DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 16, 18, and 19 of Group 1 have been elected without traverse.
Claims 20, 24-29, and 31-35 have not been elected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vaschenko et al. (US PGPub 2009/0230326, hereinafter Vaschenko).
Regarding claim 1, Vaschenko discloses a component for a target material supply system for an EUV radiation source (glass capillary tube 200 for a source material dispense for an EUV light source, see paragraph [0070]), the component comprising:
a first fitting made of metal and having a first channel (ring shaped ferrule 214, having an aperture with which the capillary tube 200 fits inside, see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0071]);
a tube member made of glass and having a first end disposed within the first channel and attached to an interior of the first channel by a first glass to metal seal (dispenser portion 204 having a channel with which the glass capillary tube 200 is fitted in, see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0070]; being attached with a joining metal 206 to the glass capillary tube 200 (e.g. glass to metal seal), see paragraph [0070]); and
a second fitting made of metal having a second channel, the tube member having a second end disposed within the second channel and attached to an interior of the second channel by a second glass to metal seal (glass capillary tube 200 has a second end disposed in the ring shaped ferrule (e.g. metal) 214, see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0070-0071]; the ring shaped ferrule 214 contacts the capillary tube, see paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, Vaschenko discloses at least one of the interior of the first channel and the interior of the second channel comprises a metal oxide layer which seals to the respective end of the tube member (dispenser portion 204 having a channel with which the glass capillary tube 200 is fitted in, see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0070]; the glass capillary tube 200 comprises an insulator layer 264 (metal oxide) deposited on the conductive layer 262, see Fig. 5B and paragraph [0082]); the insulator layer contacts the interior of the first and second channels of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Vaschenko discloses at least one of the first fitting and the second fitting comprises molybdenum (joining metal (such as 206) may comprise molybdenum, see paragraph [0023]).
Regarding claim 4, Vaschenko discloses the tube member comprises borosilicate glass (glass portion 132 (corresponding to glass capillary tube 200 of Fig. 4) is a silica based glass, such as a borosilicate glass or quartz, see paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 7, Vaschenko discloses an electrically conductive coil disposed around an intermediate longitudinal portion of the tube member and wherein the coil is adapted to provide ohmic heating of the tube member and any contents of the tube member (electrical current source 266 provides a current to the conductive coating on the glass capillary tube to produce heat via ohmic heating, see Fig. 5A and paragraph [0079]). The conductive coating layer 262 acts as a conductive coil).
Regarding claim 19, Vaschenko discloses the component is in fluid communication with at least one reservoir through the first fitting and in fluid communication with a droplet generator through the second fitting (glass capillary tube 200 connects to reservoir 94, see Fig. 2 and paragraph [0056]; connected to a source material dispenser 92 to form a stream of droplets 100 for EUV light source 20, see paragraph [0055]).
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.
Claim 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaschenko in view of Hertz et al. (US PGPub 2002/0044629, hereinafter Hertz).
Regarding claim 7, Vaschenko teaches the tube member is heated by ohmic heating (conductive layer is provided with an electrical current to produce heat, see paragraph [0079]).
Vaschenko fails to disclose the heating is provided by an electrically conductive coil disposed around an intermediate longitudinal portion of the tube member.
Hertz teaches wrapping a thin resistive wire 11 (e.g. coil) around a nozzle tip (e.g. tube member) to provide a current for heating (see paragraph [0038]). Hertz teaches heating the nozzle is advantageous for maintaining hydrodynamic properties of the flowing fluid within the nozzle (see paragraph [0038]).
Hertz modifies Vaschenko by suggesting coiling a wire around a tube member to provide heating.
Since both inventions are drawn to EUV generation devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Vaschenko by providing a wire around a tube member to provide heating for the purpose of maintaining hydrodynamic properties of the flowing fluid within the nozzle as taught by Hertz (see paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 8, Vaschenko teaches the tube member is heated by ohmic heating (conductive layer is provided with an electrical current to produce heat, see paragraph [0079]).
Vaschenko fails to disclose the heating is provided by an electrically conductive coil disposed around an intermediate longitudinal portion of the tube member.
Hertz teaches wrapping a thin resistive wire 11 (e.g. coil) around a nozzle tip (e.g. tube member) to provide a current for heating (see paragraph [0038]). Hertz teaches heating the nozzle is advantageous for maintaining hydrodynamic properties of the flowing fluid within the nozzle (see paragraph [0038]).
Hertz modifies Vaschenko by suggesting coiling a wire around a tube member to provide heating.
Since both inventions are drawn to EUV generation devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Vaschenko by providing a wire around a tube member to provide heating for the purpose of maintaining hydrodynamic properties of the flowing fluid within the nozzle as taught by Hertz (see paragraph [0038]).
It should be noted that it has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. It should be further noted that this applies to all future claims in this action. As such, the wire of Hertz is capable of carrying the RF energy supplied by the current source.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaschenko in view of Dijksman et al. (NL 2011741, hereinafter Dijksman).
Regarding claim 11, Vaschenko discloses the tube member has a first inner diameter at the first fitting (ring shaped ferrule 214, having an aperture with which the capillary tube 200 fits inside, see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0071]; the capillary tube 200 has an inner diameter at the ring shaped ferrule 214, see Fig. 4).
Vaschenko fails to disclose a second inner diameter smaller than the first inner diameter at a longitudinal section between the first fitting and the second fitting.
Dijksman teaches a capillary 61 comprises a damper 67 (damper 67 forms a second inner diameter smaller than a first diameter at a first fitting, see Fig. 7 and paragraph [0096]). Dijksman teaches the damper 67 is advantageous for reducing disturbance of the coalescence process (forming of coalesced droplets) (see paragraph [0096]).
Dijksman modifies Vaschenko by suggesting providing a damper within the capillary tube.
Since both inventions are drawn to EUV generation devices, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify Vaschenko by providing a damper within the capillary tube for the purpose of reducing disturbance of the coalescence process as taught by Dijksman.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 16, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record does not teach, either singularly or on combination, the limitations including the coil comprises a jacket adapted to carry a cooling fluid.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record does not teach, either singularly or on combination, the limitations including an inspection system arranged to inspect the tube member and wherein the inspection system comprises a light source arranged to direct light at the tube member and a sensor arranged to receive light from the light source that has passed through the tube member to determine whether an opaque substance is in the tube member.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record does not teach, either singularly or on combination, the limitations including an inspection system arranged to inspect the tube member and wherein the inspection system is arranged to determine by a variation in inductance or capacitance whether an electrically conductive substance is within the tube member.
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 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878