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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiolka et al. (US 2011/0122392 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Fiolka et al. discloses an optical component group comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-5):
a first reflective component 14 (denoted “pupil facet mirror”, see e.g. paragraph [0068], Figures 1-5) having a first reflection layer system (i.e. the distribution of wires/pupil facets 20a-d on component 14);
a second reflective 14/30b (see e.g. paragraphs [0096]-[0098] were it is noted that a polarization element changeable holder may be used with a different arrangement of wires/pupil facets) and where it is noted that that component having a second reflection layer system i.e. the distribution of wires/pupil facets 20a-d on component 14);
wherein the first reflective component 14 and the second reflective component 14/30b have respective optically effective surfaces that correspond mutually in geometry (see e.g. Figure 1-8 and paragraphs [0096]-[0098] where the components must have a similar geometry in order to be interchangeable);
wherein spectral reflection profiles (r1s (λ), r1p (λ)) of the first reflection layer system differ from corresponding spectral reflection profiles (r2s (λ), r2p (λ)) of the second reflection layer system for a given wavelength interval and a given angle of incidence of incident electromagnetic radiation, the spectral reflection profiles of the first reflection layer system describing respective wavelength dependences of the reflectivity for s-polarized radiation and p-polarized radiation (see e.g. paragraphs [0096]-[0098] and Figures 2, 6, 7 for different distributions and thus different reflection profiles).
Fiolka et al. fails to explicitly disclose
wherein a wavelength λ0 exists as a mean wavelength in a given wavelength interval [(λ0-Δλ0/2), ([(λ0+Δλ0/2)] of width Δλ0 such that the first reflection layer system satisfies the following conditions:
(λ0- Δλ0/2) ≥ λ1sl , (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≤ λ1sr, and
(λ0- Δλ0/2) ≤ λ1pl, (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≥ λ1pr,
where, in the reflection profiles (r1s (λ), r1p (λ)) of the first reflection layer system, λ1sl and λ1pl denoted the shortest wavelengths and λ1sr and λ1pr denote the longest wavelengths for which in each case s- and p-polarized radiation, respectively, is reflected with a reflectivity of at least 50% of a maximum reflectivity.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a wavelength λ0 exists as a mean wavelength in a given wavelength interval [(λ0-Δλ0/2), ([(λ0+Δλ0/2)] of width Δλ0 such that the first reflection layer system satisfies the following conditions: (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≥ λ1sl , (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≤ λ1sr, and (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≤ λ1pl, (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≥ λ1pr, where, in the reflection profiles (r1s (λ), r1p (λ)) of the first reflection layer system, λ1sl and λ1pl denoted the shortest wavelengths and λ1sr and λ1pr denote the longest wavelengths for which in each case s- and p-polarized radiation, respectively, is reflected with a reflectivity of at least 50% of a maximum reflectivity, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fiolka et al. with wherein a wavelength λ0 exists as a mean wavelength in a given wavelength interval [(λ0-Δλ0/2), ([(λ0+Δλ0/2)] of width Δλ0 such that the first reflection layer system satisfies the following conditions: (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≥ λ1sl , (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≤ λ1sr, and (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≤ λ1pl, (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≥ λ1pr, where, in the reflection profiles (r1s (λ), r1p (λ)) of the first reflection layer system, λ1sl and λ1pl denoted the shortest wavelengths and λ1sr and λ1pr denote the longest wavelengths for which in each case s- and p-polarized radiation, respectively, is reflected with a reflectivity of at least 50% of a maximum reflectivity.
When using the optical component group within a microlithography application the imaging of structures in the object field can be achieved in a structure-dependent manner (see e.g. paragraph [0007] of Fiolka et al.).
In regard to claim 2, Fiolka et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a wavelength λ0 exists as a mean wavelength in a given wavelength interval [(λ0-Δλ0/2), ([(λ0+Δλ0/2)] of width Δλ0 such that the second reflection layer system satisfies the following conditions:
(λ0- Δλ0/2) ≥ λ2sl , (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≤ λ2sr, and
(λ0- Δλ0/2) ≤ λ2pl, (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≥ λ2pr,
where, in the reflection profiles (r2s (λ), r2p (λ)) of the second reflection layer system, λ2sl and λ2pl denoted the shortest wavelengths and λ2sr and λ2pr denote the longest wavelengths for which in each case s- and p-polarized radiation, respectively, is reflected with a reflectivity of at least 50% of a maximum reflectivity.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a wavelength λ0 exists as a mean wavelength in a given wavelength interval [(λ0-Δλ0/2), ([(λ0+Δλ0/2)] of width Δλ0 such that the second reflection layer system satisfies the following conditions: (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≥ λ2sl , (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≤ λ2sr, and (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≤ λ2pl, (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≥ λ2pr, where, in the reflection profiles (r2s (λ), r2p (λ)) of the second reflection layer system, λ2sl and λ2pl denoted the shortest wavelengths and λ2sr and λ2pr denote the longest wavelengths for which in each case s- and p-polarized radiation, respectively, is reflected with a reflectivity of at least 50% of a maximum reflectivity, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fiolka et al. with wherein a wavelength λ0 exists as a mean wavelength in a given wavelength interval [(λ0-Δλ0/2), ([(λ0+Δλ0/2)] of width Δλ0 such that the second reflection layer system satisfies the following conditions: (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≥ λ2sl , (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≤ λ2sr, and (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≤ λ2pl, (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≥ λ2pr, where, in the reflection profiles (r2s (λ), r2p (λ)) of the second reflection layer system, λ2sl and λ2pl denoted the shortest wavelengths and λ2sr and λ2pr denote the longest wavelengths for which in each case s- and p-polarized radiation, respectively, is reflected with a reflectivity of at least 50% of a maximum reflectivity.
When using the optical component group within a microlithography application the imaging of structures in the object field can be achieved in a structure-dependent manner (see e.g. paragraph [0007] of Fiolka et al.).
In regard to claim 4, Fiolka et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a wavelength λ0 exists as a mean wavelength in a given wavelength interval [(λ0-Δλ0/2), ([(λ0+Δλ0/2)] of width Δλ0 such that the first reflection layer satisfies the following conditions
(λ0- Δλ0/2) ≥ λ1sl , (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≤ λ1sr, and
(λ0- Δλ0/2) ≤ λ1pl, (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≥ λ1pr, and
the second reflection layer system satisfies the following conditions:
(λ0- Δλ0/2) ≥ λ2sl , (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≤ λ2sr, and
(λ0- Δλ0/2) ≤ λ2pl, (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≥ λ2pr,
where, in the reflection profiles (r1s (λ), r1p (λ)) of the first reflection layer system and (r2s (λ), r2p (λ)) of the second reflection layer system, λ1sl, λ1pl, λ2sl, and λ2pl denoted the shortest wavelengths and λ1sr, λ1pr, λ2sr, and λ2pr denote the longest wavelengths for which in each case s- and p-polarized radiation, respectively, is reflected with a reflectivity of at least 50% of a maximum reflectivity.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a wavelength λ0 exists as a mean wavelength in a given wavelength interval [(λ0-Δλ0/2), ([(λ0+Δλ0/2)] of width Δλ0 such that the first reflection layer satisfies the following conditions (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≥ λ1sl , (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≤ λ1sr, and (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≤ λ1pl, (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≥ λ1pr, and the second reflection layer system satisfies the following conditions: (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≥ λ2sl , (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≤ λ2sr, and (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≤ λ2pl, (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≥ λ2pr, where, in the reflection profiles (r1s (λ), r1p (λ)) of the first reflection layer system and (r2s (λ), r2p (λ)) of the second reflection layer system, λ1sl, λ1pl, λ2sl, and λ2pl denoted the shortest wavelengths and λ1sr, λ1pr, λ2sr, and λ2pr denote the longest wavelengths for which in each case s- and p-polarized radiation, respectively, is reflected with a reflectivity of at least 50% of a maximum reflectivity, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fiolka et al. with wherein a wavelength λ0 exists as a mean wavelength in a given wavelength interval [(λ0-Δλ0/2), ([(λ0+Δλ0/2)] of width Δλ0 such that the first reflection layer satisfies the following conditions (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≥ λ1sl , (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≤ λ1sr, and (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≤ λ1pl, (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≥ λ1pr, and the second reflection layer system satisfies the following conditions: (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≥ λ2sl , (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≤ λ2sr, and (λ0- Δλ0/2) ≤ λ2pl, (λ0 + Δλ0/2) ≥ λ2pr, where, in the reflection profiles (r1s (λ), r1p (λ)) of the first reflection layer system and (r2s (λ), r2p (λ)) of the second reflection layer system, λ1sl, λ1pl, λ2sl, and λ2pl denoted the shortest wavelengths and λ1sr, λ1pr, λ2sr, and λ2pr denote the longest wavelengths for which in each case s- and p-polarized radiation, respectively, is reflected with a reflectivity of at least 50% of a maximum reflectivity.
When using the optical component group within a microlithography application the imaging of structures in the object field can be achieved in a structure-dependent manner (see e.g. paragraph [0007] of Fiolka et al.).
In regard to claim 5, Fiolka et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a degree of polarization of the first reflection layer system, defined as a ratio of the reflectivities for s- and p-polarized radiation integrated over the wavelength interval [(λ0-Δλ0/2), ([(λ0+Δλ0/2)] is greater than a degree of polarization for the second reflection system by a factor of at least 1.5.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a degree of polarization of the first reflection layer system, defined as a ratio of the reflectivities for s- and p-polarized radiation integrated over the wavelength interval [(λ0-Δλ0/2), ([(λ0+Δλ0/2)] is greater than a degree of polarization for the second reflection system by a factor of at least 1.5, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fiolka et al. with wherein a degree of polarization of the first reflection layer system, defined as a ratio of the reflectivities for s- and p-polarized radiation integrated over the wavelength interval [(λ0-Δλ0/2), ([(λ0+Δλ0/2)] is greater than a degree of polarization for the second reflection system by a factor of at least 1.5.
When using the optical component group within a microlithography application the imaging of structures in the object field can be achieved in a structure-dependent manner (see e.g. paragraph [0007] of Fiolka et al.).
In regard to claim 6, Fiolka et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1, but fails to disclose
wherein for s-polarized radiation in an interval Δλ0 = [(λ1sr - λ1sl) + (λ2sr – λ2sl)]/2, the optical component group has a reflectivity of at least 50% of the maximum transmissivity of an extreme ultraviolet illumination device comprising the optical component group, where Δλ0 lies between Δλ0/2 and Δλ0/3.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein for s-polarized radiation in an interval Δλ0 = [(λ1sr - λ1sl) + (λ2sr – λ2sl)]/2, the optical component group has a reflectivity of at least 50% of the maximum transmissivity of an extreme ultraviolet illumination device comprising the optical component group, where Δλ0 lies between Δλ0/2 and Δλ0/3, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fiolka et al. with wherein for s-polarized radiation in an interval Δλ0 = [(λ1sr - λ1sl) + (λ2sr – λ2sl)]/2, the optical component group has a reflectivity of at least 50% of the maximum transmissivity of an extreme ultraviolet illumination device comprising the optical component group, where Δλ0 lies between Δλ0/2 and Δλ0/3.
When using the optical component group within a microlithography application the imaging of structures in the object field can be achieved in a structure-dependent manner (see e.g. paragraph [0007] of Fiolka et al.).
In regard to claim 7, Fiolka et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein both the first reflective component 14 and the second reflective component 14/30b comprise at least one mirror face of a facet mirror (see e.g. paragraph [0096] for pupil facet mirror).
In regard to claim 8, Fiolka et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, and
wherein both the first reflective component 14 and the second reflective component 14/30b comprise at least one mirror face of a pupil face mirror or a field face mirror (see e.g. paragraph [0096] for pupil facet mirror).
In regard to claim 9, Fiolka et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein both the first reflective component 14 and the second reflective component 14/30b are facet mirrors (see e.g. paragraph [0096] for pupil facet mirror).
In regard to claim 10, Fiolka et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and
wherein the facet mirrors are pupil facet mirrors each having a plurality of pupil facets or field facet mirrors each having a plurality of field facets (see e.g. paragraph [0096] for pupil facet mirror).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiolka et al. (US 2011/0122392 A1) in view of Brandt et al. (US 2016/0179012 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Fiolka et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein both the first reflective component and second component are collector mirrors.
However, Brandt et al. discloses using a faceted mirror that is also a collector mirror (see e.g. paragraph [0056]).
Given the teachings of Brandt et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fiolka et al. with wherein both the first reflective component and second component are collector mirrors.
Using a faceted collector mirrors allows for the elimination of other mirrors from the system (see e.g. paragraph [0056] of Brandt et al.).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiolka et al. (US 2011/0122392 A1) in view of Maul (US 2015/0346604 A1).
In regard to claim 12, Fiolka et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein both the first reflective component and the second reflective component comprise a micromirror of a specular reflector.
However, Maul discloses a facet mirror that is constructed from micromirrors (see e.g. paragraph [0065]).
Given the teachings of Maul, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fiolka et al. with wherein both the first reflective component and the second reflective component comprise a micromirror of a specular reflector.
Using micromirrors as facet mirrors would allow for reorientation of the facets (see e.g. paragraph [0006] of Maul).
In regard to claim 13, Fiolka et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first reflective component and the second reflective component are configured for an operating wavelength of less than 30 nm.
However, Maul discloses a system using an EUV illumination source between 5 nm and 30 nm (see e.g. paragraph [0014]), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the first reflective component and the second reflective component are configured for an operating wavelength of less than 30 nm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Maul, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fiolka et al. with wherein the first reflective component and the second reflective component are configured for an operating wavelength of less than 30 nm.
Providing reflective components within a normal operating range of microlithography would be within ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 14, Fiolka et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 13 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first reflective component and the second reflective component are configured for an operating wavelength of less than 15 nm.
However, Maul discloses a system using an EUV illumination source between 5 nm and 30 nm (see e.g. paragraph [0014]), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the first reflective component and the second reflective component are configured for an operating wavelength of less than 15 nm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Maul, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fiolka et al. with wherein the first reflective component and the second reflective component are configured for an operating wavelength of less than 15 nm.
Providing reflective components within a normal operating range of microlithography would be within ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights