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 .
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.
Claim 26 is 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. Amended claim 26 recites: “isolating the debris handling device is performed by operating a debris isolation device disposed along the first exhaust pipe between the shielding film curtain and the debris handling device.” The embodiment described with respect to Fig. 9 describes the shielding film curtain as the debris isolation device GV that is between the opening 269 of pipe 261 and the debris handling system 263 and not between a further debris isolation device and the debris handling system as claimed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "isolating the debris handling device is performed" in claim 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 23, from which claim 26 depends, only recites isolating debris, not isolating the debris handling device.
In order to overcome both rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, the examiner recommends rewriting the claim as --isolating the debris handling device by operating the shielding film curtain along the first exhaust pipe between the gas outlet and the debris handling device.--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe et al. [US 2009/0224181].
For claim 11, Abe teaches a method for operating a radiation source apparatus, comprising: producing EUV radiation by emitting a laser onto a target material in a vessel (laser 2 incident on target 1 in chamber 8, see Fig. 7); moving a gas away from the vessel through a first exhaust line coupling a gas outlet of the vessel to a pump (exhausting via path A, see [0057]-[0059]); removing a debris of the target material in the gas in the first exhaust line using a debris handling device coupled with the first exhaust line (TMP and removing unit, see [0057]-[0059]); terminating moving the gas away from the vessel through the first exhaust line (valve 70 switched to path B); and moving the gas away from the vessel through a second exhaust line coupling the gas outlet of the vessel to the pump while a maintenance process is performed on the debris handling device (introducing reactive gas and heating, see [0058]-[0059]), wherein the second exhaust line is free of the debris handling device (TMP A is not along path B).
For claim 12, Abe teaches moving the gas away from the vessel through the second exhaust line is performed when the moving the gas away from the vessel through the first exhaust line is terminated (switching by valve 70, see [0057]-[0059]).
For claim 14, Abe teaches performing the maintenance process is performed after removing the debris of the target material in the gas in the first exhaust line (cleaning during redirection of through exhaust path B, see [0058]).
For claim 15, Abe teaches the removing the debris of the target material in the gas in the first exhaust line is performed during producing the EUV radiation (see [0060]).
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Kouge et al. [US 2021/0029811].
For claim 1, Abe teaches a method for operating a radiation source apparatus, comprising: producing extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation by emitting a laser onto a target material in a vessel (laser 2 incident on target 1 in chamber 8, see Fig. 7); directing a gas from the vessel into a first debris handling device (exhausting via path A to the turbo molecular pump and collecting unit, see [0057]-[0059]); blocking the gas from the first debris handling device (valve 70 switched to path B); and perform a maintenance process on the first debris handling device when the gas is blocked from the first debris handling device, wherein the maintenance process comprises heating the first debris handling device in an independent chamber isolated from the vessel (introducing reactive gas and heating, see [0058]-[0059]), while the vessel is used for exposure (see Fig. 7).
Abe fails to explicitly teach the vessel is maintained below a melting point of the target material and free of thermal cycling during exposure.
Kouge teaches the vessel is maintained below a melting point of the target material and free of thermal cycling during exposure (the chamber 2a is desirably maintained at 15° C to 25° C, see [0164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature of the vessel as taught by Kouge during the heating maintenance as taught by Abe in order to reduce the likelihood of decomposition of the stannane during generation of plasma that would deposit on the surface of the vessel.
For claim 2, Abe teaches blocking the gas from the first debris handling device comprising: closing a debris isolation device between the first debris handling device and the vessel (by valve 70, see Fig. 7).
For claim 8, Abe teaches the maintenance process is performed during producing the EUV radiation (see [0060]).
For claim 9, Abe teaches the first debris handling device is outside the vessel (see Fig. 7).
For claim 10, Abe teaches the first debris handling device is fluidly connected to the vessel by an exhaust line (see Fig. 7).
Claims 4, 5, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Krouge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niimi et al. [US 2022/0141945].
For claims 4, 5, and 22, Abe fails to explicitly teach the first debris handling device is a scrubber, heating the first debris handling device is performed with a temperature higher than the melting point of the target material, and the maintenance process further comprises: allowing a liquefied debris of the target material to flow from the first debris handling device into a box fluidly connected to the first debris handling device.
Niimi teaches the first debris handling device is a scrubber (see [0116]), heating the first debris handling device is performed with a temperature higher than a melting point of the target material, wherein the maintenance process further comprises: allowing a liquefied debris of the target material to flow from the first debris handling device into a box fluidly connected to the first debris handling device (plate-like member 431 is heated by the heater 433 to a temperature equal to or higher than 231.93° C, tin adhering to the plate-like member 431 falls from the plate-like member 431 by gravity and is collected in the drain tank 410d, see Fig, 4 and [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the heating maintenance as taught by Niimi maintenance taught by Abe in order to clean the tin trap for reuse using the known method of heating the tin to achieve known result of removal of tin from a tin trap surface.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niimi in view of Hayashi et al. [US 6,156,107].
For claim 23, Niimi teaches a method for operating a radiation source apparatus, comprising:
producing extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation by emitting a laser beam from a laser source onto a target material in a vessel to form a plasma (EUV light 101 generated by laser light 90 incident on tin target droplet DL at plasma generation region AR in chamber 10, see Fig. 3);
moving a gas from the vessel through a gas outlet of the vessel into an exhaust pipe; driving the gas through the exhaust pipe toward a pump (tin trap 400 and pump 453 connected to exhaust port 10E via the exhaust pipe 10P, see [0068], [0118], and Figs. 3, 5, and 8); and
handling debris of the target material in the gas by a debris handling device coupled with the exhaust pipe and positioned between the gas outlet of the vessel and the pump (collected by trap 400, see [0116]).
Niimi fails to teach isolating the vessel from the debris carried back toward the vessel by a shielding film curtain having a first group of fins, a second group of fins, and a third group of fins disposed between the first group and the second group, wherein the third group of fins is oriented differently from the first group of fins and the second group of fins.
Hayashi teaches isolating the vessel from the debris carried back toward the vessel by a shielding film curtain having a first group of fins, a second group of fins, and a third group of fins disposed between the first group and the second group, wherein the third group of fins is oriented differently from the first group of fins and the second group of fins (alternating opposite incline angle of the groups of fins 84 along the stack of trap plates 70, see Fig. 2 and Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fin arrangement as taught by Hayashi in a collecting surface as taught by Niimi in order to provide high efficiency of trapping debris.
For claim 24, Niimi teaches handling the debris of the target material in the gas comprises scrubbing the gas using the debris handling device (tin in the residual gas is dry scrubbed by contact with and deposition on the tube member 511, see [0116]).
For claim 25, Niimi teaches the housing 410 and body 430 can be reused once the tin adhering to the surface has been removed, see [0140]-[0141], but fails to teach in the first embodiment in Figs. 5 and 8, heating the first debris handling device using a heating unit disposed adjacent to the debris handling device.
Niimi teaches in the embodiment shown in Fig. 4, heating the first debris handling device using a heating unit disposed adjacent to the debris handling device (plate-like member 431 is heated by the heater 433 to a temperature equal to or higher than 231.93° C, tin adhering to the plate-like member 431 falls from the plate-like member 431 by gravity and is collected in the drain tank 410d, see Fig, 4 and [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the heating maintenance as taught by Niimi in Fig. 4 in the removal of tin from the main body and housing as taught by paragraphs [0140] and [0141] of Niimi in order to clean the tin trap for reuse using the known method of heating the tin to achieve known result of removal of tin from a tin trap surface.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Kouge as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Hayashi.
For claim 28, Abe fails to teach isolating the vessel from the debris carried back toward the vessel by a shielding film curtain having a first group of fins, a second group of fins, and a third group of fins disposed between the first group and the second group, wherein the third group of fins is oriented differently from the first group of fins and the second group of fins.
Hayashi teaches isolating the vessel from the debris carried back toward the vessel by a shielding film curtain having a first group of fins, a second group of fins, and a third group of fins disposed between the first group and the second group, wherein the third group of fins is oriented differently from the first group of fins and the second group of fins (alternating opposite incline angle of the groups of fins 84 along the stack of trap plates 70, see Fig. 2 and Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fin arrangement as taught by Hayashi in a collecting surface as taught by Abe in order to provide a high efficiency of trapping debris.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Hayashi.
For claim 29, Abe fails to teach isolating the vessel from the debris carried back toward the vessel by a shielding film curtain having a first group of fins, a second group of fins, and a third group of fins disposed between the first group and the second group, wherein the third group of fins is oriented differently from the first group of fins and the second group of fins.
Hayashi teaches isolating the vessel from the debris carried back toward the vessel by a shielding film curtain having a first group of fins, a second group of fins, and a third group of fins disposed between the first group and the second group, wherein the third group of fins is oriented differently from the first group of fins and the second group of fins (alternating opposite incline angle of the groups of fins 84 along the stack of trap plates 70, see Fig. 2 and Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fin arrangement as taught by Hayashi as a collecting surface as taught by Abe in order to provide a high efficiency of trapping debris.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niimi in view of Hayashi as applied to claim 25, and in further view of Kouge.
For claim 30, Niimi teaches the housing 410 and body 430 can be reused once the tin adhering to the surface has been removed, see [0140]-[0141], but fails to teach in the first embodiment in Figs. 5 and 8, the debris handling device is heated while the vessel is maintained below a melting point of the target material and free of thermal cycling.
Niimi teaches in the embodiment shown in Fig. 4, the debris handling device is heated (plate-like member 431 is heated by the heater 433 to a temperature equal to or higher than 231.93° C, tin adhering to the plate-like member 431 falls from the plate-like member 431 by gravity and is collected in the drain tank 410d, see Fig, 4 and [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the heating maintenance as taught by Niimi in Fig. 4 in the removal of tin from the main body and housing as taught by paragraphs [0140] and [0141] of Niimi in order to clean the tin trap for reuse using the known method of heating the tin to achieve known result of removal of tin from a tin trap surface.
Kouge teaches the vessel is maintained below a melting point of the target material and free of thermal cycling during exposure (the chamber 2a is desirably maintained at 15° C to 25° C, see [0164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the temperature of the vessel as taught by Kouge during the heating maintenance as taught by Niimi in order to reduce the likelihood of decomposition of the stannane during generation of plasma that would deposit on the surface of the vessel.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niimi in view of Hayashi as applied to claim 23, and in further view of Abe.
For claim 31, Niimi fails to teach terminating moving the gas from the vessel through the first exhaust pipe; and moving the gas away from the vessel through a second exhaust line coupling the gas outlet of the vessel to the pump while a maintenance process is performed on the debris handling device, wherein the second exhaust line is free of the debris handling device.
Abe teaches terminating moving the gas away from the vessel through the first exhaust pipe (valve 70 switched to path B); and moving the gas away from the vessel through a second exhaust line coupling the gas outlet of the vessel to the pump while a maintenance process is performed on the debris handling device (introducing reactive gas and heating, see [0058]-[0059]), wherein the second exhaust line is free of the debris handling device (TMP A is not along path B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two exhaust lines as taught by Abe in the debris handling as taught by Niimi in order to continue collection of the debris during maintenance of the first debris collection device, maintaining throughput.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okase et al. [US 2003/0141016] teaches a bypass path for a trapping device, Johnson et al. [WO 2024/033020] teaches in Figs. 4A and 4B two fin member of a debris collection device that are angled with respect to each other, and Niimi et al. [US 2021/0364928] teaches in Fig. 5 a tin trap a first group of fins (52a), a second group of fins (52b), and a third group of fins (51) disposed above and not between the first group and the second group, wherein the third group of fins is oriented differently from the first group of fins and the second group of fins.
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 Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights