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 .
The amendment filed on November 11, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzmacher et al. [US 20120216681 A1, hereafter Metzmacher] in view of Becker et al. [DE 102014204658 A1, hereafter Becker].
As per Claim 1, Metzmacheran teaches extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography system (Para 2), comprising:
a housing having an interior (Para 2, the housing is not shown but optical components and light source, are in vacuum or least at a very low pressure level),
at least one reflective optical element (optical component 5 may be a collector mirror) disposed within the interior of the housing (See fig. 1, Para 23), and
at least one gas-binding component 4 having a gas-binding material for binding of gaseous contaminating substances present in the interior, wherein the gas-binding component is configured as a foil (Para 23, wherein the foil trap is the component), wherein a coating 8 containing the gas-binding material is applied on at least one side of the foil (See fig. 2, Para 26), and
wherein the foil has a thickness between 1 um and 1 mm (Claim 7).
Metzmacheran further disclosed wherein the gas-binding material is selected from the group consisting of: Ta, Nb, Ti, Zr, Th, Ni, Ru, Rh (Para 17 and 26-27, wherein the coating of the foils 4 of the foil trap with a layer of such a carbon material, in particular a DLC layer 8; and it is worth noting that carbon materials can be attacked chemically by metals such as W, Ta, Ti or Zr to form the respective carbides at high temperatures).
Metzmacheran does not explicitly teach wherein the gas-binding material of the coating is selected from the group consisting of: Ta, Nb, Ti, Zr, Th, Ni, Ru, Rh.
Becker teaches the inner wall of the opening duct may have a coating for reduction of the exit rate of the contaminating substances that contains a material selected from the group comprising: Rh, Ru, Ir, Pt, Ti, Ni, Pd and compounds thereof. For reduction of the entry rate of the activated hydrogen, the coating may contain a material selected from the group comprising: Rh, Ru, Ir, Pt, Ti, Ni, Pd, Al, Cu, Fe and compounds thereof (AAPA Para 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the coating materials as claimed in order to effectively trap contaminating substances.
As per Claim 2, Metzmacheran in view of Becker teaches the EUV lithography system as claimed in claim 1.
Metzmacheran further disclosed wherein the foil contains the gas-binding material (Para 17).
As per Claim 3, Metzmacheran in view of Becker teaches the EUV lithography system as claimed in claim 1.
Metzmacheran further disclosed wherein the coating has a thickness between 1 nm and 10 um (Para 24).
As per Claim 5, Metzmacheran in view of Becker teaches the EUV lithography system as claimed in claim 1.
Metzmacheran further disclosed wherein the foil is a polymer foil or a metal foil (Para 29).
As per Claim 13, Metzmacheran in view of Becker teaches the EUV lithography system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the coating is formed at an interface between the gas-binding component and the interior of the housing (AAPA Para 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the coating materials as claimed in order to effectively trap contaminating substances.
Claim(s) 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzmacher in view of Becker as applied above, further in view of Labetsk et al. [US 20100085547 A1, hereafter Labetsk].
As per Claim 6, Metzmacheran in view of Becker teaches the EUV lithography system as claimed in claim 5.
Metzmacheran further teaches foil trap, carbon nanotubes (CNT) are used as a top film material on the foils 4 of a foil trap. CNT or buckytubes are fibre polymers of carbon with an extremely high thermal conductivity along their tube axis (Para 34).
Metzmacheran in view of Becker does not explicitly teach wherein the polymer foil is a polyimide foil.
Labetsk teaches fuel particulate interceptor 50 may be made from a fuel-resistant material, but at the same time the fuel resistant material should have affinity for the fuel, so that when micro-droplets of the fuel contact a surface of the fuel particulate interceptor, the micro-droplets stick to the surface. In an embodiment, for example, molybdenum may be used as the material for the fuel particulate interceptor 50 (Para 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the specified material in order to attach the particulate interceptor to a desired object more effectively.
As per Claims 7-9, Metzmacheran in view of Becker teaches the EUV lithography system as claimed in claim 1.
Metzmacheran in view of Becker does not explicitly teach wherein the foil is connected to a surface of the housing and/or to at least one surface of at least one component disposed in the interior of the housing.
Labetsk teaches wherein the foil (particulate interceptor 50) is connected to a surface of the housing and/or to at least one surface of at least one component disposed in the interior of the housing (See fig. 5, Para 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the interceptor in the claimed elements in order to prevent buildup of fuel debris that can affect the intended function of elements.
As per Claim 10, Metzmacheran in view of Becker and further in view of Labetsk teaches the EUV lithography system as claimed in claim 9.
Labetsk further disclosed wherein the adhesive layer detachably connects the foil to the surface of the housing and/or to the at least one surface of the at least one component disposed in the interior of the housing (Para 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the interceptor in the claimed elements in order to prevent buildup of fuel debris that can affect the intended function of elements.
As per Claim 11, Metzmacheran in view of Becker and further in view of Labetsk teaches the EUV lithography system as claimed in claim 7.
Labetsk further disclosed wherein the foil is connected by electrostatic attraction to the surface of the housing and/or to the at least one surface of the at least one component disposed in the interior of the housing (Para 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the interceptor in the claimed elements in order to prevent buildup of fuel debris that can affect the intended function of elements.
As per Claim 12, Metzmacheran in view of Becker and further in view of Labetsk teaches the EUV lithography system as claimed in claim 7.
Labetsk further disclosed wherein the component disposed in the interior of the housing forms a casing encapsulating a beam path of the EUV lithography system (See fig. 7 and 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the interceptor in the claimed elements in order to prevent buildup of fuel debris that can affect the intended function of elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection regarding the amended limitation of claim 1 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 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, Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882