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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11 August 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-11, 13-14, 16, and 36 are now pending in the application. Claims 4, 6, 8-9, 12, 15, and 17-35 have been canceled. Claim 36 is newly added. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 12 May 2026; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
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: “a gas introduction assembly arranged to introduce a gas” in claim 1.
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. Such corresponding structure(s) is/are: a gas inlet tube, a gas manifold, and a gas plenum, as described in paragraph 15 of Applicant’s Specification.
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 § 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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "the plenum" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-3, 5, 10-11, 13, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGregor et al. (US 6,738,452).
Regarding claim 1, McGregor teaches a droplet generator (50) for generating a stream of droplets (76) of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) source material (col. 3, ln. 8-11), the droplet generator comprising:
a nozzle body (66) having a nozzle orifice (68) adapted to emit a stream of EUV source material in a streamwise direction that breaks up into microdroplets (col. 3, ln. 50, 56-57; fig. 2 – stream of elements 76) that subcoalesce into subcoalesced droplets of EUV source material, the subcoalesced droplets coalescing to coalesced droplets within a coalescence length of the nozzle orifice (see further explanation following the rejection);
a gas introduction assembly (80/78/70/54) arranged to introduce a gas (74) upstream of the nozzle orifice to flow past the nozzle orifice in the streamwise direction (fig. 2); and
a gas tube (56) extending at least the coalescence length (col. 4, ln. 18-25 – the “length of the drift tube 56 is optimized” to allow “droplets 76 to “cool and freeze to the desired size and consistency”, which is considered to be “coalescing” since the droplets are now formed as a recognizable entity) in the streamwise direction away from the nozzle orifice (fig. 2), the gas tube extending parallel to and substantially surrounding at least a portion of a stream path for the stream of droplets of EUV source material (fig. 2), the gas tube being adapted and configured to cause gas in the gas tube to flow in the streamwise direction (fig. 2) and entrain and accelerate the microdroplets, subcoalesced droplets, and coalesced droplets (col. 4, ln. 10-27 – the droplets 76 are formed, or coalesced, within the gas tube 56 due to the pressure and temperature of the carrier gas in the gas tube; the gas tube has an optimized length to ensure that the droplets are frozen to “a desired size and consistency”; therefore, the droplets enter the gas tube 56 unformed, i.e., as microdroplets and subcoalesced droplets, and the droplets leave the gas tube 56 formed, or coalesced, having “a desirable speed, spacing, and size”).
Regarding the limitation “a nozzle orifice adapted to emit a stream of EUV source material in a streamwise direction that breaks up into microdroplets that subcoalesce into subcoalesced droplets of EUV source material, the subcoalesced droplets coalescing to coalesced droplets within a coalescence length of the nozzle orifice”, it is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Further, it is noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II. Therefore, since the structure of McGregor is “substantially identical” to that of the claims, the nozzle orifice of McGregor is considered to meet this limitation.
Regarding claim 2, McGregor teaches the droplet generator described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the gas introduction assembly comprises a gas inlet tube (78), a gas manifold (54) in fluid communication with the gas inlet tube (fig. 2), and a gas plenum (70) in fluid communication with the gas manifold (fig. 2), the gas plenum substantially surrounding the nozzle orifice and a portion of the nozzle body adjacent the nozzle orifice (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, McGregor teaches the droplet generator described regarding claim 2, and further wherein the gas plenum has a generally circular cross section with a diameter tapering in a gas flow direction from an interface with the gas manifold to an interface with the gas tube such that the plenum has a generally frustoconical shape (col. 3, ln. 38-40 and 46-47; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, McGregor teaches the droplet generator described regarding claim 2, and further wherein the gas plenum is configured to cause a circularly symmetric flow of gas starting upstream of and then flowing uniformly past the nozzle orifice (fig. 2; Further, it is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. ).
Regarding claim 10, McGregor teaches the droplet generator described regarding claim 1, and further comprising an adapter mechanically coupled to the nozzle body (col. 3, ln. 48-49) and an actuator (72) mechanically coupled to the adapter (fig. 2), wherein the adapter and actuator are operable to adjust an angular position of the nozzle orifice (col. 3, ln. 49-51).
Regarding claim 11, McGregor teaches the droplet generator described regarding claim 1, and further comprising a gas source (80) in fluid communication with the gas introduction assembly (fig. 2) wherein the gas has a low EUV absorption (col. 3, ln. 60-64 – “helium or argon” and “carrier gas is relatively transparent to the laser beam”).
Regarding claim 13, McGregor teaches the droplet generator described regarding claim 11, and further wherein the plenum is adapted and configured to produce a flow rate of the gas at the nozzle orifice is in a range of about 0.1 slm to about 10 slm. It is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 36, McGregor teaches a droplet generator (50) for generating and accelerating extreme ultraviolet (EUV) source material (col. 3, ln. 8-11), the droplet generator comprising:
a nozzle body (66) having a nozzle orifice (68) adapted and configured to emit in a streamwise direction a stream of EUV source material which breaks up into microdroplets (col. 3, ln. 50, 56-57; fig. 2 – stream of elements 76) which subcoalesce into subcoalesced droplets which in turn coalesce into coalesced droplets within a coalescence length of the nozzle orifice (see further explanation following the rejection);
a gas introduction assembly (80/78/70/54) arranged to introduce a gas (74) upstream of the nozzle orifice to flow past the nozzle orifice in the streamwise direction (fig. 2); and
a gas tube (56) extending in the streamwise direction at least the coalescence length (col. 4, ln. 18-25 – the “length of the drift tube 56 is optimized” to allow “droplets 76 to “cool and freeze to the desired size and consistency”, which is considered to be “coalescing” since the droplets are now formed as a recognizable entity) from the nozzle orifice (fig. 2), parallel to and substantially surrounding at least a portion of a stream path for the stream of EUV source material (fig. 2), the gas tube being adapted and configured to cause gas in the gas tube to flow in the streamwise direction (fig. 2) and entrain and accelerate the microdroplets, subcoalesced droplets, and coalesced droplets (col. 4, ln. 10-27 – the droplets 76 are formed, or coalesced, within the gas tube 56 due to the pressure and temperature of the carrier gas in the gas tube; the gas tube has an optimized length to ensure that the droplets are frozen to “a desired size and consistency”; therefore, the droplets enter the gas tube 56 unformed, i.e., as microdroplets and subcoalesced droplets, and the droplets leave the gas tube 56 formed, or coalesced, having “a desirable speed, spacing, and size”).
Regarding the limitation “a nozzle orifice adapted to emit a stream of EUV source material in a streamwise direction that breaks up into microdroplets that subcoalesce into subcoalesced droplets of EUV source material, the subcoalesced droplets coalescing to coalesced droplets within a coalescence length of the nozzle orifice”, it is noted that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Further, it is noted that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II. Therefore, since the structure of McGregor is “substantially identical” to that of the claims, the nozzle orifice of McGregor is considered to meet this limitation.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor in view of De Dea et al. (WO 2020/225347).
Regarding claim 7, McGregor teaches the droplet generator described regarding claim 2, but not further wherein the gas introduction assembly includes a diffuser positioned between the gas manifold and the gas plenum.
De Dea teaches a droplet generator (410) for generating a stream of droplets of extreme ultraviolet source material (par. 4; fig. 4A), the droplet generator comprising a nozzle body (214) having a nozzle orifice (216), a gas tube (470)a gas introduction assembly having a gas inlet tube (472), a gas manifold (473), and a gas plenum (476), and wherein the gas introduction assembly includes a diffuser (232) positioned between the gas manifold and the gas plenum (par. 80; fig. 4A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the droplet generator of McGregor such that the gas introduction assembly includes a diffuser positioned between the gas manifold and the gas plenum, as taught by De Dea, since this was known to cause the gas flow to be entirely directed in a desired direction (par. 58).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor in view of Haas et al. (US 2002/0051358).
Regarding claim 14, McGregor teaches the droplet generator described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the gas tube comprises a refractory metal.
Haas teaches a droplet generator (22) for generating a stream of droplets of extreme ultraviolet source material (par. 24), the droplet generator comprising a nozzle body (36) having a nozzle orifice (124) and a gas tube (38), wherein the gas tube comprises a refractory metal (par. 69).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the droplet generator of McGregor such that the gas tube comprises a refractory metal, as taught by Haas, since this was known to be an erosion-resistant material (Haas, par. 69).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor in view of Wang et al. (US 5,243,638).
Regarding claim 16, McGregor teaches the droplet generator described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein an internal surface of the gas tube comprises a boron nitride coating.
Wang teaches that a boron nitride coating is a suitable material for making a liquid material feeding structure (6) for a droplet generator (fig. 2) since it has a high melting temperature and is unreactive with the liquid material (col. 3, ln. 27-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the droplet generator of McGregor such that the gas tube comprises a boron nitride coating, as taught by Wand, since this was known to have a high melting temperature and be unreactive with the liquid material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 1 as being anticipated by McGregor have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the arguments do not apply to the interpretation of McGregor being used in the current rejection. Therefore, McGregor is interpreted to teach each and every limitation of amended claim 1, as explained in the rejection above.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that coalescence requires microdroplets and subcoalesced droplets to “combine and merge”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Finally, in response to applicant’s argument that McGregor does not teach that the droplets undergo a “coalescence process”, it is noted that since the structure of the droplet generator of McGregor is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01.I.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 2 as being anticipated by McGregor have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the gas manifold and gas plenum must be separate elements) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 10 as being anticipated by McGregor have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, in response to applicant's argument that McGregor fails to teach that the adapter and actuator are operable to adjust an angular position of the nozzle orifice. In response it is noted that McGregor teaches that the actuator, which is coupled to the nozzle orifice by the adapter, “agitates” the nozzle body 66 in order to produce the stream of droplets. This agitation will cause movement of the nozzle orifice since it is formed in the nozzle body, thus causing its angular position to be adjusted.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 13 as being anticipated by McGregor have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, in response to Applicant’s argument that the recited limitations of the claim have been disregarded, it is noted that these limitations have been considered and given the patentable weight accorded them consistent with guidelines set forth in the MPEP. In order to further distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, Applicant is encouraged to recite the specific structures or features of the plenum that configure it to function as described.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights