DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed on 10/6/2025, which amended claims 1, 4, 10, 12, 13, and 22, cancelled claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, and 11, and added new claims 23-29. Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-15, and 21-29 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/6/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 14, “is projection lens” should be changed to --is a projection lens-- to correct the missing article.
Appropriate correction is required to place claims in better form.
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, 7, 9, 24, 25, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Dijsseldonk et al. (US PGPub 2002/0011573, Van Dijsseldonk hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Van Dijsseldonk discloses a mirror (Figs. 1-4 and 8, paras. [0033]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], [0054]-[0058], [0071], the lithographic projection apparatus includes active mirrors, such as mirror 40), comprising:
an optical effective surface (Figs. 1-4 and 8, paras. [0033]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], [0054]-[0058], [0068]-[0069], [0071], the mirror 40 includes a reflective surface); and
a mirror substrate comprising a substrate material, the substrate material having a plurality of cavities therein, each cavity being separated from the other cavities by the substrate material (Fig. 8, para. [0071], mirror body 41 includes cavities 46 between walls 47 of the mirror body material),
wherein:
each of the plurality of cavities comprises a fluid conduit (Fig. 8, para. [0071], fluid is supposed to each cavity 46 through respective openings 48);
each of the plurality of cavities is configured to have a fluid applied thereto (Fig. 8, para. [0071], fluid is supposed to each cavity 46 through respective openings 48);
a deformation is transferable to the optical effective surface by varying a fluid pressure in the plurality of cavities (Fig. 8, para. [0071], a control system controls the pressures in the cavities 46 to control the surface shape of the mirror).
Regarding claim 7, Van Dijsseldonk discloses an optical system (Figs. 1-4 and 8, paras. [0033]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], [0054]-[0058], [0068], [0071], the lithographic projection apparatus includes active mirrors, such as mirror 40), comprising:
a mirror according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Figs. 1-4 and 8, paras. [0033]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], [0054]-[0058], [0068], [0071], mirror 40),
wherein the optical system is a microlithographic optical system (Figs. 1-4 and 8, paras. [0033]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], [0054]-[0058], [0068], [0071], the lithographic projection apparatus includes active mirrors
Regarding claim 9, Van Dijsseldonk discloses a method of using a microlithographic projection exposure apparatus comprising a projection lens and an illumination device (Figs. 1-4 and 8, paras. [0033]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], [0054]-[0058], [0068], [0071], the lithographic projection apparatus includes active mirrors in the projection system PL. The lithographic projection apparatus also includes an illumination system IL, and the apparatus forms images of a mask MA on a substate W), the method comprising:
using the illumination device to illuminate a reticle in an object plane of the projection lens (Figs. 1-4 and 8, paras. [0033]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], [0054]-[0058], the illumination system IL illuminates a mask MA); and
using the projection lens to image the illuminated reticle onto a light-sensitive material in an image plane of the projection lens (Figs. 1-4 and 8, paras. [0033]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], [0054]-[0058], the projection system PL projects the image of mask MA onto the resist-coated substrate W),
wherein the microlithographic projection exposure apparatus comprises a mirror according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Figs. 1-4 and 8, paras. [0033]-[0041], [0045]-[0046], [0054]-[0058], [0068], [0071], the lithographic projection apparatus includes active mirrors, such as mirror 40).
Regarding claim 24, Van Dijsseldonk discloses wherein each of the plurality of cavities is pocket-shaped (Fig. 8, para. [0071], mirror body 41 includes cavities 46 between walls 47 of the mirror body material).
Regarding claim 25, Van Dijsseldonk discloses wherein each of the plurality of cavities is defined by a wall formed of the substrate material (Fig. 8, para. [0071], mirror body 41 includes cavities 46 formed between walls 47 of the mirror body material).
Regarding claim 27, Van Dijsseldonk discloses wherein: the substrate comprises a plurality of substrate parts separating the cavities from each other (Fig. 8, para. [0071], mirror body 41 includes cavities 46 and separating walls 47 arranged in a two-dimensional array); and
each cavity is defined by multiple substrate parts (Fig. 8, para. [0071], cavities 46 and separating walls 47 are arranged in a two-dimensional array).
Regarding claim 29, Van Dijsseldonk discloses wherein each of the plurality of cavities is completely surrounded by substrate material (Fig. 8, para. [0071], mirror body 41 includes cavities 46 between walls 47 of the mirror body material).
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 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijsseldonk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Schoot et al. (US PGPub 2014/0340659, Van Schoot hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Van Dijsseldonk does not appear to explicitly describe further comprising a cooling fluid in the cavities, wherein the cavities are configured to have the cooling fluid flow therethrough to absorb heat generated in the mirror substrate due to electromagnetic radiation incident to the optical effective surface during use of the mirror.
Van Schoot discloses a cooling fluid in the cavities, wherein the cavities are configured to have the cooling fluid flow therethrough to absorb heat generated in the mirror substrate due to electromagnetic radiation incident to the optical effective surface during use of the mirror (the limitation “due to electromagnetic radiation incident on the optical effective surface during use of the mirror” recites functional language that describes the manner in which the device is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the claimed mirror from the structure of the mirror disclosed by Van Schoot. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 1, 5-8, [0055]-[0064], temperature control medium flows through the channels in the mirror body, and a temperature control system controls the pressure of the temperature control medium to adjust the temperature as a function of measured deformation or measured optical parameters of an image to correct deformation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a cooling fluid in the cavities, wherein the cavities are configured to have the cooling fluid flow therethrough to absorb heat generated in the mirror substrate due to electromagnetic radiation incident to the optical effective surface during use of the mirror as taught by Van Schoot as the fluid in the cavities in the mirror as taught by Van Dijsseldonk since including a cooling fluid in the cavities, wherein the cavities are configured to have the cooling fluid flow therethrough to absorb heat generated in the mirror substrate due to electromagnetic radiation incident to the optical effective surface during use of the mirror is commonly used to improve thermal control of the mirror to control the deformation as desired (Van Schoot, paras. [0010], [0059]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 21, Van Dijsseldonk does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the plurality of cavities comprises pairs of cavities stacked above one another in a direction of the optical effective surface so that a force component acting along the optical effective surface is generatable by applying different fluid pressures to the cavities of the same pair of cavities.
Van Schoot discloses wherein the plurality of cavities comprises pairs of cavities stacked above one another in a direction of the optical effective surface so that a force component acting along the optical effective surface is generatable by applying different fluid pressures to the cavities of the same pair of cavities (the limitation “so that a force component acting along the optical effective surface is generatable by applying different fluid pressures to the cavities of the same pair of cavities” recites functional language that describes the manner in which the device is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the claimed mirror from the structure of the mirror disclosed by Van Schoot. See MPEP 2114. Figs. 1, 5-8, [0055]-[0065], the channels in the mirror body MB are arranged stacked above each other, and the pressure of temperature control medium through the channels is controlled to correct for deformation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the plurality of cavities comprises pairs of cavities stacked above one another in a direction of the optical effective surface so that a force component acting along the optical effective surface is generatable by applying different fluid pressures to the cavities of the same pair of cavities as taught by Van Schoot as the arrangement of the cavities in the mirror as taught by Van Dijsseldonk since including wherein the plurality of cavities comprises pairs of cavities stacked above one another in a direction of the optical effective surface so that a force component acting along the optical effective surface is generatable by applying different fluid pressures to the cavities of the same pair of cavities is commonly used to improve thermal control over the mirror surface with lower energy consumption to obtain the desired deflection (Van Schoot, paras. [0059]-[0061]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijsseldonk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hazelton et al. (US PGPub 2004/0036940, Hazelton hereinafter).
Regarding claim 23, Van Dijsseldonk does not appear to explicitly describe wherein each of the plurality of cavities has exactly one fluid conduit, and each of the plurality of cavities is configured to have the fluid applied thereto via its exactly one conduit.
Hazelton discloses wherein each of the plurality of cavities has exactly one fluid conduit (Figs. 3A-C, paras. [0026]-[0031], each bladder 330 has a corresponding duct 340 and valve 350), and each of the plurality of cavities is configured to have the fluid applied thereto via its exactly one conduit (Figs. 3A-C, paras. [0026]-[0031], ducts 340 and valves 350 allow adjustment of internal pressure in each respective bladder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein each of the plurality of cavities has exactly one fluid conduit, and each of the plurality of cavities is configured to have the fluid applied thereto via its exactly one conduit as taught by Hazelton as the arrangement of the fluid conduit for the cavities in the mirror as taught by Van Dijsseldonk since including wherein each of the plurality of cavities has exactly one fluid conduit, and each of the plurality of cavities is configured to have the fluid applied thereto via its exactly one conduit is commonly used to allow internal pressure adjustment for each cavity independently (Hazelton, para. [0027]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijsseldonk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kools (US PGPub 2011/0255068).
Regarding claim 26, Van Dijsseldonk does not appear to explicitly describe further comprising a plurality of fluid inlets and a plurality of fluid outlets, each of the plurality of cavities having a corresponding fluid inlet and a corresponding fluid outlet, each of the inlets and outlets being present in an outer perimeter of the substrate.
Kools discloses a plurality of fluid inlets and a plurality of fluid outlets, each of the plurality of cavities having a corresponding fluid inlet and a corresponding fluid outlet, each of the inlets and outlets being present in an outer perimeter of the substrate (Fig. 8, paras. [0036], [0040]-[0042], the mirror module 10 includes cooling channels 100 connected to cooling lines 130A and 130B that extend through the outer perimeter of the mirror module 10 to input and output cooling fluid units 120A and 120B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a plurality of fluid inlets and a plurality of fluid outlets, each of the plurality of cavities having a corresponding fluid inlet and a corresponding fluid outlet, each of the inlets and outlets being present in an outer perimeter of the substrate as taught by Kools for the plurality of cavities in the mirror as taught by Van Dijsseldonk since including a plurality of fluid inlets and a plurality of fluid outlets, each of the plurality of cavities having a corresponding fluid inlet and a corresponding fluid outlet, each of the inlets and outlets being present in an outer perimeter of the substrate is commonly used to provide uniform cooling for the mirror surface as desired (Kools, para. [0042]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijsseldonk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Levesque et al. (WO2020/079169 Levesque hereinafter).
Regarding claim 28, Van Dijsseldonk does not appear to explicitly describe wherein for each cavity: the fluid conduit is present in an outer perimeter of the substrate; along a direction parallel to the outer perimeter of the substrate, the cavity is larger than the fluid conduit.
Levesque discloses wherein for each cavity: the fluid conduit is present in an outer perimeter of the substrate (Figs. 5-7, abstract, pgs. 7-8 of the attached English translation, the canals CA extend through the outer perimeter of substrate Sub of the microfluid device 10);
along a direction parallel to the outer perimeter of the substrate, the cavity is larger than the fluid conduit (Figs. 5-7, abstract, pgs. 7-8 of the attached English translation the chambers CH have larger dimensions than the canals CA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the fluid conduit is present in an outer perimeter of the substrate; along a direction parallel to the outer perimeter of the substrate, the cavity is larger than the fluid conduit as taught by Levesque as the arrangement of the fluid conduits for the cavities in the mirror as taught by Van Dijsseldonk since including for each cavity: the fluid conduit is present in an outer perimeter of the substrate; along a direction parallel to the outer perimeter of the substrate, the cavity is larger than the fluid conduit is commonly used to minimize the space between the cavities to provide the necessary correction of local aberrations (Levesque, pgs. 1 and 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12-15, and 22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious varying the cooling fluid temperature and the cooling fluid pressure depending on a power of a light source that generates the electromagnetic radiation so that first and second parasitic contributions to a deformation of the optical effective surface at least partly compensate one another, wherein the first parasitic contribution is caused by a temperature gradient generated by the cooling fluid in the cooling channel, and the second parasitic contribution is caused by a mechanical pressure transferred from the cooling fluid to the mirror substrate, and wherein the optical system is projection lens of a microlithographic projection exposure apparatus, and wherein varying the cooling fluid temperature and the cooling fluid pressure is at least partly based on a preliminary calibration, and ascertaining the preliminary calibration comprises generating a look up table comprising combinations of values of the power of the light source, the cooling fluid temperature and the cooling fluid pressure that are suitable for the at least partial compensation of the first and second parasitic contributions. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claim 10 render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The dependent claims are likewise allowable by virtue of their dependency upon an allowable independent claim as stated above.
Sogard (US PGPub 2005/0099611) discloses a method for operating an optical system comprising a mirror, the mirror comprising an optical effective surface and a mirror substrate (Figs. 1, 4-5, 8-16, paras. [0028]-[0029], [0038]-[0041], [0054], [0056], [0079], the mirror includes a front surface that reflects EUV illumination and includes a substrate), the mirror substrate having a cooling channel arranged therein, the method comprising: flowing through the cooling channel to absorb heat generated in the mirror substrate due to electromagnetic radiation impinging on the optical effective surface, the cooling fluid having a variable cooling fluid temperature and a variable cooling fluid pressure (Figs. 1, 4-5, 8-16, paras. [0028]-[0029], [0038]-[0041], [0054], [0056], [0073]-[0074], [0076]-[0079], mirror 20, 800, 900 includes coolant channels 30, 815, 915 to flow coolant to absorb heat, and the temperature and the pressure of the coolant is controlled); wherein the optical system is projection lens of a microlithographic projection exposure apparatus (Figs. 1, 4-5, 8-16, paras. [0028]-[0029], [0038]-[0041], [0054], [0056], [0073]-[0074], [0067], [0076]-[0079], the projection optical system 137 in EUV system 110 includes reflective mirrors that include at least one mirror with coolant channels within the mirror). Sogard does not describe or render obvious varying the cooling fluid temperature and the cooling fluid pressure depending on a power of a light source that generates the electromagnetic radiation so that first and second parasitic contributions to a deformation of the optical effective surface at least partly compensate one another, wherein the first parasitic contribution is caused by a temperature gradient generated by the cooling fluid in the cooling channel, and the second parasitic contribution is caused by a mechanical pressure transferred from the cooling fluid to the mirror substrate. Furthermore, Sogard fails to describe or suggest wherein varying the cooling fluid temperature and the cooling fluid pressure is at least partly based on a preliminary calibration, and ascertaining the preliminary calibration comprises generating a look up table comprising combinations of values of the power of the light source, the cooling fluid temperature and the cooling fluid pressure that are suitable for the at least partial compensation of the first and second parasitic contributions.
Dieterich et al. (US PGPub 2013/0003167, Dieterich hereinafter) discloses a method for operating an optical system comprising a mirror, the mirror comprising an optical effective surface and a mirror substrate, the mirror substrate having a cooling channel arranged therein (Figs. 1-7, paras. [0038]-[0044], collector 15 includes a support structure 24 and a reflective shell 25 with a reflective surface), the method comprising: flowing through the cooling channel to absorb heat generated in the mirror substrate due to electromagnetic radiation impinging on the optical effective surface, the cooling fluid having a variable cooling fluid temperature and a variable cooling fluid pressure (Figs. 1, 2, 5, paras. [0038]-[0044], a cooling channel 29 is formed in the support structure 24 of the collector 15. The control 40 controls the flow and temperature of the cooling medium 26 via control over the compressor 35, the control valve 41, and the heat exchanging means 34. The cooling medium controls the temperature distribution of the collector 15 to compensate for the heat load from the EUV radiation source); varying the cooling fluid temperature and the cooling fluid pressure depending on a power of a light source that generates the electromagnetic radiation so that first and second parasitic contributions to a deformation of the optical effective surface at least partly compensate one another (Figs. 1, 2, 5, and 6, paras. [0038]-[0041], [0044], the control 40 controls operation of the compressor 35, the control valve 41, and the heat exchanging means 32 based on input signal 42 characterizing the deformation of the shell based on coolant pressure and temperature to compensate for deformation), wherein the first parasitic contribution is caused by a temperature gradient generated by the cooling fluid in the cooling channel, and the second parasitic contribution is caused by a mechanical pressure transferred from the cooling fluid to the mirror substrate (Figs. 1-6, paras. [0038]-[0041], [0044], the shape deformation mode owing to temperature of coolant over the mirror and the shape deformation mode owing to pressure of the coolant are determined). Dieterich does not describe or render obvious wherein varying the cooling fluid temperature and the cooling fluid pressure is at least partly based on a preliminary calibration, and ascertaining the preliminary calibration comprises generating a look up table comprising combinations of values of the power of the light source, the cooling fluid temperature and the cooling fluid pressure that are suitable for the at least partial compensation of the first and second parasitic contributions.
Although Hazelton et al. (US PGPub 2004/0036940) discloses a look-up table that correlates metrology results with actual performance and corrections to optimize performance (Fig. 1, paras. [0023]-[0024]), upon further consideration in view of the Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-8 filed 10/6/2025, Hazelton fails to describe or render obvious wherein varying the cooling fluid temperature and the cooling fluid pressure is at least partly based on a preliminary calibration, and ascertaining the preliminary calibration comprises generating a look up table comprising combinations of values of the power of the light source, the cooling fluid temperature and the cooling fluid pressure that are suitable for the at least partial compensation of the first and second parasitic contributions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 10/6/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §§112(a), 112(b), and 103 rejections of claims 17-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the cancellation of the claims. The rejections of claims 17-19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 7, 9, and 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.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 10/6/2025, with respect to the rejection of the subject matter of amended claim 10 as being unobvious over Sogard in view of Dieterich in view of Hazelton have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsukada (JP 2000-221421) discloses a driving system for rotating mirrors using air pressure actuators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571)272-2303. 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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882