes EUV light concentrating mirrors having through-holes (see e.g., Figs. 2 and 15) and it describes EUV light concentrating mirrors arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region (see e.g., Fig. 3), it does explicitly, inherently, or implicitly describe these features together. As such, the combination of these limitations is new matter, and the claims are rejected for failing the written description requirement.
Claim 16 requires that the EUV light concentrating mirror be arranged in an angle range between 25 and 80 degrees. The claim depends upon claim 1, which requires the EUV light concentrating mirror is arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region. While the original disclosure describes EUV light concentrating mirrors at said angles (see e.g., Fig. 9) and it describes EUV light concentrating mirrors arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region (see e.g., Fig. 3), it does explicitly, inherently, or implicitly describe these features together. In fact, judging from instant Fig. 4, it would be impossible to realize the claimed subject matter for any angle below 90 degrees, which includes the entire claimed range. As such, the combination of these limitations is new matter, and the claim is rejected for failing the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 17, 18, 19, 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0133136 A1 [Chen]
Regarding Claim 1:
Chen teaches an extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
a chamber (Fig. 1 (10) is in a vacuum chamber per para 20) including a plasma generation region (Fig. 2 (114), which is part of Fig, 1 (100), para 26 – the irradiated droplets become plasma);
a target supply unit configured to supply a target to the plasma generation region (Fig. 2 (110), para 24);
a laser light concentrating mirror configured to concentrate pulse laser light on the plasma generation region (Fig. 2 (124, 122) are mirrors shown diagrammatically. They are used to concentrate lasers at the droplet positions per paras 26, 27); and
an EUV light concentrating mirror having a reflection surface reflecting extreme ultraviolet light radiated from the plasma generation region (Fig. 1 (200) is a mirror downstream of the source that reflects light as part of the larger focusing and directing of the EUF lithography system, para 19),
and arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy, which is measured in a condition in which the EUV light concentrating mirror in the chamber is removed and at positions of a predetermined distance from the plasma generation region, the positions being located between the plasma generation region and a wall of the chamber, is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region,
the spatial distribution being an association of the ion energy and the positions at which the ion energy is measured.
The entire above italicized set of limitations acts to describe the angular position of the EUV light concentrating mirror with respect to the angular spatial distribution of ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma region. This is evident from both the prosecution history wherein the applicant is clear that the above recitation is “not an affirmatively measured as in a method step” but rather is clarification of the association between ion energy and position. Instant Fig. 4 demonstrates that the ion energy in a given region is dependent upon the region’s angle from the incident direction of the pulse laser. As can be seen therein, the area opposite to the laser, i.e., > 90 degrees, corresponds to below average ion energy. Thus, the above limitation functionally requires that the entire mirror be arranged at angular positions >90 degrees from the incident pulsed laser.
Chen’s mirror at Fig. 1 (200) is placed at approximately 180 degrees from the angle of incidence shown in Fig. 2. As such, it anticipates the above italicized limitation.
Regarding Claim 5:
Chen discloses the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the average value is an average of the ion energy measured at each of a plurality of angles between 0 and 180 with respect to a direction opposite to the travel direction of the pulse laser light entering the plasma generation region. This is a description of how the average energy is measured, and not a positive limitation of the claimed apparatus, as has been specified by the applicant. As such, the art which anticipates claim 1 necessarily anticipates this claim, since both claims are directed to the same structure.
Regarding Claim 6:
Chen discloses the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the laser light concentrating mirror is arranged such that the pulse laser light passes outside the EUV light concentrating mirror and is concentrated on the plasma generation region. See Chen Figs. 1 and 2. The pulse is in the source chamber, and the EUV light concentrating mirror is entirely arranged outside the source chamber.
Regarding Claim 9:
Chen discloses the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the EUV light concentrating mirror is arranged such that the reflection surface falls within an angle range in which the ion energy is less than 90% of the average value. Looking to instant Fig. 4, it is evident that the position of Chen’s mirror (200), which is at approximately 180 degrees from the pulse laser, is well below the 90% of the average value.
Regarding Claim 17:
Chen discloses the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the ion energy is maximum ion energy at the positions of the predetermined distance. This is a description of how the average energy is measured, and not a positive limitation of the claimed apparatus, as has been specified by the applicant. As such, the art which anticipates claim 1 necessarily anticipates this claim, since both claims are directed to the same structure.
Regarding Claim 18:
Chen discloses the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the maximum ion energy is energy calculated, from relationship between detected ion energy and the number of detected ions detected at positions of the predetermined distance, by curve fitting as the ion energy corresponding to a case where a number of ions per unit area is one. This is a description of how the average energy is measured, and not a positive limitation of the claimed apparatus, as has been specified by the applicant. As such, the art which anticipates claim 1 necessarily anticipates this claim, since both claims are directed to the same structure.
Regarding Claim 21:
Chen discloses the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the positions at which the ion energy is measured are defined in a polar coordinate system in which the plasma generation region is defined as an origin and a direction opposite to a travel direction of the pulse laser light toward the plasma generation region is defined as 0 degrees, and the angle range in which the ion energy is less that the average value is defined int eh polar coordinate system. This is a description of how the average energy is measured, and not a positive limitation of the claimed apparatus, as has been specified by the applicant. As such, the art which anticipates claim 1 necessarily anticipates this claim, since both claims are directed to the same structure.
Regarding Claim 19:
Chen teaches an electronic device manufacturing method abstract, comprising:
generating extreme ultraviolet light using an extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus (para 2, 17);
outputting the extreme ultraviolet light to an exposure apparatus (para 2, 17, Fig. 1); and
exposing a photosensitive substrate to the extreme ultraviolet light in the exposure apparatus to manufacture an electronic device (para 17, 42-44),
the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus including:
a chamber (Fig. 1 (10) is in a vacuum chamber per para 20) including a plasma generation region (Fig. 2 (114), which is part of Fig, 1 (100), para 26 – the irradiated droplets become plasma);
a target supply unit configured to supply a target to the plasma generation region (Fig. 2 (110), para 24);
a laser light concentrating mirror configured to concentrate pulse laser light on the plasma generation region (Fig. 2 (124, 122) are mirrors shown diagrammatically. They are used to concentrate lasers at the droplet positions per paras 26, 27); and
an EUV light concentrating mirror having a reflection surface reflecting extreme ultraviolet light radiated from the plasma generation region (Fig. 1 (200) is a mirror downstream of the source that reflects light as part of the larger focusing and directing of the EUF lithography system, para 19),
and arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy, which is measured in a condition in which the EUV light concentrating mirror in the chamber is removed and at positions of a predetermined distance from the plasma generation region, the positions being located between the plasma generation region and a wall of the chamber, is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region,
the spatial distribution being an association of the ion energy and the positions at which the ion energy is measured.
The entire above italicized set of limitations acts to describe the angular position of the EUV light concentrating mirror with respect to the angular spatial distribution of ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma region. This is evident from both the prosecution history wherein the applicant is clear that the above recitation is “not an affirmatively measured as in a method step” but rather is clarification of the association between ion energy and position. Instant Fig. 4 demonstrates that the ion energy in a given region is dependent upon the region’s angle from the incident direction of the pulse laser. As can be seen therein, the area opposite to the laser, i.e., > 90 degrees, corresponds to below average ion energy. Thus, the above limitation functionally requires that the entire mirror be arranged at angular positions >90 degrees from the incident pulsed laser.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of US 2015/0102239 A1 [Yanagida].
Regarding Claim 2:
Chen teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach the apparatus further comprising:
a prepulse laser device configured to output prepulse laser light to be radiated to the target (Yanagida Fig. 2 (300), [0075-0077]); and
a main pulse laser device configured to output the pulse laser light to be radiated to the target irradiated with the prepulse laser light (Yanagida Fig. 2 (300), [0075-0077]);
wherein the laser light concentrating mirror concentrates both the prepulse laser light and the pulse laser light on the plasma generation region (Yanagida Fig. 2 (221)).
Yanagida teaches an EUV system (abstract) comprising
a laser beam system (3), a laser beam control system (34), and a laser light concentrating mirror configured to concentrate pulse laser light on the plasma generation region (Fig. 2 (221)),
wherein the laser beam system includes:
a prepulse laser device configured to output prepulse laser light to be radiated to the target (Yanagida Fig. 2 (300), para 0075-0077); and
a main pulse laser device configured to output the pulse laser light to be radiated to the target irradiated with the prepulse laser light (Yanagida Fig. 2 (300), para 0075-0077);
wherein the laser light concentrating mirror concentrates both the prepulse laser light and the pulse laser light on the plasma generation region (Yanagida Fig. 2 (221)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the laser beam system of Yanagida, including focusing optics (221) and lasers, in Chen. One would have been motivated to do so since this would provide a pre-pulse irradiation that would improve efficiency of the EUV system. (Yanagida para 45).
Regarding Claim 3:
The modified invention of claim 2 teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein fluence of the prepulse laser light is equal to or more than 0.1 J/cm2 and equal to or less than 100 J/ cm2 (Yanagida paras 0083, 0091),
a pulse width of the prepulse laser light is equal to or more than 1 ps and equal to or less than 100 ns (Yanagida paras 0083, 0091),
fluence of the pulse laser light is equal to or more than 10 J/cm2 and equal to or less than 3000 J/cm2 (Yanagida para 0141) and
a pulse width of the pulse laser light is equal to or more than 1 ns and equal to or less than 100 ns (Yanagida para 81).
Regarding Claim 4:
The modified invention of claim 2 teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein fluence of the prepulse laser light is equal to or more than 1 J/cm2 and equal to or less than 20 J/cm2 (Yanagida para 091),
a pulse width of the prepulse laser light is equal to or more than 1 ps and equal to or less than 100 ns (Yanagida para 091),
fluence of the pulse laser light is equal to or more than 100 J/cm2 and equal to or less than 2000 J/cm2 (Yanagida para 141), and
a pulse width of the pulse laser light is equal to or more than 4 ns and equal to or less than 20 ns (Yanagida para 081).
Regarding Claim 7:
Chen teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 21,
wherein the target contains tin (Chen para 24),
and the angle range is a range of an angle being more than 90 and equal to or less than 180 with respect to a direction opposite to a travel direction of the pulse laser light entering the plasma generation region (Chen Fig. 1 demonstrates such an arrangement).
However, Chen fails to specify a pulse width of the pulse laser light is in a range of being equal to or more than 3.6 ns and equal to or less than 4.4 ns.
Optimizing the pulse width of the pulse laser is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Yanagida speaks extensively to the pulse durations affecting the generation of plasma. [0085-0118]. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting pulse width and identifies said width as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to adjust the pulse width of the pulse laser light such that it is in a range of being equal to or more than 3.6 ns and equal to or less than 4.4 ns since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 10:
Chen teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 21,
wherein the target contains tin (Chen para 24),
and the angle range is a range of an angle being more than 125 and equal to or less than 180 with respect to a direction opposite to a travel direction of the pulse laser light entering the plasma generation region (Chen Fig. 1 demonstrates such an arrangement).
However, the above modified invention fails to specify a pulse width of the pulse laser light is in a range of being equal to or more than 3.6 ns and equal to or less than 4.4 ns.
Optimizing the pulse width of the pulse laser is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Yanagida speaks extensively to the pulse durations affecting the generation of plasma. [0085-0118]. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting pulse width and identifies said width as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to adjust the pulse width of the pulse laser light such that it is in a range of being equal to or more than 3.6 ns and equal to or less than 4.4 ns since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of US 2005/0225739 A1 [Hiura] and US 2011/0116077 A1 [Chuang].
Regarding Claim 20:
Chen teaches an electronic device manufacturing method (paras 17, 42-44), comprising:
Using an extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus for lithography (paras 17, 42-44) the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus including:
a chamber (Fig. 1 (10) is in a vacuum chamber per para 20) including a plasma generation region (Fig. 2 (114), which is part of Fig, 1 (100), para 26 – the irradiated droplets become plasma);
a target supply unit configured to supply a target to the plasma generation region (Fig. 2 (110), para 24);
a laser light concentrating mirror configured to concentrate pulse laser light on the plasma generation region (Fig. 2 (124, 122) are mirrors shown diagrammatically. They are used to concentrate lasers at the droplet positions per paras 26, 27); and
an EUV light concentrating mirror having a reflection surface reflecting extreme ultraviolet light radiated from the plasma generation region (Fig. 1 (200) is a mirror downstream of the source that reflects light as part of the larger focusing and directing of the EUF lithography system, para 19),
and arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy, which is measured in a condition in which the EUV light concentrating mirror in the chamber is removed and at positions of a predetermined distance from the plasma generation region, the positions being located between the plasma generation region and a wall of the chamber, is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region,
the spatial distribution being an association of the ion energy and the positions at which the ion energy is measured.
The entire above italicized set of limitations acts to describe the angular position of the EUV light concentrating mirror with respect to the angular spatial distribution of ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma region. This is evident from both the prosecution history wherein the applicant is clear that the above recitation is “not an affirmatively measured as in a method step” but rather is clarification of the association between ion energy and position. Instant Fig. 4 demonstrates that the ion energy in a given region is dependent upon the region’s angle from the incident direction of the pulse laser. As can be seen therein, the area opposite to the laser, i.e., > 90 degrees, corresponds to below average ion energy. Thus, the above limitation functionally requires that the entire mirror be arranged at angular positions >90 degrees from the incident pulsed laser.
Furthermore, Chen fails to discuss:
inspecting a defect of a mask by irradiating the mask with extreme ultraviolet light generated by an extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus,
selecting a mask using a result of the inspection; and
exposing and transferring a pattern formed on the selected mask onto a photosensitive substrate.
These are notoriously well known steps in EUV lithography, but to dispel any confusion the following finding are provided.
Chuang teaches an electronic device manufacturing method (abstract), comprising:
inspecting a defect of a mask by irradiating the mask with extreme ultraviolet light generated by an extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the mask inspection of Chuang with the EUV method of Chen. One would have been motivated to do so since the LPP EUV system of Chen would effectively provide the EUV illumination required by Chuang.
Hiura teaches selecting a mask using a result of the inspection (abstract – the reticle used for lithography was clearly chosen for its appropriateness with respect to some variety of inspection); and
exposing and transferring a pattern formed on the selected mask onto a photosensitive substrate [0068-0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use select useable masks from the above inspection to practice the well-established EUV lithography taught by Hiura. One would have been motivated to do so since this would ensure that desired patterns were transferred to wafers.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0131515 A1 [Partlo] in view of Yanagida.
Regarding Claim 1:
Partlo teaches an extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
a chamber (Fig. 1 (26)) including a plasma generation region (Fig. 3 (28));
a target supply unit configured to supply a target to the plasma generation region (Fig. 1 (92, para 39);
an EUV light concentrating mirror having a reflection surface reflecting extreme ultraviolet light radiated from the plasma generation region (Fig. 3 (202), para 49),
and arranged such that the entire reflection surface falls within an angle range in which ion energy, which is measured in a condition in which the EUV light concentrating mirror in the chamber is removed and at positions of a predetermined distance from the plasma generation region, the positions being located between the plasma generation region and a wall of the chamber, is less than an average value of the ion energy in a spatial distribution of the ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma generation region,
the spatial distribution being an association of the ion energy and the positions at which the ion energy is measured.
The entire above italicized set of limitations acts to describe the angular position of the EUV light concentrating mirror with respect to the angular spatial distribution of ion energy of ions diffused from the plasma region. This is evident from both the prosecution history wherein the applicant is clear that the above recitation is “not an affirmatively measured as in a method step” but rather is clarification of the association between ion energy and position. Instant Fig. 4 demonstrates that the ion energy in a given region is dependent upon the region’s angle from the incident direction of the pulse laser. As can be seen therein, the area opposite to the laser, i.e., > 90 degrees, corresponds to below average ion energy. Thus, the above limitation functionally requires that the entire mirror be arranged at angular positions >90 degrees from the incident pulsed laser.
Partlo’s mirror at Fig. 1 (202) is placed at entirely opposite from from the angle of incidence of the laser dictated by (aperture (152) in Fig. 3. As such, it anticipates the above italicized limitation.
However, Partlo fails to teach a laser light concentrating mirror configured to concentrate pulse laser light on the plasma generation region.
Yanagida teaches an EUV system (abstract) comprising
a laser beam system (3), a laser beam control system (34), and a laser light concentrating mirror configured to concentrate pulse laser light on the plasma generation region (Fig. 2 (221)),
wherein the laser beam system includes:
a prepulse laser device configured to output prepulse laser light to be radiated to the target (Yanagida Fig. 2 (300), para 0075-0077); and
a main pulse laser device configured to output the pulse laser light to be radiated to the target irradiated with the prepulse laser light (Yanagida Fig. 2 (300), para 0075-0077);
wherein the laser light concentrating mirror concentrates both the prepulse laser light and the pulse laser light on the plasma generation region (Yanagida Fig. 2 (221)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to use the laser beam system of Yanagida, including focusing optics (221) and lasers, in Partlo. One would have been motivated to do so since this would provide a pre-pulse irradiation scheme that would improve efficiency of the EUV system. (Yanagida para 45).
Regarding Claim 21:
The above modified invention teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the positions at which the ion energy is measured are defined in a polar coordinate system in which the plasma generation region is defined as an origin and a direction opposite to a travel direction of the pulse laser light toward the plasma generation region is defined as 0 degrees, and the angle range in which the ion energy is less that the average value is defined int eh polar coordinate system. This is a description of how the average energy is measured, and not a positive limitation of the claimed apparatus, as has been specified by the applicant. As such, the art which teaches claim 1 necessarily teaches this claim, since both claims are directed to the same structure.
Regarding Claim 7:
The above modified invention teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 21,
wherein the target contains tin (Partlo paras 99, 100),
and the angle range is a range of an angle being more than 90 and equal to or less than 180 with respect to a direction opposite to a travel direction of the pulse laser light entering the plasma generation region (Partlo Fig. 3 demonstrates such an arrangement).
However, Partlo fails to specify a pulse width of the pulse laser light is in a range of being equal to or more than 3.6 ns and equal to or less than 4.4 ns.
Optimizing the pulse width of the pulse laser is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Yanagida speaks extensively to the pulse durations affecting the generation of plasma. [0085-0118]. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting pulse width and identifies said width as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to adjust the pulse width of the pulse laser light such that it is in a range of being equal to or more than 3.6 ns and equal to or less than 4.4 ns since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 8:
The above modified invention teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the EUV light concentrating mirror is arranged such that the reflection surface extends from a position at which an angle with respect to the direction opposite to the travel direction of the pulse laser light entering the plasma generation region is 95 to a position at which the angle is 150. See Partlo Fig. 3.
Regarding Claim 10:
The above modified invention teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 21,
wherein the target contains tin (Partlo paras 99, 100),
and the angle range is a range of an angle being more than 125 and equal to or less than 180 with respect to a direction opposite to a travel direction of the pulse laser light entering the plasma generation region (Partlo Fig. 3 demonstrates such an arrangement).
However, the above modified invention fails to specify a pulse width of the pulse laser light is in a range of being equal to or more than 3.6 ns and equal to or less than 4.4 ns.
Optimizing the pulse width of the pulse laser is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Yanagida speaks extensively to the pulse durations affecting the generation of plasma. [0085-0118]. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting pulse width and identifies said width as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to adjust the pulse width of the pulse laser light such that it is in a range of being equal to or more than 3.6 ns and equal to or less than 4.4 ns since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 11:
The modified invention of claim 10 teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the EUV light concentrating mirror is arranged such that the reflection surface extends from a position at which an angle with respect to the direction opposite to the travel direction of the pulse laser light entering the plasma generation region is 130 to a position at which the angle is 165. See Partlo Fig. 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 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.
The amendments of 12/8/25 have overcome the 112(a) and (b) rejections of the final rejection; however, new issues with respect to those statutes are addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 EST.
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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881