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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-17 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/13/26.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“an irradiation position adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a laser irradiation position with respect to the target in a plane being perpendicular to an optical path axis of the pulse laser light entering the first region and intersecting the first region by changing a position or posture of the optical element” in claim 1. This is understood to correspond to the actuator for performing this function disclosed in the specification.
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 § 102
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 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 1-6, 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0284617 A1 [Nishimura].
Regarding Claim 1:
Nishimura discloses an extreme ultraviolet light generation system (abstract) comprising:
a chamber including a first region (Fig. 2 (2));
a target supply unit configured to supply a target to the first region (Fig. 2 (26));
a laser device configured to output pulse laser light (Fig. 2 (3));
an optical system including an optical element configured to guide the pulse laser light to the first region (Fig. 2 (22, 35));
an irradiation position adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a laser irradiation position with respect to the target in a plane being perpendicular to an optical path axis of the pulse laser light entering the first region and intersecting the first region by changing a position or posture of the optical element (paras 61, 136);
an EUV light concentrating mirror configured to reflect EUV light radiated from the first region and concentrate the EUV light to a second region (para 58), and arranged such that the pulse laser light passes outside the EUV light concentrating mirror and is guided to the first region (as shown in Fig. 2, the laser passes through areas outside of the mirror, including a through hole thereof, and to the first region (25));
a plurality of EUV sensors configured to measure radiation energies of the EUV light radiated from the first region in mutually different radiation directions (Fig. 1 (44), paras 159-160); and
a processor configured to control the irradiation position adjustment mechanism as setting a target irradiation position of the pulse laser light to a laser irradiation position away from a reference position (para 315, Fig. 5), at which an average value of the radiation energies measured by the EUV sensors (para 324) is maximized (paras 333-334), in a direction toward the EUV light concentrating mirror (by finding the maximum energy of EUV light in the chamber from multiple sensors, the processor is also maximizing the energy directed toward the mirror).
Regarding Claim 2:
Nishimura discloses the extreme ultraviolet light generation system according to claim 1,
wherein the processor acquires, as an improved irradiation position, a laser irradiation position at which an output energy of the EUV light reaching the second region becomes larger than that when the reference position is irradiated with the pulse laser light, and sets the target irradiation position based on the improved irradiation position. Figs. 5-8 demonstrate the iterative process whereby the output energy becomes larger by moving the laser from the reference position. In that the output energy is larger in the chamber, so to is it larger at the focal point of the second region.
Regarding Claim 3:
Nishimura discloses the extreme ultraviolet light generation system according to claim 2,
wherein the processor irradiates the target with the pulse laser light while changing the laser irradiation position (Fig. 5 (S12, S13)), acquires a measurement result of the output energy at each laser irradiation position (Fig. 5 (S14)), and acquires the improved irradiation position based on the measurement result (Fig. 5 (S18)).
Regarding Claim 4:
Nishimura discloses the extreme ultraviolet light generation system according to claim 2,
wherein the improved irradiation position is the laser irradiation position at which the output energy of the EUV light reaching the second region is maximized. Since the output energy is maximized by the process, so too is the energy incident upon the focal point, i.e., the second region.
Regarding Claim 5:
Nishimura discloses the extreme ultraviolet light generation system according to claim 2,
wherein the processor sets the target irradiation position to a laser irradiation position away from the reference position in a direction toward the improved irradiation position. As shown in Figs. 6 and 7, the processor passes the laser irradiation position at points away from the reference and toward the maximum energy position.
Regarding Claim 6:
Nishimura discloses the extreme ultraviolet light generation system according to claim 5,
wherein the processor sets the target irradiation position to the improved irradiation position when a distance between the reference position and the improved irradiation position is equal to or less than an allowable value, and to a position away from the reference position in the direction toward the improved irradiation position by the allowable value when the distance between the reference position and the improved irradiation position is larger than the allowable value. Paras 341-344.
Regarding Claim 9:
Nishimura discloses the extreme ultraviolet light generation system according to claim 5,
wherein, the processor sets the target irradiation position such that a generation amount of debris derived from the target is equal to or less than an allowable value. Para 376.
Regarding Claim 18:
Nishimura discloses the extreme ultraviolet light generation system according to claim 1, further comprising a prepulse laser device configured to output prepulse laser light to be radiated to the target before the target is irradiated with the pulse laser light (Fig. 2 (3b)),
wherein a position closer to the reference position than the laser irradiation position of the pulse laser light is irradiated with the prepulse laser light (para 222, 232, the first prepulse beam is irradiated to the reference position, whereas the other beams are adjusted. Accordingly, the pulse laser light is irradiated farther from the reference point than the first prepulse light.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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 WYATT A STOFFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0700-1600 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 at 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 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.
WYATT STOFFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881