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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s amendments to claims to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112, since all previous claims were cancelled, the rejection is moot. However, the new claims contain similar language that raise the same issues as previously presented.
With respect to the applicants’ arguments regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hill U.S. Patent #7,126,687, the arguments are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Hill fails to disclose a droplet generator, instead only a nozzle. However, the aerosol concentrator of Hill does more than just redirect existing particles, but rather times and concentrates them as necessary. The limitation discloses only that the droplet generator “generate a stream of droplets” not that it must produce the droplets out of thin air. The nozzle of Hill does in fact output “a stream of droplets”.
With respect to applicants’ arguments that Hill fails to disclose a beam dump “arranged to receive stray light from the detection system” (in claim 91), the examiner is not persuaded. Stray light in a system is dangerous because it reflects off of every and any surface. The beam dump of Hill does in fact block light some of the light from reaching the detection system as noted by applicant, thereby receiving stray light “from the detection system”, that is essentially robbing it from the detection system. This is likewise described with respect to applicants’ beam dump in Figure 6.
With respect to the argument that Hill is non analogous art, this argument is only relevant with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103. Hill is a reference under a rejection under 35 USC 102. If the art contains all of the limitations, regardless of whether the intentions are the same, the reference reads on the claim. Arguendo if Hill were to be used in a rejection under 35 USC 103 and with respect to Wang which is used as a reference under 35 USC 103, the examiner believes both Hill and Wang to be in within the same field of endeavor, a field interested in optically characterizing droplets for size and shape. The current inventors when seeking to solve the problem of calibrating droplets for an EUV source would look to the area of droplet measurement, in which Hill is found, in order to measure their own droplets of target material. Nonetheless, as noted above, the current claims are not actually limited to EUV radiation generation anyway.
With respect to the applicants’ arguments that the placement of the source, detector, and beam dump are variables is not persuasive. Rearranging of parts has been ruled to require only routine skill in the art if the results are predictable (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70) In this case, locating the source, detector, and beam dump in locations where it is desired to measure and block certain scattering angles is within ordinary skill. Unless the specific claimed angles were surprising or previously not done for some other nonobvious reason, the specific angles at which the structure is placed is within ordinary skill.
With respect to Wang in view Trainer, the applicant argues again the Trainer is non analogous art. The examiner disagrees as Trainer, like Wang and Hill, is interested in optically measuring droplets in order to categorize them by size.
The multi-element detector of Trainer acts as beam dump as it collects a certain amount of light, preventing it from continuing to exist in the system.
For all these reasons, the rejection is rewritten in light of the new claims as below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 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.
With respect to claims 89, 97, 98, and 107, the claims disclose an apparatus “for generating extreme ultraviolet radiation by converting an EUV target material” and a method for doing so however fails to actually disclose steps or structure to achieve this result. The generic illumination of droplets does not result in EUV radiation. There is missing essential subject matter not claimed but is required in order to achieve the preamble’s claim. The limitation “ the EUV target material” is a label on the particles with respect to the future intended use and cannot structurally limit the claims since the future use of the particles is not a structural limitation on the droplet generator. All claims that depend upon claims 89, 97, 98, and 107 are likewise rejected for failing to correct the deficiency.
With respect to claim 95, the limitations are a duplicate of claim 93 and fail to add any further limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 89-92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill U.S. Patent #7,126,687.
With respect to claim 89, Hill discloses a comprising:
A chamber (Figure 1, chamber = airtight box 116)
A droplet generator adapted and configured to generate a stream of droplets of the target material traveling along a trajectory (Figure 1, aerosol concentrator 110, Col.7, l 9-16)
An illumination system arranged to illuminate a droplet of the stream of droplets at position along the trajectory with a beam of radiation (Figure 1, probe laser 150, Col.7, l 36-38, nozzle = 120)
A detection system arranged to receive and adapted to detect radiation which has been side scattered by the droplet when the droplet passes through the position (Col.7, l 43-45, Col.10, l 61-66)
It should be noted that the phrase “EUV target material” is a just a label regarding the intended use of the particles and cannot structurally affect the limitations.
With respect to claim 90, 91, 92, Hill discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 51 above. In addition, Hill discloses:
90, - The illumination system comprises a laser (Col.7, l 36-37)
91- Comprising a beam dump arranged to receive stray light from the detection system (Col.9, l 4-, beam dump = beam stop 220)
92- stray light control system positioned parallel to an optical axis of at least one of the illumination system and the detection system to impede propagation of stray light (Figure 1, Col.8, l 8-10, stray light control system = airtight box 116, wherein some of the side walls of the box are parallel to optical axis of probe laser 150 and detector 190, optical axis goes left to right across page in Figure 1)
Claim(s) 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 96, 107, 108, and 110 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. U.S. Patent #8,534,116.
With respect to claim 89, Wang discloses a comprising:
A chamber (Figure 1, optics chamber 324)
A droplet generator adapted and configured to generate a stream of droplets of the target material traveling along a trajectory (Figure 1, adjustable inlet portion 306, Col.4, l 55-60)
An illumination system arranged to illuminate a droplet of the stream of droplets at a position along the trajectory with a beam of radiation (Figure 1 and 2, illumination system = light source 426, droplet = particles 472, nozzle = inlet nozzle 407, irradiation region = interrogation volume 438, Col.7, l 50-52)
A detection system arranged to receive and adapted to detect radiation which has been side scattered by the droplet as the droplet passes through the position (Figure 2, detection system = detectors 434a and 434b, Col.6, l 20-23)
It should be noted that the phrase “EUV target material” is a just a label regarding the intended use of the particles and cannot structurally affect the limitations.
With respect to claims 90, 91, 92, 94, and 96, Wang discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 51 above. In addition, Wang discloses:
90- The illumination system comprises a laser (Col.7, l 57-59, diode laser)
91- Comprising a beam dump arranged to receive stray light from the detection system (Figure 2, beam dump = light trap 430)
92- stray light control system positioned parallel to an optical axis of at least one of the illumination system and the detection system to impede propagation of stray light (Figure 2, stray light control system = optics chamber 424, wherein the top and bottom walls are parallel to the optical axis of the detection system both of which are drawn horizontally across figure)
94- a beam dump arranged to terminate and absorb stray light, the stray light being light not scattered by the droplet but instead scattered by surfaces within the chamber (Figure 2, beam dump = 430, wherein inherent that some of the collected light will be scattered by the internal surfaces)
96- wherein an optical axis of the illumination system forms an angle of not less than 25° and not greater than 90° with an optical axis of the detection system (Figure 2, wherein the angle between the illumination system optical axis line 428 and the detection system optical axis line 444 is about 45°)
With respect to claim 107, Wang discloses comprising:
Using a droplet generator to generate a stream of droplets of the EUC target material traveling along a trajectory (Figure 1 and 2, droplet generator = inlet sample conditioner 316, Col.5, l 60-67)
Illuminating with a beam of radiation a position in a trajectory of the droplet between a droplet generator and an irradiation region (Col.8, l 22-28, droplet generator = inlet nozzle 407, irradiation region = interrogation region 438)
Detecting radiation from the beam side scattered by the droplet when the droplet traverses the position (Col.8, l 28-32)
Determining a characteristic of the droplet based at least in part on the radiation side scattered by the droplet and generating a detection signal indicative of the determined characteristic (Col.8, l 28-38)
Tuning operation of the droplet generator based at least in part on the determined characteristic (Col.5, l 60-67, “during the course of measurement”, Figure 1 shows connecting communication arrow between digital processor and adjustable inlet sample conditioner control)
With respect to claim 108 and 110, Wang discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 107 above. In addition, Wang discloses:
108, 110- Determining a characteristic of the droplet comprises determining the droplet’s size (Col7, l 43-46, light detector adapted to measure pulse height, Col.8, ,l 34-37, Col.3, l 4-5, pulse height equivalent to particle optical equivalent size)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 109 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. U.S. Patent #8,534,116.
With respect to claim 98, Wang discloses:
A chamber (Figure 2, chamber = optics chamber 424)
A droplet generator adapted and configured to (Figure 1, adjustable inlet portion 306, Col.4, l 55-60)
An illumination system arranged to illuminate with a beam of radiation a position in a trajectory of the droplet, the illumination system arranged at a first aperture (Figure 2, illumination system = light source 426, nozzle = inlet nozzle 407, aperture = optics chamber 424, inherent that the optics chamber must have a transparent opening in the coating to allow light in from the source, Col.6, l 24-27)
A detection system arranged at a second aperture to receive radiation side scattered by the droplet when the droplet traverse the position (Figure 2, detection system = 434a, 434b, aperture = open side of chamber 424)
However, Wang fails to disclose a tube like element arranged circumferentially around the position and that the apertures are in the tube like elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the optics chamber of Wang into a tube shape. The tube shape doesn’t appear to be for any defined purpose and it is well known in the art that a tube shape allows reflection of scattered light more evenly than a box or other shape. Selecting a tube-like element, or cylinder, for the housing of Wang would be a design choice obvious to those in the art for all the benefits of a cylinder over hard corners such as space and material savings.
With respect to claims 99, 100, 104, 105, Wang discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 60 above. In addition, Wang discloses:
99- The droplet of target material is part of a stream of droplets of target material (Figure 2, incoming stream 470, Col. 8, l 17-19)
99- The element at least partially circumferentially surrounding a portion of the stream (Figure 2, optical chamber 424 at least partially surrounds 470)
100- the illumination system comprises a laser (Col.7, l 57-59, diode laser)
104- the detection system is a first detection system and further comprising a second detection system circumferentially displaced from the first detection system along a circumference of the tube-like element (Figure 2, first detection system = detector 1 434a, second detection system = detector 2 434b, wherein the tube-like element explained with respect to claim 60 above)
105- the first detection system is adapted to detect radiation having a first characteristic and wherein the second detection system is adapted to detect radiation having a second characteristic wherein the first characteristic is a first wavelength and a second characteristic is a second wavelength (Col.7, l 9-12, 19-22)
With respect to claim 101 and 102, Wang discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 98 and 93 above. However, Wang fails to disclose the first optical axis of the illumination system and the second optical axis of the detection system are orthogonal. Additionally, Wang fails to disclose the beam dump is spaced away from the position of illumination of the particle in the opposite direction as the detector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to place the illumination system and detection system orthogonal to each other as well as to place the beam dump on the opposite detector since these are both result effective variables. The placement of the source and detector and beam dump are all variables that are generally determined by the type of scatter angles that are desired to be collected. One of ordinary skill in the art is capable of selecting the locations of these elements based upon the desired outcome. Rearranging parts involves only routine skill in the art.
Additionally, it should be noted that orthogonal placement of the detector and illumination source is an obvious variant of the previously claimed angles in claim 59.
With respect to claim 103, Wang discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 101 above. In addition, Wang discloses:
A first plurality of stray light containment structures positioned along the second optical axis between the detector and the position (Figure 2, side walls of 424 act as stray light containment structures, “inner surface of optics chamber 324 may be coated with a black or high absorptivity coating”)
With respect to claim 106 and 109, Wang discloses all of the limitations as described with respect to claims 104 and 107 above. However, Wang fails to disclose the first and second characteristics are polarization or measuring a particle’s trajectory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to measure different polarizations rather than or in addition to the different wavelengths as measured by Wang since comparing scattered light from particles at different polarizations is well known in the art and the measurement of different polarizations is art equivalent to measuring different wavelengths. In the art of light measurement, contrasting two variables, in this case such as wavelength or polarization, allows for a wider field of data collected from a single measurement instance. The examiner is taking official notice that measuring different polarizations is well known. Furthermore, evidence can be found in U.S. Patent #10,942,106, Figure 14 which expressly discloses the benefit of measuring different polarizations from scattering light to determine shape of droplets.
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to measure a particle’s trajectory since knowing where a particle is going is a useful additional data mark and can be helpful for determining particle size and shape. This is well known in the art and the examiner takes official notice of its fact. Furthermore, evidence can be found in U.S. Patent #10,172,224 that discloses measuring trajectory of a droplet from scattered light and using it for determining diameter of the droplet.
Claim(s) 93, 95, and 97, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. U.S. Patent #8,534,116 in view of Trainer U.S. Publication 2016/0202164.
With respect to claims 93, 95, and 97, Wang discloses all of the limitations as applied to claim 91, 95, and 96 above. However, Wang fails to disclose the beam dump comprises a sensor arranged to measure stray light, generate a signal of the stray light characteristic, and the electronics system generating an indication of the presence of the droplet based on a homodyne method using the detection signal and the stray light signal.
Trainer discloses a method and apparatus for determining characteristics of particles from scattered light comprising:
An illumination system arranged to illuminate with a beam of radiation a position in a trajectory of the droplet (Figure 74, light source, trajectory of the droplet = sample cell)
A detection system arranged to receive an adapted to detect radiation side scattered by the droplet when the droplet traverses the position (Figure 74, detector, and detector 1C, collects scattering through lenses 7408 and 7407, lenses used for identification of detectors since the detectors are not labeled well themselves, P.0377)
A beam dump arranged to receive stray light from the detection system (Figure 74, beam dump = multi-element detector A, Figure 77, source light capture = stray light)
The beam dump comprises a sensor arranged to measure a characteristic of stray light and adapted to generate a stray light signal indicative of the characteristic (Figure 74, multi-element detector A, P.0377, P.0379, P.0424)
An electronics system arranged to receive a detection signal from the detection system, the electronics system being configured to generate an indication of the presence of the droplet at the position based on a homodyne method using the detection signal and the stray light signal (P.0377, P.0391)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the unscattered light measurement of Trainer to compare with the scattered light measurement of Trainer and Wang in order to determine a characteristic of a particle since the unscattered light gives context to the scattered light intensity. As taught by Trainer, the unscattered light together with the scattered light is used to determine dimensions of the particle (P.0379)
Citation
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 REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights