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 and amendments filed on Sept. 9, 2026 have been fully considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first longitudinal section and the second longitudinal section being aligned with respect to one another at an angle of between 60o and 120o in claims 36, 78 and 80 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 78, 82-84 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 78, “flowpassage” seems to be missing a space or a hyphen.
There are two claims 82 and claims 84. Applicant states in the arguments that claims 77-84 have been added. However, it seems claims 77-86 have been added. It is assumed that the second claim 82 is 83, claim 83 is 84, the first claim 84 is claim 85 and the second claim 84 is claim 86. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 36-48, 51, 73, 74 and 76-86 are 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.
Regarding claims 36, 78 and 80, the first longitudinal section and the second longitudinal section being aligned with respect to one another at an angle of between 60o and 120o is not disclosed in the specification, and it is a new matter.
Applicant states that support for the amendments may be found in para 0087, 0090 and 0214 and Fig. 7B, 7C and 11A. Para 0087 and 0090 disclose that aligning two parts of channels form a seam region, which may be different from the area outside of the seam region, and may have one or more bulges, and does not disclose two longitudinal sections and angle between them. Para 0214 describes Fig. 12A-12D, but applicant states that one of the figures that support the amendments is Fig. 11A, and applicant does not list Fig. 12 to find support for the amendments. Para 0214 discloses that the angle between channels 134 or 136 and the cooling channels 131 is 90o and 115o between the inlet channel and a distributor channel. However, para 0214 does not disclose two longitudinal sections with the claimed angle since channel 134 looks more vertical than longitudinal.
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.
Claim(s) 49, 50 and 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Erhard (2020/0379281).
Regarding claim 49, Erhard discloses mirror (para 0015, 0017, Fig. 6B), comprising: a substrate (9, para 0058, 0059) which comprises a channel, the channel having a seam region (28, see annotated Fig. 6B below) in which two longitudinal parts of the channel are brought together to form a continuous channel (see below), and wherein respective cross-sections of the two longitudinal parts are substantially the same (see below, para 0060).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 50, Erhard discloses wherein the channel has at least one of: an edge contour of a removal front, at least one bulge, a lateral offset and a structural modification other than the edge contour, the bulge or the offset in the seam region (structural modification, Fig. 6B, see above).
Regarding claim 75, Erhard discloses wherein the substrate is a monolithic substrate (9), and wherein the channel is curved and is configured as a flow-passage for a fluid (Fig. 6B, para 0060).
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) 36-43, 47, 48, 73, 74, and 77-85 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erhard (2020/0379281).
Regarding claim 36, Erhard discloses mirror (para 0015, 0017, Fig. 6B), a substrate (9, para 0058, 0059)), a radiation-reflective coating (13) applied to a surface of the substrate (para 0059), and at least one hollow structure (25) extending in the substrate and configured as a flow-passage for a fluid (para 0060), wherein the hollow structure has a first longitudinal section and a second longitudinal section neighboring the first longitudinal section (see annotated Fig. 6B above), which are aligned with respect to one another at an angle (Fig. 6B) and wherein the hollow structure has a rounded-off section (28, Fig. 6B), at which the first section and the second section merge into one another (Fig. 6B). Although Erhard does not disclose that the angle between the two longitudinal sections is between 60o and 120o, Erhard shows in Fig. 6B, the two longitudinal sections form a “conical deflection surface” (para 0060) with an angle approximately between 60o and 90o (Fig. 6B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the two sections with an angle between 60o and 120o since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, although Erhard does not specifically disclose wherein an R/D ratio between a radius of curvature R of the rounded-off section and a diameter D of the rounded-off section is between 2 and 6 and wherein a diameter D of the rounded-off section is between 2 mm and 20 mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the diameter D between 2 mm and 20 mm and provide the radius R so that the ratio R/D is between 2 and 6 for proper pressure and flow of the cooling medium since it has been held that changing sizes and finding optimum value involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 39, Erhard discloses a temperature control channels (25, 27) which extend below the surface to which the reflective coating is applied (Fig. 6B, para 0060) and a fluid distributor (inherent to provide the entering fluid to 27) connected to the temperature control channels via distribution channels (27) and a fluid collector (inherent to collect the exiting fluid from channel 25) connected to the temperature control channel via collector channels (25).
Regarding claim 40, Erhard discloses wherein the first section forms a distribution end section (27, Fig. 6B) of the temperature control channel (25) adjacent to one of the distributor channels and the second section forms a distributor channel (25) section adjacent to the distribution end section (28) and/or wherein the first section forms a collection end section of the temperature control channel adjacent to one of the collector channels and wherein the second section forms a collector channel section adjacent to the collection end section.
Regarding claim 41, Erhard discloses wherein the fluid distributor forms an inlet channel (27), from which the distributor channels branch off, and/or wherein the fluid collector forms an outlet channel (not shown but downward direction of fluid in channel 25), from which the collector channels branch off (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 42, Erhard discloses wherein the first section (27) forms a merging section (28) of the distributor channel neighboring the inlet channel and wherein the second section (25) forms a branching section of the inlet channel neighboring the merging section (28, fig. 6B), and/or wherein the first section forms a merging section of the collector channel neighboring the outlet channel and wherein the second section forms a branching section of the outlet channel neighboring the merging section of the collector channel.
Regarding claim 43, although Erhard does not disclose discloses wherein the angle between the branching section of the inlet channel (27, Fig. 6B) and the merging section (28) of the distributor channel is greater than 90°, and/or wherein the angle between the branching section of the outlet channel and the merging section of the collector channel is greater than 90°, Erhard discloses the angle at approximate 90° as shown in Fig. 6B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to provide the angle between the inlet channel and the merging section of the distribution channel to be greater than 90° since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention, such as the inlet channel and the merging section to change the angle, involves only routine skill in that art and determining the optimum value of the angle involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 47, Erhard discloses wherein the hollow structure (25, 38) has a seam region. (28, Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 48, Erhard discloses wherein the hollow structure has at least one of: an edge contour of a removal front, at least one bulge, a lateral offset and a structural modification other than the edge contour, the bulge or the offset in the seam region (structural modification at 28, Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 73, Erhard discloses wherein the substrate is a monolithic substrate (9, para 0048), and the reflective coating is configured to reflect extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation (para 0009, 0061).
Regarding claim 74, Erhard discloses wherein the temperature control channels (25, 27) are configured as cooling channels (para 0060).
Regarding claim 77, Erhard discloses wherein the surface of the substrate with the radiation-reflective coating is at least partially curved (Fig. 6B), and wherein the hollow structure has at least one longitudinal section that has a curvature that essentially follows the at least partially curved surface (see annotated Fig. 6B above, the first longitudinal section that follows the partially curved surface by curving downward towards the seam 28).
Regarding claim 78, Erhard discloses mirror (para 0015, 0017, Fig. 6B), a substrate (9, para 0058, 0059)), a radiation-reflective coating (13), the coating being applied to an at least partially curved surface of the substrate (Fig. 6B), and at least one hollow structure (25) extending in the substrate and configured as a flow-passage for a fluid (para 0060), wherein the hollow structure has at least one longitudinal section that has a curvature that essentially follows the at least partially curved surface (Fig. 6B, the conical deflection surface 28 is curved downward at the middle like the surface of the substrate) wherein the hollow structure has a first longitudinal section and a second longitudinal section neighboring the first section (see annotated Fig. 6B above), which are aligned with respect to one another at an angle (Fig. 6B), and wherein the hollow structure has a rounded-off section (28, Fig. 6B), at which the first section and the second section merge into one another (Fig. 6B). Although Erhard does not disclose that the angle between the two longitudinal sections is between 60o and 120o, Erhard shows in Fig. 6B, the two longitudinal sections form a “conical deflection surface” (para 0060) with an angle approximately between 60o and 90o (Fig. 6B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the two sections with an angle between 60o and 120o since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 79, Erhard discloses wherein the mirror is an EUV mirror (Fig. 6B) and the radiation-reflective coating is configured for reflecting EUV-radiation (para 0009, 0061).
Regarding claim 80, Erhard discloses mirror (para 0015, 0017, Fig. 6B), a substrate (9, para 0058, 0059)), a radiation-reflective coating (13), the coating being applied to an at least partially curved surface of the substrate (Fig. 6B) wherein the substrate comprises at least one continuous channel having a first longitudinal section that has a curvature that essentially follows the at least partially curved surface (see annotated Fig. 6B above, the first longitudinal section that follows the partially curved surface by curving downward towards the seam 28), wherein the at least one continuous channel has a second longitudinal section neighboring the first longitudinal section (see annotated Fig. 6B above), wherein the first longitudinal section and the second longitudinal section are aligned with respect to one another at an angle (Fig. 6B). Although Erhard does not disclose that the angle between the two longitudinal sections is between 60o and 120o, Erhard shows in Fig. 6B, the two longitudinal sections form a “conical deflection surface” (para 0060) with an angle approximately between 60o and 90o (Fig. 6B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the two sections with an angle between 60o and 120o since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, although Erhard does not disclose wherein the channel and has a length of at least 20 cm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the channel having a length at least 20 cm depending on the size of the mirror and the surface to be cooled since merely changing the size of an element required only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 81, although Erhard does not disclose wherein the channel and has a length of at least 70 cm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the channel having a length at least 20 cm depending on the size of the mirror and the surface to be cooled since merely changing the size of an element required only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 82, Erhard discloses wherein the second longitudinal section extends towards a surface of the substrate that is opposite to the at least partially curved surface (see annotated Fig. 6B above, the second longitudinal section is curved towards the bottom towards the surface opposite to the curved surface at 28).
Regarding claim 83, although Erhard does not disclose that the angle between the two longitudinal sections is between 70o and 80o, Erhard shows in Fig. 6B, the two longitudinal sections form a “conical deflection surface” (para 0060) with an angle approximately between 60o and 90o (Fig. 6B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the two sections with an angle between 70o and 80o since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 84, Erhard discloses wherein the substrate is monolithic (9, Fig. 6B, para 0048).
Regarding claim 85, Erhard discloses wherein the mirror is an EUV mirror (Fig. 6B) and the radiation-reflective coating is configured for reflecting EUV-radiation (para 0009, 00061).
Claim(s) 44-46, 51 and 86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erhard as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Laufer (DE 102018202687 in IDS, translation provided with the previous Office Action).
Regarding claims 44 and 86, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Erhard is wherein the substrate consists at least essentially of a material selected from the group consisting of: fused silica and glass ceramic. Laufer discloses a mirror (50, Fig. 3b) wherein the substrate (21, para 0029) consists at least essentially of a material selected from the group consisting of: fused silica and glass ceramic (glass, para 0008). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the substrate consisting at least essentially of a material selected from the group consisting of: fused silica and glass ceramic since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claims 45 and 46, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Erhard is wherein the substrate consists at least essentially of a material that has a zero-crossing temperature which is between 0° C. and 100° C and wherein the substrate consists at least essentially of a material that has a spatial variation of a zero-crossing temperature which is less than 3 K. Laufer discloses wherein the substrate consists at least essentially of a material that has a zero-crossing temperature which is between 0° C. and 100° C (para 0008, the zero-crossing temperature of glass is between 20-30° C), and Laufer discloses wherein the substrate consists at least essentially of a material that has a spatial variation of a zero-crossing temperature which is less than 3 K (para 0008, the zero-crossing temperature of glass is between 20-30° C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the substrate with the claimed characteristics since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 51, Erhard discloses EUV radiation generating system (Fig. 7, abstract, para 0009) comprising at least one EUV mirror according to claim 36 (see above) and a temperature control device configured as a hollow structure forming a flow-passage for a temperature control fluid (Fig. 6B, para 0060). However, Erhard does not disclose an EUV lithography system. Laufer discloses an EUV lithography system (Fig. 1, para 0022) comprising a temperature control device configured as a hollow structure forming a flow-passage for a temperature control fluid (Fig. 3b, para 0029-0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the EUV lithography system of Laufer to the invention of Erhard as an intended use for the EUV radiation generation system of Erhard.
Claim(s) 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erhard in view of Laufer as applied to claim 44 above, and further in view of Becker (2016/0151880).
Regarding claim 76, the further difference between the modified Erhard is wherein the substrate consists at least essentially of titanium-doped fused silica. Becker discloses a mirror for EUV lithograph comprising the mirror substrate blank made from titanium-doped silica glass (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the substrate for the mirror consisting at least essentially of titanium-doped fused silica as taught by Becker in order to provide a stable mirror with low coefficient of thermal expansion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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
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 October 13, 2026
