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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments filed on March 31, 2026 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8-14 are 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.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is directed to EUV light and a pair of refractive optical elements. It is unclear how the system works with EUV light since EUV light is used with reflective optical element due to high absorption of EUV light. It is assumed that the light source is DUV light.
In the response filed on March 31, 2026, applicant cites specification at pg. 7 and 25 and argue that both DUV light and EUV light can be used in a lithography process and in the invention. However, applicant did not address the main reasoning of the rejection which is how EUV light works with a pair of refractive optical elements. The issue was not whether a DUV light or a EUV light would be appropriate in a lithography system. If it were, claims 1 and 15, which have the same language, “the light source is deep ultraviolet (DUV) light or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) light” would have been rejected as well. Claim 1 is directed to “a pair of reflective optical elements”, which is compatible with both DUV and EUV. Claim 15 is directed to “a pair of optical elements”, which is broad enough to include reflective optical elements. However, claim 8 is specifically directed to “a pair of refractive optical elements” with which EUV is usually not compatible.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are rejected for incorporating the defects from the base claim by dependency.
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) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krikke et al. (Krikke) (2002/0036763) in view of Komatsuda (6,833,904).
Regarding claim 1, Krikke discloses a system (Fig. 1, 2) comprising: a light source (LA) configured to emit light, wherein the light emitted by the light source is deep ultraviolet (DUV) light or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) light (para 0045); an imaging mirror (20, para 0081), disposed in a light path of the light emitted by the light source, wherein the imaging mirror is configured to reflect the light emitted by the light source onto a sample (W); and a pair of optical elements, which are refractive optical elements (15, para 0075), disposed in the light path between the light source and the imaging mirror (Fig. 2), wherein the pair of refractive optical elements are spaced apart in parallel planes and have cooperating non-planar surfaces, and the light emitted by the light source is refracted through the cooperating non-planar surfaces to produce a first beam shape of the light to be reflected on the sample by the imaging mirror (Fig. 2, para 0075). However, Krikke does not disclose that the pair of optical elements are reflective optical elements. Krikke also does not disclose a first actuator configured to move a first reflective optical element and a second actuator configured to move a second reflective optical element, wherein at least one of the pair of the reflective optical elements is movable within one of the parallel planes to a position in which the light emitted by the light source refracted through the cooperating non-planar surfaces produces a second beam shape that is a different shape from the first beam shape. Although Krikke does not disclose the pair of reflective optical elements, but discloses a pair of refractive optical elements (15), Krikke discloses in para 0045 that the radiation disclosed in Krikke includes ultraviolet radiation and EUV radiation, which means the lenses in the embodiment shown in Fig. 2 should be replaced by mirrors and reflective optical elements. Komatsuda discloses in Fig. 19, such an arrangement. Komatsuda discloses a projection exposure apparatus comprising EUV light (col. 25, lines 49-55, col. 36, lines 3-7), imaging mirrors (6), a sample (7) and a pair of reflective optical elements (120a, 120b), with cooperating non-planar surfaces (Fig. 9A, 9B, col. 17, lines 4-19 and col. 18, lines 15-29) which are moved in an X-direction (in parallel plane), the beam shape is corrected from a first shape to a second shape (col. 38, lines 37-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a pair of reflective optical elements with at least one of the pair of reflective optical element as taught by Komatsuda to the invention of Krikke when EUV light is used, in order to obtain the correct or desired beam shape as taught by Komatsuda in col. 38, line 37-48.
Regarding the first and second actuators, Komatsuda inherently discloses at least one actuator in order to move the reflective elements (120 a, 120b, col. 38, lines 37-48). Further, providing an actuator to move an optical element is well known in the art. Krikke discloses motor (13a) and servo systems (15a, 16a) to move separate optical elements. Krikke additionally discloses actuators for moving the optical elements in a direction parallel to the optical axis (15a, para 0075), which moves the optical elements in a direction orthogonal to the parallel planes of the optical elements (15, para 0075). Krikke also discloses actuators for moving the optical elements in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis or within one of the parallel planes (Fig. 9B, 10A-10C, para 0112, 0113). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first actuator for one of the pair of reflective optical element and a second actuator for the other of the pair of reflective optical element, in order to independently move the reflective optical elements of Krikke in view of Komatsuda within the parallel planes to provide a better control over changing or correcting of the beam shape.
Regarding claim 2, although Krikke does not disclose a collimator disposed in the light path between the light source and the pair of reflective optical elements, wherein the collimator is configured to direct the light emitted by the light source to be reflected between the cooperating non-planar surfaces of the pair of reflective optical elements, Krikke discloses collimated beam from laser output (31, Fig. 4, para 0090). Komatsuda discloses a collimator (15) disposed in the light path between the light source and the pair of reflective optical elements, wherein the collimator is configured to direct the light emitted by the light source to be reflected between the cooperating non-planar surfaces of the pair of reflective optical elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a collimator in order to direct a parallel beams to the pair of reflective optical elements for beam shaping.
Regarding claim 3, Krikke does not disclose a pupil disposed in the light path between the pair of reflective optical elements and the imaging mirror, wherein the light in the first beam shape or the second beam shape is directed through the pupil to the imaging mirror. Komatsuda discloses in Fig. 19 (and 16) a pupil (6c) disposed in the light path between the pair of reflective optical elements (120a, 120b) and the imaging mirror (6d), wherein the light in the first beam shape or the second beam shape is directed through the pupil to the imaging mirror (Fig. 16, 19, col. 27, lines 35-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pupil, the imaging mirror and the pair of reflective optical elements as arranged in Komatsuda to the invention of Krikke in order to provide the correct beam shape for imaging especially when using an EUV light source.
Regarding claim 4, Krikke does not disclose wherein the cooperating non-planar surfaces of the pair of reflective optical elements form a rectangular prism. Komatsuda discloses wherein the cooperating non-planar surfaces of the pair of reflective optical elements form a rectangular prism (Fig. 9A, 9B, col. 17, lines 4-19 and col. 18, lines 15-29, each elements are rectangular shaped). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bring the pair of reflective optical element of Komatsuda together since each reflective element group of 120a face the counterpart in 120b (col. 18, lines 15-29) and provide the arrangement to the invention of Krikke in order to control or correct the beam shape.
Regarding claim 7, Krikke discloses wherein the first beam shape and the second beam shape are different shapes selected from a group comprising: a circular shape, an annular shape, a dipole shape, a quasar shape, a slit shape, and a pinhole shape (para 0075).
Claim(s) 8-11, 14-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krikke et al. (Krikke) (2002/0036763) in view of Shadalou et al. (Shadalou) (“General Design Method For Dynamic Freeform Optics With Variable Functionality” in IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Kirkke discloses a system (Fig. 1, 2) comprising: a light source (LA) configured to emit light, wherein the light emitted by the light source is deep ultraviolet (DUV) light or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) light (para 0045); an imaging mirror (20, para 0081), disposed in a light path of the light emitted by the light source, wherein the imaging mirror is configured to reflect the light emitted by the light source onto a sample (W); and a pair of refractive optical elements (15, para 0075) disposed in the light path between the light source and the imaging mirror (Fig. 2), wherein the pair of refractive optical elements are spaced apart in parallel planes and have cooperating non-planar surfaces, and the light emitted by the light source is refracted through the cooperating non-planar surfaces to produce a first beam shape of the light to be reflected on the sample by the imaging mirror (Fig. 2) , wherein the pair of refractive optical elements are spaced apart in parallel planes and have cooperating non-planar surfaces, and the light emitted by the light source is refracted through the cooperating non-planar surfaces to produce a first beam shape of the light to be reflected on the sample by the imaging mirror (Fig. 2, para 0075). However, Kirkke does not disclose wherein at least one of the pair of refractive optical elements is movable within one of the parallel planes to a position in which the light emitted by the light source refracted through the cooperating non-planar surfaces produces a second beam shape that is a different shape from the first beam shape. Krikke also does not disclose a first actuator configured to move a first reflective optical element and a second actuator configured to move a second reflective optical element. Shadalou discloses a system comprising a pair of refractive optical elements (Fig. 2, section 2, page 3), movable within opposing parallel plane directions (Fig. 4, page 5) and changing beam shape by moving within parallel plane directions (Fig. 9-11, section 3, pages 8-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pair of refractive optical elements as taught by Shadalou to the invention of Kirkke in order to change the beam shape without the constraints of rotationally symmetrical optical elements and using freeform surfaces.
Regarding the first and second actuators, providing an actuator to move an optical element is well known in the art. Krikke discloses motor (13a) and servo systems (15a, 16a) to move separate optical elements. Krikke additionally discloses actuators for moving the optical elements in a direction parallel to the optical axis (15a, para 0075), which moves the optical elements in a direction orthogonal to the parallel planes of the optical elements (15, para 0075). Krikke also discloses actuators for moving the optical elements in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis or within one of the parallel planes (Fig. 9B, 10A-10C, para 0112, 0113). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first actuator for one of the pair of reflective optical element and a second actuator for the other of the pair of reflective optical element, in order to independently move the reflective optical elements of Krikke in view of Shadalou within the parallel planes to provide a better control over changing or correcting of the beam shape.
Regarding claim 9, Kirkke discloses a collimator disposed in the light path between the light source and the pair of refractive optical elements, wherein the collimator is configured to direct the light emitted by the light source to be refracted through the cooperating non-planar surfaces of the pair of refractive optical elements (para 0090).
Regarding claim 10, Kirkke discloses a pupil disposed in the light path between the pair of refractive optical elements and the imaging mirror, wherein the light in the first beam shape or the second beam shape is directed through the pupil to the imaging mirror (para 0025, 0028, 0076, 0077).
Regarding claim 11, Kirkke discloses does not disclose wherein the cooperating non-planar surfaces of the pair of refractive optical elements form a rectangular prism. Shadalou discloses wherein the cooperating non-planar surfaces of the pair of refractive optical elements form a rectangular prism (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the cooperating non-planar surfaces of the pair of refractive optical elements of Shadalou to the invention of Kirkke for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 14, Kirkke does not discloses wherein the first beam shape and the second beam shape are different shapes selected from a group comprising: a circular shape, an annular shape, a dipole shape, a quasar shape, a slit shape, and a pinhole shape. Shadalou discloses wherein the beam shapes are a circular shape, rectangular shape and a slit shape (Fig. 9, 11).
Regarding claim 15, Kirkke discloses a method (Fig. 1, 2) comprising: emitting light from a light source (LA), wherein the light emitted by the light source is deep ultraviolet (DUV) light or extreme ultraviolet (EUV) light (para 0045); transmitting the light through a pair of optical elements (15, Fig. 2), wherein the pair of optical elements are spaced apart in parallel planes and have cooperating non-planar surfaces that are configured to produce a first beam shape of the light emitted by the light source (para 0075); directing the light in the first beam shape onto a sample (W, Fig. 1). However, Kirkke does not disclose moving the pair of optical elements in the parallel planes to a position in which the cooperating non-planar surfaces are configured to produce a second beam shape of the light emitted by the light source that is a different shape from the first beam shape; and directing the light in the second beam shape onto the sample. Krikke also does not disclose a first actuator configured to move a first reflective optical element and a second actuator configured to move a second reflective optical element. Shadalou discloses a system comprising a pair of refractive optical elements (Fig. 2, section 2, page 3), movable within opposing parallel plane directions (Fig. 4, page 5) and changing beam shape by moving within parallel plane directions (Fig. 9-11, section 3, pages 8-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the pair of refractive optical elements as taught by Shadalou to the invention of Kirkke in order to change the beam shape by moving the pair of optical elements in opposing directions without the constraints of rotationally symmetrical optical elements and using freeform surfaces.
Regarding the first and second actuators, providing an actuator to move an optical element is well known in the art. Krikke discloses motor (13a) and servo systems (15a, 16a) to move separate optical elements. Krikke additionally discloses actuators for moving the optical elements in a direction parallel to the optical axis (15a, para 0075), which moves the optical elements in a direction orthogonal to the parallel planes of the optical elements (15, para 0075). Krikke also discloses actuators for moving the optical elements in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis or within one of the parallel planes (Fig. 9B, 10A-10C, para 0112, 0113). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a first actuator for one of the pair of reflective optical element and a second actuator for the other of the pair of reflective optical element, in order to independently move the reflective optical elements of Krikke in view of Shadalou within the parallel planes to provide a better control over changing or correcting of the beam shape.
Regarding claim 16, Kirkke discloses wherein before transmitting the light through the pair of optical elements, the method further comprises: collimating the light with a collimator to direct the light emitted by the light source to be transmitted through the pair of optical elements (para 0090).
Regarding claim 18, Kirkke discloses wherein the pair of optical elements comprises a pair of refractive optical elements, and transmitting the light through the pair of optical elements comprises: refracting the light emitted by the light source through the cooperating non-planar surfaces to produce the first beam shape of the light (para 0075).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkke et al. (Kirkke) in view of Shadalou et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Komatsuda.
Regarding claim 17, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Kirkke is the pair of reflective optical elements. Although Krikke does not disclose the pair of reflective optical elements, but discloses a pair of refractive optical elements (15), Krikke discloses in para 0045 that the radiation disclosed in Krikke includes ultraviolet radiation and EUV radiation, which means the lenses in the embodiment shown in Fig. 2 should be replaced by mirrors and reflective optical elements. Komatsuda discloses in Fig. 19, such an arrangement. Komatsuda discloses a projection exposure apparatus comprising EUV light (col. 25, lines 49-55, col. 36, lines 3-7), imaging mirrors (6), a sample (7) and a pair of reflective optical elements (120a, 120b) which are moved in an X-direction (in parallel plane), the beam shape is corrected from a first shape to a second shape (col. 38, lines 37-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Krikke by providing a pair of reflective optical elements with at least one of the pair of reflective optical element as taught by Komatsuda to the invention of Krikke when EUV light is used, in order to obtain the correct or desired beam shape as taught by Komatsuda in col. 38, line 37-48.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s arguments, the rejections have been modified as indicated above. Applicant argues that Muramatsu does not disclose the claimed actuator and that it is not inherent that Shadlou would include actuators to move the optical element. In response, Krikke’s teaching of actuators for moving optical elements is cited in the rejections.
The amendments to the claims changed the scope of the invention. For example, claims 5, 12 and 19 of the originally filed clams are directed to a first actuator configured to move a first optical element in a “first direction within a first plane of the pair of parallel planes”. However, the amendments to claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to a first actuator configured to move a first optical element in a “first direction parallel to a first plane of the pair of parallel planes”. Therefore, the Office Action is made final.
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 PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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.
/PETER B KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights