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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings with 9 Sheets of Figs. 1-17 received on 3/21/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
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 1-12, as best understood, 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.
Claim 1 recites “and layers arranged between the first layer and a second layer” in lines 9-10. It is not clear whether “layers” refer to the first layer or whether they refer to other additional layers between the first and second layers in a stack. From the current specification (para 41), it appears that there are additional layers between the first and second layers. For the purposes of examination, “layers” in line 9 are interpreted to be other additional layers between the first and second layers.
Claims 2-12 are dependent on claim 1 and hence inherit its deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,4-8,11,12, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al (US 2001/0033421 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Murakami teaches (fig 1b, fig 4, fig 7, working example 4 is the embodiment being utilized, fig 15) a method of producing a reflective optical element (multi-layered film 1, para 57, fig 1b, multi-layered mirror 70, fig 7) for an extreme ultraviolet wavelength range (“soft X-ray region light (EUV light)”, para 168) comprising:
forming a reflective coating (multi-layered film 3, para 57,58, fig 1b, also as in fig 7) on a substrate (substrate 2, para 57, fig 1b, 71, fig 7), wherein the reflective coating comprises:
a multilayer system (multi-layered film 3, para 57,58, fig 1b, also as in fig 7) having optical function (mirror function),
wherein the multilayer system (multi-layered film 3, para 57,58, fig 1b, also as in fig 7) comprises mutually alternating layers (alternating layers of 31 and 32, para 57, “the layer 31 has a three-layer structure consisting of a layer 311 of substance A (311(A)) and layers 312 of substance C (312(C))”, para 58, taking layer Mo/layer 311A and Si/layer 32 as alternating layers, para 59, fig 1b, “single Ru layer 72B between two Mo layers 72A. The number of layers was fifty pairs. Prior to forming the Ru layer 72B or the Si layer 73 upon the Mo layer 72A”, para 195, fig 7) of at least two different materials (Mo/Si, para 57) with different real parts of a refractive index for each of the at least two different materials (Mo/Si have different refractive indices) at a wavelength in the extreme ultraviolet wavelength range (“soft X-ray region light (EUV light)”, para 168),
wherein the multilayer system (multi-layered film 3, para 57,58, fig 1b, also as in fig 7) comprises 50-layer stacks (The number of layers was fifty pairs”, para 195),
wherein each layer stack comprises a first layer (layer 311A, para 58, fig 1b, Mo layer 72A, para 195, fig 7) comprised of one of the at least two different materials (Molybdenum Mo, para 59) ) and layers (layers 312 C, para 58, fig 1b, layer 72B RU layer, para 195, fig 7) arranged between the first layer (layer 311A, para 58, fig 1b, Mo layer 72A, para 195, fig 7) and a second layer (layer 32 or layer 32B, para 58, fig 1b, Si layer 73, para 195, fig 7),
wherein the second layer (layer 32 or layer 32B, para 58, fig 1b, Si layer 73, para 195, fig 7) is a closest layer to the first layer (layer 311A, para 58, fig 1b, Mo layer 72A, para 195, fig 7) with increasing distance from the substrate (substrate 2, para 57, fig 1b, 71, fig 7) comprised of the one of the at least two different materials (Si; “Si as substance B”, para 59)
and
polishing (ion beam polishing, para 126, “Prior to forming the Ru layer 72B or the Si layer 73 upon the Mo layer 72A, the Mo layer 72 surface was irradiated by an Ar ion beam”, para 195) at least one layer of the multilayer system (multi-layered film 3, para 57,58) such that in the reflective optical element, roughness rises significantly less over all layers than in a corresponding reflective optical element with a reflective coating composed of a multilayer system of unpolished layers (“Internal stress of the multi-layered mirror 70 was about 75 MPa (compressive stress). In contrast, a fifty pair Mo/Si multi-layered mirror (25 A^0, thick Mo layer, 47.5A^0 thick Si layer) without ion beam irradiation had an internal stress of 306 MPa (compressive stress)”, para 196), (“if ion beam polishing is carried out in the above mentioned manner after formation of each layer, the roughness component that arises during film formation can be removed by ion beam polishing, and thus the RMS roughness value can be decreased below 0.3 nm for the film surface after film formation”, para 128).
However, embodiment of figs 1b, 7 of Murakami does not teach a multilayer system comprises more than 50 layer stacks.
Embodiment of fig 9 of Murakami and embodiment of figs 1b,7 of Murakami are related as multilayered mirrors.
Embodiment of fig 9 of Murakami teaches
multilayer system (multi-layered film, para 197) comprises more than 50 layer stacks (300 pairs, para 198).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayered system of embodiment of fig 1b,7 of Murakami to include the more than 50 layer stack of embodiment of fig 9 of Murakami for the purpose of internal stress can be lowered by increasing the number of layers (para 55).
Regarding Claim 2, Murakami teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein a first material of the at least two different materials comprises molybdenum (Mo layer 311A, para 59, Mo layer 72A, para 195) and a second material of the at least two different materials comprises silicon (Si layer 32, para 58, Si layer 73, para 195).
Regarding Claim 4, Murakami teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the polishing (ion beam polishing, para 126, “Prior to forming the Ru layer 72B or the Si layer 73 upon the Mo layer 72A, the Mo layer 72 surface was irradiated by an Ar ion beam”, para 195) comprises polishing one layer in each layer stack (Mo layer 72 was irradiated, hence ion beam polished).
Regarding Claim 5, Murakami teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the polishing (ion beam polishing, para 126, “Prior to forming the Ru layer 72B or the Si layer 73 upon the Mo layer 72A, the Mo layer 72 surface was irradiated by an Ar ion beam”, para 195) comprises polishing every layer (“ion beam polishing may be carried out for both of the constituent layers of the alternating multi-layered film”, para 153) of the multilayer system.
Regarding Claim 6, Murakami teaches the method of claim 1.
However, embodiment of figs 1b, 7 of Murakami does not teach a multilayer system comprises more than 50 layer stacks.
Embodiment of fig 9 of Murakami and embodiment of figs 1b,7 of Murakami are related as multilayered mirrors.
Embodiment of fig 9 of Murakami teaches
multilayer system (multi-layered film, para 197) comprises more than 50 layer stacks (300 pairs, para 198)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayered system of embodiment of fig 1b,7 of Murakami to include the more than 50 layer stack of embodiment of fig 9 of Murakami for the purpose of internal stress can be lowered by increasing the number of layers (para 55).
However, Murakami does not teach
wherein forming the reflective coating comprises forming 55 to 70 layer stacks. MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of number of layer stacks, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0048] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 55 to 70 layers stacks. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Murakami to have the claimed range of number of layer stacks for the purposes of a wider range of decreasing the internal stress of the layers.
Regarding Claim 7, Murakami teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the polishing comprises one or more of ion-assisted polishing (ion beam polishing, para 126), reactive ion-assisted polishing, plasma-assisted polishing, reactive plasma-assisted polishing, bias plasma-assisted polishing, polishing via magnetron atomization with pulsed DC current, or atomic layer polishing.
Regarding Claim 8, Murakami teaches the reflective optical element (multi-layered film 1, para 57, fig 1b, multi-layered mirror 70, fig 7), produced by the method of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Murakami teaches the reflective optical element of claim 8,
wherein the layers of the multilayer system (multi-layered film 3, para 57,58, fig 1b, also as in fig 7) have a constant roughness (polishing is preferably carried out so that sigma_int-sigma_sub <0.2nm, where sigma_sub is an RMS value of surface roughness of the substrate”, para 126) or a roughness that decreases in a direction facing away from the substrate.
Regarding Claim 12, Murakami teaches the reflective optical element of claim 8,
wherein the reflective optical element (multi-layered film 1, para 57, fig 1b, multi-layered mirror 70, fig 7) has a roughness of less than 0.3 nm (para 126).
However, Murakami does not teach roughness of not more than 0.2 nm.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of roughness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0049] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses less than 0.3nm. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Murakami to have the claimed range of roughness for the purposes of high reflectivity (para 130, Murakami).
Claim(s) 3,9,10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al (US 2001/0033421 A1, of record) in view of Weber et al (US 2012/0013976 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Murakami teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Murakami does not teach
wherein forming the reflective coating comprises choosing layer thicknesses of layers of the multilayer system such that a thickness of at least one layer of one of the at least two different materials in at least one layer stack differs by more than 10% from a thickness of a layer of a same material in one or more adjacent layer stacks.
Murakami and Weber are related as multilayer systems used in EUV light.
Weber teaches (fig 2),
wherein forming the reflective coating (multi-layer system 4, para 39) comprises choosing layer thicknesses of layers (layers 41,42) of the multilayer system such that a thickness of at least one layer (layer 41, para 39) of one of the at least two different materials in at least one layer stack differs by more than 10% from a thickness of a layer of a same material (layer 41, para 39) in one or more adjacent layer stacks (as seen in fig 2, thickness of layer 41 in the two stacks of (41,42) is differing by more than 10%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of one of the layers of the multilayered system of Murakami to differ by more than 10% of an adjacent stack of Weber for the purpose of creating a desired reflection profile (para 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Murakami teaches the reflective optical element of claim 8.
However, Murakami does not teach
comprising two layer stacks in which a thickness of a layer of one of the at least two different materials differs by more than 10% from a thickness of a layer of the one of the at least two different materials in an adjacent layer stack.
Murakami and Weber are related as multilayer systems used in EUV light.
Weber teaches (fig 2),
comprising two layer stacks (stacks of layers 41,42 at the top, fig 2) in which a thickness of a layer of one of the at least two different materials (layer 41, para 39) differs by more than 10% from a thickness of a layer of the one of the at least two different materials (layer 41, para 39) in an adjacent layer stack (as seen in fig 2, thickness of layer 41 in the two stacks of (41,42) is differing by more than 10%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of one of the layers of the multilayered system of Murakami to differ by more than 10% of an adjacent stack of Weber for the purpose of creating a desired reflection profile (para 4).
Regarding Claim 10, Murakami teaches the reflective optical element of claim 8.
However, Murakami does not teach
wherein at least half of all the layer stacks have at least one thickness of a layer of one of the at least two different materials that differs by more than 10% from a thickness of a layer of the one of the at least two different materials in an adjacent layer stack.
Murakami and Weber are related as multilayer systems used in EUV light.
Weber teaches (fig 2),
wherein at least half of all the layer stacks (two stacks of layers 41,42 at the top, fig 2) have at least one thickness of a layer of one of the at least two different materials (layer 41, para 39) that differs by more than 10% from a thickness of a layer of the one of the at least two different materials (layer 41, para 39) in an adjacent layer stack (as seen in fig 2, thickness of layer 41 in the two stacks of (41,42) is differing by more than 10%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of one of the layers of half the layer stacks of multilayered system of Murakami to differ by more than 10% of an adjacent stack of Weber for the purpose of creating a desired reflection profile (para 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 11/25/2025