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 September 11, 2026, with respect to Rejections of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed September 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1 the applicant argues the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is improper because the claim recite sufficient structure to perform the function. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant fails to recite any specific structure in the claim which would be sufficient for performing the functions. Mere allegation is insufficient for overcoming the interpretation. Claim 1 fails to recite any structure relating to the second optical system or the position detection processing unit, therefore there is insufficient structure to perform the function.
Therefore, the examiner maintains the interpretation.
Applicant's arguments filed September 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding amended 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) Ueno fails to teach the first position detector detects a spot and (2) Ueno fails to teach a position of the spot of the first light detected by the first position detector changes on a sensor plane of the first position detector. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument (1), Applicant appears to take the interpretation that “detect a spot” means something akin to: taking a 2-d image and identifying the spot on the image, since Applicant claims that a photodiode is incapable of detecting a spot. However, this is a narrow interpretation of the limitation, not the broadest reasonable interpretation. As shown in Ueno figure 1, the return light incident on detector 40 is generated by spot 3. If there is no light generated by the spot, the intensity would dip and the detector would then be able to make the determination on the presence of the spot. This is then detecting a spot.
Regarding argument (2), the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a sensor plane” includes interpretations where the sensor is a 2-d array sensor and the plane is the plane of the sensor and where the plane is the 2-d projection of the field-of-view of the sensor. Ueno discloses on page 7 paragraphs 5-7, that the amount of return light is correlated with the target position’s movement. In other words, as the spot moves in the 2-d projection of detector 40’s field-of-view (sensor plane), there is a fluctuation in the return light. Therefore, under the second interpretation of “a sensor plane,” Ueno does disclose “a position of the spot of the first light detected by the first position detector changes on a sensor plane of the first position detector”
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sensor plane must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In newly amended claims 1, 8, and 15 the claims recite “a first optical system configured to use a condenser lens to (i) focus laser light on a target (ii) collect a first light, and (iii) and focus the first light on the first optical system” (emphasis added) and “a second optical system configured to collect a second light and focus the second light on the second optical system” (emphasis added). The specification fails to disclose a condenser lens focusing the first light on the first optical system or the second optical system focusing the second light on the second optical system. Paragraph 0076 discloses that the first light is focused by the first optical system, paragraph 0034 discloses that the first light is focused in the first optical system, and paragraph 0043 discloses the second light is focused by the second optical system. In figure 3, the first optical system 10 uses the condenser lens 110 to focus the first light L1 on the first position detector 11, not on the first optical system. Additionally, figure 3 discloses the second optical system 20 focusing the second light L2 on the second position detector 21.
Claims 2-7 and 21 are dependent on claim 1, claims 9-14 are dependent on claim 8, and claims 16-20 are dependent on claim 15 and are rejected for the same reason.
For the purpose of examination, “focus the first light on the first optical system” and “focus the second light on the second optical system” will be ignored.
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 1-21 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 use a condenser lens to (i) focus laser light on a target (ii) collect a first light, and (iii) and focus the first light on the first optical system” (emphasis added). The first optical system, as claimed, only contained a condenser lens. Additionally, the does not use either “consists of” or “comprises” therefore there is ambiguity if the structure of the claim is intended to be open or closed. Therefore, the claim must be interpreted only as presented, which means the first optical system is only a condenser lens. As such, a condenser lens is incapable of focusing light on itself.
Claims 2-7 and 21 are dependent on claim 1, claims 9-14 are dependent on claim 8, and claims 16-20 are dependent on claim 15 and are rejected for the same reason.
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 1-21 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 use a condenser lens (14) to (i) focus laser light (solid line light incident on 3) on a target (3) (ii) collect a first light (return light), and (iii) and focus the first light on the first optical system (see Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112 and 101), a second optical system (51) configured to collect a second light (dotted line light incident on 52) and focus the second light on the second optical system (see Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112), 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 first position detector is configured to detect a spot (3) of the first light focused by the first optical system (pg. 3 final paragraph; see Response to Arguments), a second position detector is configured to detect a spot (3) of the second light focused by the second optical system (pg. 3 final paragraph; see Response to Arguments), and a position of the spot of the first light detected by the first position detector changes on a sensor plane of the first position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-7; see Response to Arguments)a position detection processing unit (60, 52) configured to detect change of the position of the plasma from change of the spot of the first light detected by the first position detector and 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 7, Ueno discloses wherein the position detection processing unit calculates change of an optical axis of an EUV light optical system for correcting the optical axis of the EUV light optical system that focuses the EUV light based on the detected change of the position of the plasma (pg. 7 para. 5-7).
Regarding claim 8, Ueno teaches a position detection method comprising: a step of a first optical system using a condenser lens (14) to (i) focus laser light (solid line light incident on 3) on a target (3) (ii) collect a first light (return light), and (iii) and focus the first light on the first optical system (see Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112 and 101); a step of detecting by a first position detector, a spot (3) of the first light focused by the first optical system (pg. 3 final paragraph; see Response to Arguments), wherein a position of the spot of the first light detected by the first position detector changes on a sensor plane of the first position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-7; see Response to Arguments); a step of collecting by a second optical system (51), a second light (dotted line light incident on 52) and focusing the second light on the second optical system (see Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112), 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, a spot (3) of the second light focused by the second optical system (pg. 3 final paragraph; see Response to Arguments); and a step of detecting by a position detection processing unit (60, 52), change of the position of the plasma from change of the 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; see Response to Arguments).
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 14, Ueno discloses a step of calculating change of an optical axis of an EUV light optical system for correcting the optical axis of the EUV light optical system that focuses the EUV light based on the change of the position of the plasma detected by the position detection processing unit (pg. 7 para. 5-7).
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 a first optical system using a condenser lens to: (i) focus laser light (solid line light incident on 3) on a target (3) (ii) collect a first light (return light), and (iii) and focus the first light on the first optical system (see Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112 and 101); a step of detecting by a first position detector, a spot (3) of the first light focused by the first optical system (pg. 3 final paragraph; see Response to Arguments), wherein a position of the spot of the first light detected by the first position detector changes on a sensor plane of the first position detector (pg. 7 para. 5-7; see Response to Arguments); a step of collecting by a second optical system (51), a second light (dotted line light incident on 52) and focusing the second light on the second optical system (see Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112), 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, a spot (3) of the second light focused by the second optical system (pg. 3 final paragraph; see Response to Arguments); and a step of detecting by a position detection processing unit (60, 52), change of the position of the plasma from change of the 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; see Response to Arguments)
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.
Regarding claim 21, Ueno discloses wherein the position of the plasma changes on the holding surface holding the target (pg. 6 para. 1; the plasma is produced on the surface of a tin flat plate, either the remaining portions of the tin plate or the surface which supports the tin plate can be the holding surface).
Contact Information
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