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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 17-19, 21-24, 27-32, in the reply filed on 08/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 22 and 27-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22 recites “urges the inner and outer support portions together”, however, the previously recited inner portion is not a support portion; Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, and should merely be rephrased, e.g., ‘urges the inner portion and the outer support portion together’;
Claim 27 recites “a fuel droplet nozzle assembly of claim 17”, which is somewhat ambiguous, because it does not clearly indicate the dependence of the claim, and what limitations are required to be included by dependence; Examiner nevertheless believes the limitation is definite in context, and should merely read ‘the fuel droplet nozzle assembly of claim 17’, in order to clearly indicate that the claim is to depend on claim 17; This interpretation is supported by the following limitations in claim 27, which refer back to limitations previously recited in claim 17, indicating that the claim is intended to depend on claim 17;
Claim 28 has a superfluous comma in “the droplet generator assembly, further comprising”, which should read ‘the droplet generator assembly, further comprising’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 28-32 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 28 recites “the droplet generator assembly of claim 17”, however, claim 17 is directed toward a fuel droplet nozzle assembly, not a droplet generator assembly. Accordingly, it is unclear whether claim 28 is intended to depend on claim 17 or 27. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as depending on claim 27.
Claim 29 recites “the power supply”, however, the claim only depends on claim 27 and 17, which do not recite a power supply. As such the term lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For purposes of examination, the is interpreted as depending on claim 28, rather than claim 27.
Claim 29 recites “the power supply is configured to apply a periodic excitation voltage having an excitation frequency that generally matches a resonant frequency of a fuel within the bore”. It is unclear what is required by ‘generally’ matching a resonant frequency, as the limitation does not provide a limitation on what degree the frequency must be matched. Furthermore, the limitation is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The claim appears to be directed at least in part toward the intended use of the assembly, rather than toward the assembly itself. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. no structure to provide any fuel within the bore is required by the claim, and it is not clear what structural modifications of the power supply would be necessary to achieve such frequency matching, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the assembly and power supply in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘the power supply is configured to apply a periodic excitation voltage having an controllable frequency’.
Claim 30 recites “the piezoelectric element is disposed such that a center of the piezoelectric element in a direction parallel to the bore generally coincides with an anti-node of a resonant mode of a fuel within the bore”. Similar to claim 29, it is unclear what is required by ‘generally’ coinciding with an anti-node of a resonant mode, as the limitation does not provide a limitation on what must coincide (presumably position), nor to what degree the quantity must coincide. Furthermore, the limitation is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function. The claim appears to be directed at least in part toward the intended use of the assembly, rather than toward the assembly itself. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. no structure to provide any fuel within the bore is required by the claim, and it is not clear what specific position(s) within the assembly the piezoelectric element would need to be positioned in, as the position of an anti-node would depend on the specific fuel used and on the conditions applied thereto, neither of which are particularly limited or required by the claim. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the positioning/function to achieve such positioning requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the assembly and power supply in a certain manner, and modifying the position as a result thereof (which would constitute a method step, and would not limit the assembly itself). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘the piezoelectric element is disposed such that a center of the piezoelectric element in a direction parallel to the bore generally coincides with the bore’.
Claims 31 and 32 recite “a laser produced plasma radiation source comprising the droplet generator assembly of claim 28” and “a lithographic system comprising the laser produced plasma radiation source of claim 31”, respectively. It is unclear what is required by these claims, as it is not clear what additional elements would required beyond those of claim 28 for the device to read on ‘a laser produced plasma radiation source’ and ‘a lithographic system’. No particular elements are required in the claims, and thus, while an ordinarily skilled artisan would be reasonably apprised of conventional elements for ‘a LPP radiation source’ and ‘a lithographic system’, the skilled artisan would be left to speculate which specific elements would be required of the claims (i.e., in addition to those required by claim 28), and in what configuration. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. The claims appear to merely be a recitation of intended use of the droplet generator assembly of claim 28. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as requiring the droplet generator assembly of being capable of being used at least in part for LPP and lithography.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-19, 21-24, and 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bustraan (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2017121573 A1).
Examiner notes that Bustraan is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 04/23/2024.
Examiner notes that an ordinarily skilled artisan in the field of LPP-EUV droplet generators would have an advanced degree (e.g., PhD) in a physical science/engineering, or equivalent experience, and would thus have a relatively high level of ordinary skill and knowledge. The following prior art analysis/claim mapping is performed as would be understood by such an ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 17, Bustraan teaches a fuel droplet nozzle assembly (Abstract) comprising:
a first hollow body comprising an inlet and an outlet and a bore extending between the inlet and the outlet (See Figs. 3-7, items 261, 400, each having an inlet and outlet and bore extending therebetween; [0036]-[0041]; [0048]-[0055]); and
a piezoelectric element surrounding and in direct or indirect contact with the first hollow body (See Figs. 3, 5, 7, items 262, 420, each having an inlet and outlet and bore extending therebetween; [0036]-[0041]; [0048]-[0055]);
wherein the first hollow body is a composite body formed from at least:
an outer support portion formed from metal (See Figs. 7, items 280, 480, or items 270, 430, and/or 440; [0048]-[0054]); and
an inner portion formed from a glass material and supported by the outer support portion (See Figs. 7, items 261, 420; [0047]; Examiner notes that in the disclosed arrangement, the metal outer portion would inherently provide some degree of mechanical support to the inner portion).
Regarding claim 18, Bustraan teaches the fuel droplet nozzle assembly of claim 17.
Bustraan further teaches wherein the inner portion is supported by the outer support portion along an entire axial extent of the inner portion (See Figs. 7, items 261, 280, 420, 480; [0047]; Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, ‘the inner portion’ is that which is supported by the outer support portion, as required by claim 17; Accordingly, 280 and 280 respectively span the entire axial extent of the inner portion).
Examiner notes for completeness:
De Dea (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20140102875 A1) teaches wherein the inner portion is supported by the outer support portion along an entire axial extent of the [capillary] (See Figs. 3-4, item 330 on entire axial extent of item 320).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bustraan to include including such a metallic element along an entire axial extent of the capillary, as taught by De Dea.
Doing so represents combining known prior art element according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as De Dea discloses a similar structure which could be readily adopted to the system of Bustraan by an ordinarily skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success.
Examiner notes that De Dea is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 04/23/2024.
Regarding claim 19, Bustraan teaches the fuel droplet nozzle assembly of claim 17.
Bustraan further teaches wherein a thickness of the outer support portion is the same as or greater than a thickness of the inner portion (See Figs. 5-6, items 430, 440, each of which are of greater thickness than 420).
Examiner notes for completeness:
Orsini (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20040114720 A1) teaches a thickness of the outer support portion is the same as or greater than a thickness of the inner portion (See Figs. 2-3; [0021]-[0028]), for an arrangement having the outer portion directly coupled to the inner portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bustraan to include wherein a thickness of the outer support portion is the same as or greater than a thickness of the inner portion, as taught by Orsini.
Doing so represents combining know prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as Orsini teaches such a variation and one of ordinary skill in the art could readily adapt such teaching to the device of Bustraan with a reasonable expectation of success, and achieving predictable results, namely, to fixedly hold the capillary, as taught by Orsini in the above cited portions.
Regarding claim 21, Bustraan teaches the fuel droplet nozzle assembly of claim 17.
Bustraan further teaches wherein the inner portion comprises a glass tube (See Figs. 7, items 261, 420; [0047]) and/or wherein the inner portion comprises:
a first glass section defining the inlet; and
a second glass section defining the outlet.
Regarding claim 22, Bustraan teaches the fuel droplet nozzle assembly of claim 17.
Bustraan further teaches wherein an outer surface of the inner portion and an inner surface of the outer support portion are shaped such that a pressure difference between a first region in fluid communication with the inlet and a second region in fluid communication with the outlet urges the inner and outer support portions together (See Figs. 7, items 280, 480, or items 270, 430, and/or 440; [0048]-[0054]; Examiner notes that the shape of 440, 430, and 420 are such that were such a pressure differential present, item 420 would be urged into at least item 440 via 430).
Regarding claim 23, Bustraan teaches the fuel droplet nozzle assembly of claim 17.
Bustraan further teaches wherein a plurality of slits are defined on an external surface of the first hollow body, the plurality of slits extending in a direction generally parallel to the bore and extending partially radially inwards into the first hollow body (See Figs. 6; [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 24, Bustraan teaches the fuel droplet nozzle assembly of claim 17.
Bustraan further teaches further comprising a second hollow body surrounding and in direct or indirect contact with the piezoelectric element (See Figs. 5-6, item 430, wherein one of the other above recited elements would be the outer portion of claim 1).
Regarding claim 27, Bustraan teaches a droplet generator assembly (Abstract) comprising:
a fuel reservoir (See Fig. 3, item 201; [0032]-[0033]; [0036]-[0041]); and
a fuel droplet nozzle assembly of claim 17 (See above for mapping of claim 17), and
wherein the fuel reservoir is in fluid communication with the inlet of the first hollow body (See Fig. 3, item 201; [0032]-[0033]; [0036]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 28, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Bustraan teaches the droplet generator assembly of claim [27].
Bustraan further teaches further comprising a power supply arranged to apply an excitation voltage across an outer surface and an inner surface of the piezoelectric element (See Figs. 7, voltage source across piezo-actuator 400; [0032]-[0033]; [0036]-[0041]), the droplet generator assembly, further comprising a controller operable to control the excitation voltage applied by the power supply (See Fig. 3, item 263; [0035]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 29, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Bustraan teaches the droplet generator assembly of claim 27.
Bustraan further teaches wherein the power supply is configured to apply a periodic excitation voltage having an excitation frequency that generally matches a resonant frequency of a fuel within the bore (See above 112(b) interpretation; See Fig. 3, item 263; Figs. 7, voltage source across piezo-actuator 400; [0032]-[0033]; [0035]-[0041]; Examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of ‘generally matching’ a frequency of an arbitrary fuel within the bore).
Regarding claim 30, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Bustraan teaches the droplet generator assembly of claim 27.
Bustraan further teaches wherein the piezoelectric element is disposed such that a center of the piezoelectric element in a direction parallel to the bore generally coincides with an anti-node of a resonant mode of a fuel within the bore (See Figs. 3-7, item 26, 400, disposed such that a center of the item in a direction parallel to the bore is capable of coinciding with an anti-node of a resonant mode of an arbitrary fuel within the bore; [0032]-[0033]; [0035]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 31, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Bustraan teaches a laser produced plasma radiation source comprising the droplet generator assembly of claim 28 (See above 112(b) interpretation, and see claim 28 for claim mapping thereof; [0005]-[0008]; [0021]-[0022]; [0027]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 32, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Bustraan teaches a lithographic system comprising the laser produced plasma radiation source of claim 31 (See above 112(b) interpretation, and see claim 31 for claim mapping thereof; [0005]-[0009]; [0015]; [0017]; [0019]; [0021]-[0022]; [0027]-[0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights