DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a cover heating unit…configured to heat the cover body” and “a heating unit protecting member configured to cover the cover heating unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3-4, and 9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzmacher et al. (US PGPub 2016/0195714, hereinafter Metzmacher) in view of Bykanov et al. (US PGPub 2008/0179548, hereinafter Bykanov).
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 11 of Metzmacher discloses a foil trap cover (covering member 46) to surround an outer peripheral portion of a rotary foil trap (rotational foil trap 4) (see paragraph [0206]) and collect debris scattered from the rotary foil trap (rotational foil trap 4) (see paragraph [0037]), the rotary foil trap (rotational foil trap 4) arranged near a plasma (plasma) generated by a plasma generating unit (see paragraph [0037]), the rotary foil trap (rotational foil trap 4) having a plurality of rotatable foils (foils 4a) (see paragraph [0036]) and configured to allow light emitted from the plasma (plasma) to pass through the rotary foil trap (rotational foil trap 4) and configured to capture debris generated by the plasma (plasma) (see paragraph [0037]), the foil trap cover device comprising a cover body (covering member 46) configured to surround the outer peripheral portion of the rotary foil trap (rotational foil trap 4) (see paragraph [0206]), the cover body (covering member 46) having a first surface, which faces the foils (foils 4a), and a second surface, which is opposite to the first surface and faces the plasma (plasma) (see Fig. 11).
Metzmacher does not disclose a cover heating unit provided on at least a portion of the second surface of the cover body and configured to heat the cover body; and a heating unit protecting member configured to cover the cover heating unit. However, in the same field of endeavor, Fig. 11 of Bykanov discloses a system generating a plasma at a plasma site, the plasma producing EUV radiation (see abstract) and a debris mitigation system (receiving structure 3002 with radially oriented vanes 3020, see paragraph [0093]). Bykanov teaches the receiving structure 3002, including a conical shaped shell 3016 and radially oriented vanes 3020 (see paragraph [0093]), includes a temperature control system 3024 to provide heating and/or cooling to the receiving structure 3002 (see paragraph [0094]). Bykanov discloses the heating subsystems (e.g. resistive heaters) may be embedded within the receiving structure 3002 (see paragraph [0094]), thereby being provided on at least a portion of the second surface of the receiving structure 3002; and a heating unit protecting member (vacuum vessel wall 3008 is a body that covers the embedded wires in receiving element 3002 and protects heating element from outside atmosphere) configured to cover the cover heating unit (fig. 11, chamber body covers the embedded resistive heaters). Bykanov teaches the temperature control system is maintained at a predetermined temperature above that of the melting point of tin such that droplets that stick to the surface of the cover will flow downward and be removed from the system ([0097]) therefore mitigating debris in the EUV source. In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the covering member 46 of Metzmacher by embedding a heating element (e.g. resistive heater) for the purpose of maintaining a temperature above the melting point of debris in the system to mitigate debris in the EUV source as taught by Bykanov.
Regarding claim 3, Metzmacher does not disclose the cover heating unit is sealed by the cover body. However, Fig. 11 of Bykanov teaches the heating element (resistive heater, see paragraph [0094]) is sealed (i.e. embedded) by the cover body (receiving structure 3002) and the heating unit protecting member (vacuum vessel wall 3008) (see Fig. 11). In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the covering member 46 of Metzmacher by embedding a heating element (e.g. resistive heater) for the purpose of maintaining a temperature above the melting point of debris in the system to mitigate debris in the EUV source as taught by Bykanov.
Regarding claim 4, according to MPEP 2113: 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. Here Bykanov teaches the heating element (resistive heater, see paragraph [0094]) is embedded in the receiving element 3002, however fails to disclose by which process. Since the combination of Metzmacher in view of Bykanov teach the structure the claim is unpatentable because the patentability depends on the product itself, which is disclosed.
Regarding claim 9, a difference between Metzmacher and the claimed invention is the cover heating unit has plural groups of heating sub-units such that an amount of electric power to be supplied to each of the plural groups of cover heating sub-units can individually be controlled, and a control unit configured to control the amount of electric power to be supplied to each of the plural groups of cover heating sub-units, based on the plurality of temperature detected by the temperature detecting unit, so that the plurality of temperature of the cover body becomes equal to or higher than a melting point of a raw material used to generate the plasma.
However, Bykanov teaches the temperature control system 3024 (control unit configured to control the amount of electric power to be supplied to each of the cover heating units, see paragraph [0094]) that some or all of the operable surfaces (plurality of regions) of the receiving structure 3002 (cover body) may be maintained at a temperature above 230 degrees C (temperature detecting units to detect a plurality of temperatures, resistive heaters individually controlled for part or all of receiving structure 3002, see paragraph [0097]), above melting point of the raw material used to generate the plasma (e.g. melted tin, see paragraph [0097]).
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the covering member 46 of Metzmacher by embedding a heating element (e.g. resistive heater) for the purpose of maintaining a temperature above the melting point of debris in the system to mitigate debris in the EUV source as taught by Bykanov.
Regarding claim 11, Fig. 12 of Metzmacher discloses a rotary foil trap (rotational type foil trap, see abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Fig. 12 of Metzmacher discloses the plasma generating unit configured to generate a plasma (plasma P, see paragraph [0032]) that emits EUV light (EUV radiation, see paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 13 a difference between Metzmacher and the claimed invention is the cover heating unit has plural groups of heating sub-units such that an amount of electric power to be supplied to each of the plural groups of cover heating sub-units can individually be controlled, and a control unit configured to control the amount of electric power to be supplied to each of the plural groups of cover heating sub-units, based on the plurality of temperature detected by the temperature detecting unit, so that the plurality of temperature of the cover body becomes equal to or higher than a melting point of a raw material used to generate the plasma.
However, Bykanov teaches the temperature control system 3024 (control unit configured to control the amount of electric power to be supplied to each of the cover heating units, see paragraph [0094]) that some or all of the operable surfaces (plurality of regions) of the receiving structure 3002 (cover body) may be maintained at a temperature above 230 degrees C (temperature detecting units to detect a plurality of temperatures, resistive heaters individually controlled for part or all of receiving structure 3002, see paragraph [0097]), above melting point of the raw material used to generate the plasma (e.g. melted tin, see paragraph [0097]).
In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the covering member 46 of Metzmacher by embedding a heating element (e.g. resistive heater) for the purpose of maintaining a temperature above the melting point of debris in the system to mitigate debris in the EUV source as taught by Bykanov.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzmacher in view of Bykanov and in further view of Patel et al. (US PGPub 2020/0124976, hereinafter Patel).
Regarding claim 5, a difference between Metzmacher and the claimed invention is the corrosion resistant film (e.g. titanium nitride, see paragraph [0090]) is provided on at least a part of an exposed surface of the heating unit protecting member. However, in the same field of endeavor, Patel discloses an apparatus that emits EUV radiation by a plasma source (see paragraph [0005]). Patel teaches the vacuum chamber wall comprises a first and second wall layer (see paragraph [0081]) where the wall layers are selected from molybdenum or tungsten (see paragraph [0087]). According to the instant application, applicant admits the materials of molybdenum or tungsten are advantageous for corrosion resistant properties (see paragraph [0029] of the instant application). In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Metzmacher and Bykanov to have the heating unit protecting member (vacuum vessel wall 3008) be made of a corrosion resistance material as taught by Patel for the purpose of extending the lifetime of the device.
Regarding claim 6, Metzmacher discloses the corrosion resistant film is titanium nitride (TiN, see paragraph [0090]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzmacher in view of Bykanov and in further view Niimi et al. (US PGPub 2014/0307857, hereinafter Niimi).
Regarding claim 8, a difference between the combination of Metzmacher and Bykanov and the claimed invention is the cover body and the heating unit protecting member are made of stainless steel. However, in the same field of endeavor, Niimi discloses an EUV radiation source generated from plasma (see paragraph [0005]). Niimi teaches components of the radiation system can be made of stainless steel (see paragraph [0009]) advantageously because of cost. In view of such teaching, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the cover body and the heating unit protecting member be made of stainless steel for the purpose of reducing the cost of materials as taught by Niimi.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7, 10, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM 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 on (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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881