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 1-8, 21-32) and in the reply filed on April 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-8 and 21-32 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.
As to claims 1, 5, 6, 21, 24, 27, 28, 30, the term “particle condition” is unclear because it does not define what specific parameter (e.g., size, composition, density, contamination level) is being measured, rendering the scope of the claims uncertain. Additionally, related terms such as “elemental particle condition” and “characteristic peak” lack clear definition and further contribute to the ambiguity of the claimed subject matter.
Notwithstanding the above, for purposes of examination under 35 U.S.C. 103, the claims are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under such interpretation, the term “particle condition” is interpreted to broadly encompass any measurable property or state of particles associated with the system, including, but no limited to, the presence, concentration, distribution, or optical response of particles (e.g., scattering or reflection characteristics). Accordingly, the following rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made based on this broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 1-8, 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowering et al (U.S.Pat. 8,686,370 B2) in view of Peters (Pat. U.S.Pat. 6,016,195 A).
With respect to claims 1, 21 and 27-28 and 32, Bowering discloses a method comprising using a laser generator (22), emitting a laser beam; using a radiation source (20), producing extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation by hitting a target droplet by a laser beam (see col.10, lines 46-65); using a scanner, direction the EUV radiation onto a substrate through a mask (see col.2, lines 28-34) and a monitor (100; 202) for in-situ checking (an in-line inspection process) a particle condition/debris/contamination in the laser generator, the radiation source and the scanner when producing the EUV radiation. Thus, Bowering discloses substantially all limitations of the instant claims except for the monitor being a fiber structure/a coaxial fiber structure as recited. However, this feature is well known per se. Peters discloses a fiber structure (see figure 6) including a lighting optical fiber (8) that directs light to a target point and a detecting optical fiber (10) that receives back scattered light from particles and directs the receive light to a detector. In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the fiber structure as taught by Peters into the method of Bowering to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the mentioned claims. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the inspection path of Bowering using the fiber structure of Peters for the purpose of detecting the particle condition in the laser generator, the radiation source and the scanner when producing the EUV radiation and thereby improving the quality of the method/apparatus as intended.
As to claims 2-3, Bowering teaches directing an excitation light onto a target component/mirror (104) in one of the laser generator, the radiation source and the scanner when producing the EUV radiation and detecting an emission spectrum form the target component (see col.12, lines 4-18).
As to claims 6 and 8, the particle condition is an optical degradation/non-metal element of a mirror (see abstract)
As to claim 5, Bowering as modified by Peters, does not specifically the particle condition being a condition of a metal element/a metallic substrate (see abstract)
As to claim 7, the fiber structure of Peter has a first fiber (8) configured to direct a first light onto a target component in one of the laser generator, the radiation source and the scanner when producing the EUV radiation and a second fiber (10) configured to direct a second light from the target component to a light detector.
With respect to claims 22-23, Bowering as modified by Peters, does not expressly disclose cleaning a surface of a target component by using a vacuum tube or swapping a target component with a fresh component, as recited. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to perform maintenance operations such as cleaning the vacuum environment and replacing degraded components in response to detected contamination or particle conditions, because such actions are well-known and routine in EUV lithography systems to maintain performance and prevent degradation caused by debris accumulation.
As to claim 25, Bowering teaches EUV mirror in the scanner operated with grazing incidence (see abstract).
As to claims 26 and 30, it would have been obvious to use a peak intensity value of the detected optical signal taught by Bowering as modified by Peters as an indicator of particle condition since peak signal values are commonly used in optical detection systems to characterize particle presence or contamination levels.
As to claim 29, it would have been obvious to implement the detector as taught by Bowering and modified by Peters, as a spectrometer capable of detecting UV and visible light, as such devices are well known equivalents for analyzing optical signals in inspection systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 has been found allowable since the prior art teaches optical inspection techniques involving measurement of reflected or scattered light intensity, however, the prior art does not disclose or suggest generating multiple images using differently polarized light, nor does it teach comparing such images to evaluate a particle-related condition, as recited in the claim.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al (U.S.Pat. 9,857,690); Fang et al (U.S.Pat. 12,038,205) disclose inspection systems for use in EUV lithographic devices and have been cited for technical background.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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 Minh 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
4/22/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights