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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the applicant argues the interpretation is improper because the second optical system and position detection processing unit recite sufficient structure. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amended claim language recites no structure for the second optical system and position detection processing unit. Applicant fails to make any arguments as to why the claim language provides sufficient structure, merely alleging it does.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the interpretation.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 31 March, 2026, with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 with has been withdrawn. However, the amended claim language which clarifies the 112(b) rejection introduces a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 31 March, 2026, with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Yamamoto et al. EP 1617292 have been fully considered and are persuasive (pg. 11 para. 2). The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1-24, 7-11, and 14-18 with has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 31 March, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15 the applicant argues the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is improper over Ueno JP 2012/147022 because 1) the first light focused on light detector 40 is not a spot and 2) Ueno does not disclose that the detectors 40 and 52 are not able to detect a change in the plasma position. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument 1), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the first optical system focuses the first light into a spot) 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). The claims merely cites that the detection processing unit detects a change of a position of a spot of the first and second light. This does not mean the first and second light are focused into a spot.
Regarding argument 2), as referenced in the first office action, Ueno discloses “there is a correlation between the amount of return light and the position of the laser focusing optical system 14 that the amount of return light increases as the laser focusing optical system 14 approaches the best focus state with respect to the target. Therefore, the positional information of the laser condensing optical system 14 can be obtained by monitoring the amount of return light using this correlation. Therefore, the control unit 60 shown in FIG. 1 controls the position adjustment mechanism 20 based on the amount of return light detected by the return light detector 40” (pg. 7 para. 5) and “Alternatively, the control unit 60 controls the position adjusting mechanism 20 based on the amount of return light detected by the return light detector 40 and the amount of extreme ultraviolet light detected by the EUV light detector 52” (pg. 7 para. 6). Ueno explicitly discloses that they detect a change in position of the plasma spot with detectors 40 and 52.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility. Amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “a first optical system configured to collect first light using a condenser lens to focus laser light on a target and focus the first light on a first position detector” and “the first light and the second light are light generated together with EUV light from plasma generated by irradiating the target with the laser light” or similar language. In other words, the first limitation requires that the condenser lens collects a first light in order to focus a laser light on the target and the second limitation states that the first light is only generated after the laser light is focused on the target. This is contradictory, if the lens collects the first light to focus the laser and the first light is only generated after the laser is focused then the laser will never be focused and the apparatus is inoperable.
Based on Applicant’s remarks, filed 31 March, 2026, it appears applicant intends that the condenser lens has two functions. 1) It focuses the laser light on the target and 2) is collects and focuses the first light. However, the claim is examined as written not as intended. For the purposes of prior art examination, the claim will be interpreted as intended rather than as written.
Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1, claims 9-14 depend on claim 8, and claims 16-20 depend on claim 15 and are rejected for the same reason.
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.
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 second optical system in claim 1, because it uses “system” (MPEP 2181.I.A) coupled with functional language “configured to focus the second light” without citing sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore the “system” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A position detection processing unit in claim 1, because it uses “unit” (MPEP 2181.I.A) coupled with functional language “configured to detect change of a position of the plasma from change of a spot of the first light detected by the first position detector and change of the spot of the second light detected by the second position detector” without citing sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore the “unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Regarding the second optical system, paragraphs 0010-0011, 0017-0018, 0039, and 0088 discloses various embodiments of the second optical system. Thus, for the purpose of examination, the second optical system is interpreted to be a plurality of mirrors (see para. 0010-0011, 0017-0018, 0039, and 0088) and optionally a lens (see para. 0039 and 0088).
Regarding the position detection processing unit, paragraph 0070 discloses "the position detection processing unit 30 may be, for example, an information processing apparatus such as a server apparatus and a personal computer”. Thus, for the purpose of examination, the position detection processing unit is interpreted to be an information processing apparatus such as a server apparatus and a personal computer.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno JP 2012/147022.
Regarding claim 1, Ueno teaches a position detection apparatus (fig. 1) comprising: a first optical system configured to collect first light (return light) using a condenser lens (14) to focus laser light (solid line light incident on 3) on a target (3) and focus the first light on a first position detector (40; pg. 7 para. 5), a second optical system (51) configured to collect second light (dotted line light incident on 52) and focus the second light on a second position detector (52; pg. 7 para. 5-6), wherein: the first light (return light) and the second light (dotted line light incident on 52) are light generated together with EUV light (EUV) from plasma generated by irradiating the target (3) with the laser light focused by the condenser lens (fig. 1; the return light (first light), the EUV light incident on 52 (second light), and the EUV light (EUV) are all generated together during the interaction between the laser light and the target; pg. 3 para. 6-7), the first position detector is configured to detect the first light focused by the first optical system (pg. 3 final paragraph), and the second position detector is configured to detect the second light focused by the second optical system (pg. 3 final paragraph); and a position detection processing unit (60, 52) configured to detect change of a position of the plasma from change of a spot of the first light detected by the first position detector and change of the spot of the second light detected by the second position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-7).
Ueno does not explicitly disclose the second optical system comprising a plurality of mirrors (see Claim Interpretation); however, it has been judiciarily determined that duplication of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). Duplication of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the duplication of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 2, Ueno teaches wherein the first light (pg. 5 para. 4; IR) and the second light (pg. 3 para. 7; EUV) include at least one of EUV light, UV light, visible light and IR light.
Regarding claim 3, Ueno teaches wherein when an optical axis of the condenser lens is defined as a first optical axis (fig. 26 optical axis of 14), the position detection processing unit (30) detects change of the position of the plasma in a direction of the first optical axis and change of the position of the plasma in a direction intersecting with the first optical axis from a position of the spot of the first light detected by the first position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-6).
Regarding claim 4, Ueno teaches wherein when an optical axis of the condenser lens is defined as a first optical axis (fig. 26 optical axis of 14), the position detection processing unit (30) detects change of the position of the plasma in a direction of the first optical axis from a size of the spot of the first light detected by the first position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Ueno teaches wherein when a main optical axis of the EUV light incident on the collector mirror (15) is defined as a second optical axis (optical axis of dotted line), and the position detection processing unit detects change of the position of the plasma in a direction of the second optical axis and change of the position of the plasma in a direction intersecting with the second optical axis from a position of the spot of the second light detected by the second position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-6).
Ueno does not explicitly disclose the second optical system includes a plurality of mirrors (see claim 1 rejection) disposed on a periphery of a collector mirror that reflects the EUV light emitted from the plasma and the second light incident on the plurality of mirrors includes a plurality of light fluxes having optical axes each in a relative symmetry with respect to the second optical axis, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 6, Ueno teaches wherein when a main optical axis of the EUV light incident on the collector mirror (15) is defined as a second optical axis (optical axis of dotted line), and the position detection processing unit detects change of the position of the plasma in a direction of the second optical axis from a size of the spot of the second light detected by the second position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-6).
Ueno does not explicitly disclose the second optical system includes a plurality of mirrors (see claim 1 rejection) disposed on a periphery of a collector mirror that reflects the EUV light emitted from the plasma and the second light incident on the plurality of mirrors includes a plurality of light fluxes having optical axes each in a relative symmetry with respect to the second optical axis, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 8, Ueno teaches a position detection method comprising: a step of collecting by a first optical system, first light (return light) using a condenser lens (14) to focus laser light (solid line light incident on 3) on a target (3) and focusing the first light on a first position detector (40; pg. 7 para. 5); a step of detecting by the first position detector, the first light focused by the first optical system (pg. 3 final paragraph); a step of collecting by a second optical system (51), second light (dotted line light incident on 52) and focusing the second light on a second position detector (52; pg. 7 para. 5-6), wherein: the first light (return light) and the second light (dotted line light incident on 52) are light generated together with EUV light (EUV) from plasma generated by irradiating the target (3) with the laser light focused by the condenser lens (fig. 1; the return light (first light), the EUV light incident on 52 (second light), and the EUV light (EUV) are all generated together during the interaction between the laser light and the target; pg. 3 para. 6-7), a step of detecting by the second position detector, the second light focused by the second optical system (pg. 3 final paragraph); and a step of detecting by a position detection processing unit (60, 52), change of a position of the plasma from change of a spot of the first light detected by the first position detector and change of the spot of the second light detected by the second position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-7).
Ueno does not explicitly disclose the second optical system comprising a plurality of mirrors (see Claim Interpretation); however, it has been judiciarily determined that duplication of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). Duplication of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the duplication of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 9, Ueno teaches wherein the first light (pg. 5 para. 4; IR) and the second light (pg. 3 para. 7; EUV) include at least one of EUV light, UV light, visible light and IR light.
Regarding claim 10, Ueno teaches wherein when an optical axis of the condenser lens is defined as a first optical axis (fig. 26 optical axis of 14), the position detection processing unit (30) detects change of the position of the plasma in a direction of the first optical axis and change of the position of the plasma in a direction intersecting with the first optical axis from a position of the spot of the first light detected by the first position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-6).
Regarding claim 11, Ueno teaches wherein when an optical axis of the condenser lens is defined as a first optical axis (fig. 26 optical axis of 14), the position detection processing unit (30) detects change of the position of the plasma in a direction of the first optical axis from a size of the spot of the first light detected by the first position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-6).
Regarding claim 12, Ueno teaches wherein when a main optical axis of the EUV light incident on the collector mirror (15) is defined as a second optical axis (optical axis of dotted line), and the position detection processing unit detects change of the position of the plasma in a direction of the second optical axis and change of the position of the plasma in a direction intersecting with the second optical axis from a position of the spot of the second light detected by the second position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-6).
Ueno does not explicitly disclose the second optical system includes a plurality of mirrors (see claim 8 rejection) disposed on the periphery of a collector mirror that reflects the EUV light emitted from the plasma and the second light incident on the plurality of mirrors includes a plurality of light fluxes having optical axes each in a relative symmetry with respect to the second optical axis, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 13, Ueno teaches wherein when a main optical axis of the EUV light incident on the collector mirror (15) is defined as a second optical axis (optical axis of dotted line), and the position detection processing unit detects change of the position of the plasma in a direction of the second optical axis from a size of the spot of the second light detected by the second position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-6).
Ueno does not explicitly disclose the second optical system includes a plurality of mirrors (see claim 1 rejection) disposed on the periphery of a collector mirror that reflects the EUV light emitted from the plasma and the second light incident on the plurality of mirrors includes a plurality of light fluxes having optical axes each in a relative symmetry with respect to the second optical axis, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 15, Ueno teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a position detection program (60) for causing a computer to execute: a step of collecting by a first optical system, first light (return light) using a condenser lens (14) to focus laser light (solid line light incident on 3) on a target (3) and focusing the first light on a first position detector (40; pg. 7 para. 5); a step of detecting by the first position detector, the first light focused by the first optical system (pg. 3 final paragraph); a step of collecting by a second optical system (51), second light (dotted line light incident on 52) and focusing the second light on a second position detector (52; pg. 7 para. 5-6), wherein: the first light (return light) and the second light (dotted line light incident on 52) are light generated together with EUV light (EUV) from plasma generated by irradiating the target (3) with the laser light focused by the condenser lens (fig. 1; the return light (first light), the EUV light incident on 52 (second light), and the EUV light (EUV) are all generated together during the interaction between the laser light and the target; pg. 3 para. 6-7), a step of detecting by the second position detector, the second light focused by the second optical system (pg. 3 final paragraph); and a step of detecting by a position detection processing unit (60, 52), change of a position of the plasma from change of a spot of the first light detected by the first position detector and change of the spot of the second light detected by the second position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-7).
Ueno does not explicitly disclose the second optical system comprising a plurality of mirrors (see Claim Interpretation); however, it has been judiciarily determined that duplication of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). Duplication of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the duplication of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 16, Ueno teaches wherein the first light (pg. 5 para. 4; IR) and the second light (pg. 3 para. 7; EUV) include at least one of EUV light, UV light, visible light and IR light.
Regarding claim 17, Ueno teaches wherein when an optical axis of the condenser lens is defined as a first optical axis (fig. 26 optical axis of 14), the position detection processing unit (30) detects change of the position of the plasma in a direction of the first optical axis and change of the position of the plasma in a direction intersecting with the first optical axis from a position of the spot of the first light detected by the first position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-6).
Regarding claim 18, Ueno teaches wherein when an optical axis of the condenser lens is defined as a first optical axis (fig. 26 optical axis of 14), the position detection processing unit (30) detects change of the position of the plasma in a direction of the first optical axis from a size of the spot of the first light detected by the first position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-6).
Regarding claim 19, Ueno teaches wherein when a main optical axis of the EUV light incident on the collector mirror (15) is defined as a second optical axis (optical axis of dotted line), and the position detection processing unit detects change of the position of the plasma in a direction of the second optical axis and change of the position of the plasma in a direction intersecting with the second optical axis from a position of the spot of the second light detected by the second position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-6).
Ueno does not explicitly disclose the second optical system includes a plurality of mirrors (see claim 15 rejection) disposed on a periphery of a collector mirror that reflects the EUV light emitted from the plasma and the second light incident on the plurality of mirrors includes a plurality of light fluxes having optical axes each in a relative symmetry with respect to the second optical axis, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Regarding claim 20, Ueno teaches wherein when a main optical axis of the EUV light incident on the collector mirror (15) is defined as a second optical axis (optical axis of dotted line), and the position detection processing unit detects change of the position of the plasma in a direction of the second optical axis from a size of the spot of the second light detected by the second position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-6).
Ueno does not explicitly disclose the second optical system includes a plurality of mirrors (see claim 1 rejection) disposed on the periphery of a collector mirror that reflects the EUV light emitted from the plasma and the second light incident on the plurality of mirrors includes a plurality of light fluxes having optical axes each in a relative symmetry with respect to the second optical axis, however, it has been judiciarily determined that rearrangement of parts has been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04.IV.C). Rearrangement of parts is insufficient to establish patentability over the prior art of record unless it changes the operation of the device in some unexpected way. Since this device appears to operate in a similar manner to the prior art device, the rearrangement of parts is not of patentable significance.
Conclusion
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 Richard Toohey whose telephone number is (703)756-5818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30am – 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the 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, Uzma Alam can be reached on (571)272-2995. The fax number for the organization where this application or processing 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.
/RICHARD O TOOHEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights