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 .
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.
(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 1-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowering (U.S.Pat. 7,843,632B2).
With respect to claims 1, 6-8 and 11-14, Bowering discloses an extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) collector (30) for an EUV projection exposure apparatus (col.1, lines 19-25) and configured to guide EUV used light emanating from a source region of an EUV light source (20; see figure 1) and comprising all features of the instant claim such as: at least one reflection surface that is curved to obtain a specified optical power (see figure 12); a plurality of interchangeable reflection surface sections (900a-h) and a plurality of holders (902; see col.10, lines 40-59) assigned to and configured to hold the interchangeable reflection surface sections in collector recesses which are configured complementary to the interchangeable reflection surface sections and are located in the EUV collector, wherein the interchangeable reflection surface section are curved in accordance with the specified optical power.
As to claim 2, wherein the interchangeable reflection surface sections number between 2 and 100 (see col.4, lines 44-48).
As to claims 3-4, wherein the reflection surface of the EUV collector (30) has a surface center, and the interchangeable reflection surface sections are arranged at different distances from the surface center or different circumferential region around the surface center (see figures 7-9).
As to claim 5, wherein the interchangeable reflection surface supports one or more diffracting gratings (see figures 4-5 and col.10, lines 40-59).
As to claims 6-8 and 11-14, it is noted that the EUV collector (30) used in an EUV projection exposure apparatus having a field facet mirror with a plurality of field facets, wherein each of the field facets is configured to image the EUV used light into an object field of the EUV projection exposure apparatus via components of an illumination optical unit, a reticle arranged in the object field, wherein the interchangeable reflection surface sections are configured such that interchange illumination regions of the field facet mirror are fully illuminated in a far field arrangement plane of the field facet mirror via corresponding ones of the interchangeable reflection surface sections (see col.5, lines 59 thru col.6 lines 62 and figures 6-9).
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowering (U.S.Pat. 7,843,632B2) in view of Lansbergen et al (US 2016/0077443 A1).
As to claim 9, Bowering discloses an extreme-ultraviolet (EUV) collector for an EUV projection exposure apparatus and comprising substantially all of the limitations of the instant claim as discussed. Bowering discloses actuators configured to remove and replace the reflection surface sections and thereby implying the need for a tool or mechanism to exchange them during maintenance. Bowering does not specifically disclose “a gripper device” as recited in the instant claim. Lansbergen discloses a gripper-based tool for grasping and handling optical components in a lithographic system. The gripper is configured to grasp the optical components including the ability to overcome mounting forces, such as magnetic or vacuum locking and move components between a system mount and an external station (see col.5-6 and figures 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the gripper device and robotic transfer arm as taught by Lansbergen into the EUV projection exposure apparatus of Bowering to safely and efficiently remove and replace the interchangeable reflection surface of the EUV collector.
With respect to claim 10, Bowering and Lansbergen collectively teach the use of an EUV collector with interchangeable reflection surface sections, a gripper mechanism for grasping the sections and a transfer arm for moving them from the collector to an external location (see Lansbergen paragraphs [0030-0040] ). While neither reference explicitly mentions a “vacuum lock”, Lansbergen discloses that the reticle transfer occurs between a vacuum chamber and an external handling system, which, as known in the art, necessarily requires the use of vacuum locks or load locks to maintain pressure integrity and avoid contamination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include a vacuum lock between the vacuum chamber housing the EUV collector and the external transfer location in order to maintain vacuum integrity during exchange operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 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.
Claims 15-17 have been found allowable since the prior art of record, including Bowering, discloses collector mirrors having multiple reflective facets that may be adjusted in position or orientation relative to a support structure. However, the prior art does not teach or suggest a collector structure in which the reflection surface sections are configured to interchange collector materials or collector coating material or interchange diffractive structures, as recited in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed March 2, 2026 have been carefully reviewed but they are not found persuasive. The applicant is reminded that the claimed subject matter to examination will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and limitations appearing in the specification are not be read into the claims. In re Yamamoto, 740 F. 2d 1569, 1571, 222 USPO 934, 936 (Fed.Cir. 1984). With this in mind, the discussion herein will focus on how the terms and relationships thereof in the claims are met by the references. Response to any limitation that is not in the claims or any argument that is irrelevant to or does not relate to any specific claimed language will not be warranted.
In view of Applicant’s remarks, the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) second paragraph is withdrawn.
Turning now to the prior art rejections, Applicant argues that the facets disclosed in Bowering are not “interchangeable reflection surface sections” asserting that the facets are not physically replaceable. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The claim recites (for example, claim 1) “a plurality of interchangeable reflection surface sections”, but does not recite that the sections must be removable, replaceable or detachable from the collector structure. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification, the term “interchangeable” encompasses reflection surface sections that are capable of performing similar optical functions and whose orientation, position or configuration can be adjusted relative to the collector structure.
Bowering discloses a collector mirror comprising multiple reflective substrates (900a-h) mounted on a support structure and movably mounted via actuators (902a-p) such that each substrate may be adjusted relative to the support structure. Because the reflective substrates may be repositioned and oriented differently via the actuators, the reflective sections are capable of assuming different optical roles in directing light toward the desired focal regions. As such, the reflective substrates of Bowering constitute interchangeable reflection surface sections within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Applicant’s arguments appear to rely on an interpretation that limits the term “interchangeable” to physically replaceable mirror segments. However, such a limitation is not recited in the claim language. It is well established that limitations from the specification may not be imported into the claims during examination. See MPEP 2111; In re Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Therefore, the reflective substrates disclosed by Bowering correspond to the claimed interchangeable reflection surface sections, and the anticipation rejection is maintained.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
3/10/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882