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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosokai, et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0127479 A1) in view of Moriya, et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0314967 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hosokai discloses an extreme ultraviolet light generation chamber device comprising:
A chamber (1) including, at an internal space thereof, a plasma generation region in which a droplet target (21) irradiated with laser light (23) is turned into plasma and extreme ultraviolet light is generated (paragraphs 0068-0071);
A light concentrating mirror (2) arranged in the chamber and configured to concentrate the extreme ultraviolet light;
A gas curtain forming device (13b) configured to inject a gas at supersonic velocity and form a gas curtain that intersects an optical path of the extreme ultraviolet light propagating from the plasma generation region to the light concentrating mirror (paragraph 0163); and
A gas exhaust unit (4) configured to exhaust a residual gas in the chamber,
In the chamber, pressure in a second space that is a space on the side toward the light concentrating mirror from the gas curtain being lower than pressure in a first space that is a space on a side toward the plasma generation region from the gas curtain and that includes the plasma generation region (paragraph 0166).
Hosokai fails to teach an etching gas supply unit configured to supply an etching gas into the chamber.
Moriya teaches an EUV generation apparatus similar to Hosokai’s, which includes an etching gas supply unit configured to supply an etching gas into the chamber (paragraph 0042). By providing such an etching gas supply unit, Moriya’s apparatus is able to clean the EUV optics with etchant gas when EUV generation operations are stopped (paragraphs 0052-0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Hosokai’s apparatus with an etchant gas supply unit configured to supply an etching gas into the chamber, because doing so would allow cleaning of the EUV optics.
Regarding claim 2, Moriya discloses wherein the gas contains hydrogen (paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 3, Hosokai discloses wherein the droplet target contains tin (paragraph 0310).
Regarding claim 4, Hosokai discloses a cylindrical first partition wall (1b) that surrounds the first space and that is provided with a first opening through which the extreme ultraviolet light propagating from the plasma generation region to the light concentrating mirror passes and which communicates with the second space, wherein the gas curtain covers at least a part of the first opening (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Hosokai discloses a second partition wall (3a) that isolates a third space being a space outside the first partition wall and the second space and is connected to the first partition wall (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Hosokai discloses a window (23d) which is arranged in a wall of the chamber on a side toward the second space and through which the laser light is transmitted, wherein the plasma generation region is irradiated with the laser light through the window (Fig. 4).
Claims 15 and 16 are drawn to methods of using the apparatus of claim 1 to manufacture electronic devices, and the same rejection applies mutatis mutandis (Hosokai provides an explicit suggestion in the prior art to use the apparatus for electronic device manufacturing, at paragraph 0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 6 and 7, the prior art provides no motivation for providing a first etching gas supply unit to supply etching gas to the first space and a second etching gas supply to supply the etching gas to the second space. In the obvious combination discussed above, the etching gas supply unit would be in the second space, where the light concentrating mirror is provided, because Moriya teaches using the etching gas to clean the mirror. There is no reason found in the prior art for providing an etching gas to the first space, where the plasma discharge is located.
Regarding claims 8-13, the prior art fails to teach wherein the gas injection unit includes a gas supply unit configured to supply the gas, a Laval nozzle through which the gas supplied from the gas supply unit passes, a shroud including the Laval nozzle at an internal space thereof, a first skimmer arranged at the shroud such that a cross-sectional area thereof becomes large toward a direction in which the gas is injected, and a third exhaust device configured to exhaust from the shroud the gas that is not injected from the first skimmer, and the gas collection unit includes a second skimmer arranged at a position proceeding in a direction in which the gas is injected from the first skimmer such that a cross-sectional area thereof becomes large toward the direction in which the gas is injected, and a fourth exhaust device configured to exhaust the gas having flowed into the second skimmer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MASKELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3210. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10A-6P.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/MICHAEL MASKELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
25 June 2026
Prosecution Insights