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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that the instant application is a continuation of application 17/150685, filed on 1/15/2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 2, “the second sensor signals” should be changed to --the sensor signals-- to correct antecedence based on the introduction of “the sensor signals” in claim 2.
Claim 9, line 3, “adjust the EUV based on the model” appears to be missing a word. The language --adjust the EUV parameters based on the model-- is suggested.
Claim 13, line 2, “the first charged particles” should be changed to --the charged particles-- to correct antecedence.
Claim 14, lines 3-4, “the first or the second charged particles sensed by the one or more charged particle detectors” should be changed to --the charged particles sensed by the charged particle detector-- or similar language to correct antecedence.
Appropriate correction is required to place claims in better form.
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 6, 7-10, and 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 6, the claim recites “the control system” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is unclear if the language is intended to have introduced a control system in a parent claim or if claim 6 is meant to introduce a control system. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as properly introducing a control system in claim 6.
Additionally, claim 6 recites the limitation "the first sensor signals" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Parent claim 2 introduces “sensor signals.” The language “the first sensor signals and the sensor signals” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear which signals “the first sensor signals” refers to. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein a control system is configured to analyze the sensor signals and to adjust EUV generation parameters based, at least in part, on the sensor signals. Thus, claim 6 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the one or more first charged particle detectors” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 7 or in parent claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as properly introducing one or more first charged particle detectors in claim 7. Thus, claim 7 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “the control system” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the language is intended to have introduced a control system in a parent claim or if claim 8 is meant to introduce a control system. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as properly introducing a control system in claim 8. Thus, claim 8 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “the control system” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the language is intended to have introduced a control system in a parent claim or if claim 14 is meant to introduce a control system. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as properly introducing a control system in claim 14. Thus, claim 14 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 recites “further comprising performing a photolithography process with the extreme ultraviolet radiation that enters the scanner,” but claim 1 recites “performing a photolithography process with the EUV light” in line 3, and claim 15 recites “further comprising reflecting, with a collector in the EUV generator, EUV light toward the scanner.” Claim 16 fails to further limit the method as defined by parent claim 15. See MPEP 608.01(n), subsection III. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claims to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 16 is rejected as being of improper dependent form. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,085,860 in view of Albright et al. (US PGPub 2023/0063156, Albright hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of patent 860 recites a system (claim 1, col. 24, line 6), comprising:
an EUV generator configured to generate EUV light (claim 1, col. 24, lines 7, 9-14);
a scanner configured to receive the EUV light and to perform a photolithography process on a wafer with the EUV light (claim 1, col. 24, lines 5, 7);
a first deflector in the scanner (claim 1, col. 24, lines 20-24);
a second deflector in the scanner downstream from the first deflector (claim 1, col. 24, lines 25-27, the second deflector within the scanner is downstream of the first deflector);
a first charged particle capture box in the scanner (claim 1, col. 24, lines 14, 20-24);
a first electromagnetic lens in the first charged particle capture box (claim 1, col. 24, lines 14-16); and
a second charged particle capture box in the scanner (claim 1, col. 24, lines 17-19). Patent 860 does not appear to explicitly recite the first deflector and the second deflector are magnetic deflectors.
Albright discloses a first magnetic deflector in the scanner (Figs. 1 and 7, paras. [0063], [0118], [0160], [0163]-[0167], the lithographic apparatus LA includes debris collector 99 on both sides of the radiation beam B. Magnet 52 includes a magnet array inside the lithographic apparatus to deflect ion particles);
a second magnetic deflector in the scanner (Figs. 1 and 7, paras. [0063], [0118], [0160], [0163]-[0167], the lithographic apparatus LA includes debris collector 99 on both sides of the radiation beam B. Magnet 52 includes a magnet array inside the lithographic apparatus to deflect ion particles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a first magnetic deflector and a second magnetic deflector as taught by Albright as the first and second deflectors in the system as recited by patent 860 since including a first magnetic deflector in the scanner and a second magnetic deflector in the scanner downstream from the first magnetic deflector is commonly used to effectively control the trajectory of particles exiting from the radiation source to reduce deposition of contamination on lithographic apparatus optical components to improve imaging (Albright, paras. [0009], [0015]-[0016], [0160], [0165]-[0167]).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites one or more second charged particle detectors configured to sense the charged particles and to output sensor signals indicative of the charged particles (claim 2 of patent 860).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites wherein the one or more second charged particle detectors include a charge coupled device (claim 3 of patent 860).
Regarding claim 4, claim 5 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites wherein the one or more second charged particle detectors include a Faraday cup (claim 5 of patent 860).
Regarding claim 5, claim 4 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites wherein the one or more second charged particle detectors are positioned within the EUV generator (claim 4 of patent 860).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, claim 6 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites wherein the control system is configured to analyze the second sensor signals and to adjust EUV generation parameters based, at least in part, on the first sensor signals and the sensor signals (claim 6 of patent 860).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, claim 7 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites further comprising: a collector configured to receive extreme ultraviolet radiation from the plasma and to reflect the extreme ultraviolet radiation (claim 7, col. 24, lines 56-60), wherein:
the scanner is configured to receive the extreme ultraviolet radiation reflected by the collector (claim 7, col. 24, lines 61-62); and
the one or more first charged particle detectors are configured to generate sensor signals indicative of the charged particles detected within the scanner (claim 7, col. 24, lines 63-65).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, claim 8 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites wherein the control system is configured to analyze the sensor signals and to adjust the EUV parameters based, at least in part, on the sensor signals (claim 8 of patent 860).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites wherein the control system is configured to generate a model of the plasma based on the sensor signals and to analyze the model and to adjust the EUV based on the model (claim 9 of patent 860).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites wherein the one or more first charged particle detectors include an electron multiplying charge coupled device (claim 10 of patent 860).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites further comprising one or more light sensors (claim 1, col. 24, lines 29-32) and one or more lenses configured to direct extreme ultraviolet radiation toward the one or more light sensors (claim 11 of patent 860).
Regarding claim 12, claim 18 of patent 860 recites a method (claim 18, col. 25, lines 41) comprising:
passing EUV light from an EUV generator to a scanner (claim 18, col. 25, lines 41-48);
deflecting, with a deflector in the scanner, charged particles from the EUV generator to an electromagnetic lens in a charged particle capture box in the scanner (claim 18, col. 25, lines 53-58);
directing, with the electromagnetic lens, the charged particles onto a charged particle detector in the first charged particle capture box (claim 18, col. 25, line 57-col. 26, line 2); and
deflecting, into a second charged particle capture box with a second deflector downstream from the first deflector, second charged particles into a second charged particle capture box within the scanner (claim 18, col. 26, lines 3-8). Claim 18 of patent 860 does not appear to recite performing a photolithography process on a wafer with the EUV light and a magnetic deflector.
Albright discloses performing a photolithography process on a wafer with the EUV light (Figs. 1, 7, paras. [0063]-[0067], the EUV radiation illuminates a patterning device MA, and the pattern on the patterning device is projected onto a substrate W in the lithographic apparatus LA);
deflecting, with a magnetic deflector in the scanner, charged particles from the EUV generator to a charged particle capture box in the scanner (Figs. 1 and 7, paras. [0063], [0118], [0160], [0163]-[0167], the lithographic apparatus LA includes debris collector 99 on both sides of the radiation beam B. Magnet 52 includes a magnet array inside the lithographic apparatus to deflect ion particles);
a second deflector in the scanner (Figs. 1 and 7, paras. [0063], [0118], [0160], [0163]-[0167], the lithographic apparatus LA includes debris collector 99 on both sides of the radiation beam B. Magnet 52 includes a magnet array inside the lithographic apparatus to deflect ion particles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included performing a photolithography process on a wafer with the EUV light, and deflecting, with a magnetic deflector in the scanner as taught by Albright as the use of the scanner and as the first deflector in the method as recited by patent 860 since including performing a photolithography process on a wafer with the EUV light, and deflecting, with a magnetic deflector in the scanner is commonly used to effectively control the trajectory of particles exiting from the radiation source to reduce deposition of contamination on lithographic apparatus optical components to improve wafer imaging (Albright, paras. [0009], [0015]-[0016], [0160], [0165]-[0167]).
Regarding claim 13, claim 19 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites further comprising sensing, with the charged particle detector the first charged particles emitted from the EUV generator (claim 19, col. 26, lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, claim 19 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites further comprising adjusting, with the control system, one or more EUV generation parameters based, at least in part, on characteristics of the first or the second charged particles sensed by the one or more charged particle detectors (claim 19, cl. 26, lines 14-17).
Regarding claim 15, claim 20 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites further comprising reflecting, with a collector in the EUV generator, EUV light toward the scanner (claim 20, col. 26, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 16, claim 20 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites further comprising performing a photolithography process with the extreme ultraviolet radiation that enters the scanner (claim 20, col. 26, lines 22-23).
Claims 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,085,860. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader versions of the patented claims, which further recite outputting a stream of droplets from a droplet generator; generating, in a plasma generation chamber, a plasma by irradiating the droplets with a laser; directing extreme ultraviolet light emitted by the plasma to a scanner,
Regarding claim 12, claim 21 of patent 860 recites a method (claim 21, col. 26, line 24), comprising:
passing EUV light from an EUV generator to a scanner (claim 21, col. 26, lines 25-29);
performing a photolithography process on a wafer with the EUV light (claim 21, col. 26, lines 31-32);
deflecting, with a magnetic deflector in the scanner, charged particles from the EUV generator to an electromagnetic lens in a charged particle capture box in the scanner (claim 21, col. 26, lines 33-41);
directing, with the electromagnetic lens, the charged particles onto a charged particle detector in the first charged particle capture box (claim 21, col. 26, lines 37-41); and
deflecting, into a second charged particle capture box with a second deflector downstream from the first deflector, second charged particles into a second charged particle capture box within the scanner (claim 21, col. 26, lines 42-47).
Regarding claim 13, claim 22 of patent 860 recites further comprising sensing, with the charged particle detector the first charged particles emitted from the EUV generator (claim 22, col. 26, lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, claim 22 of patent 860 recites further comprising adjusting, with the control system, one or more EUV generation parameters based, at least in part, on characteristics of the first or the second charged particles sensed by the one or more charged particle detectors (claim 22, col. 26, lines 52-55).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,085,860 in view of Albright.
Regarding claim 15, claim 21 of patent 860 does not appear to recite further comprising reflecting, with a collector in the EUV generator, EUV light toward the scanner.
Albright discloses reflecting, with a collector in the EUV generator, EUV light toward the scanner (Figs. 1, 7, paras. [0063]-[0070], [0072]-[0073], the EUV radiation is collected and reflected by collector 5 to illumination system IL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included reflecting, with a collector in the EUV generator, EUV light toward the scanner as taught by Albright in the method as recited by patent 860 since including reflecting, with a collector in the EUV generator, EUV light toward the scanner is commonly used to effectively collect and focus EUV radiation (Albright, paras. [0069], [0072]) to condition the radiation as desired.
Regarding claim 16, claim 21 of patent 860 as modified by Albright recites further comprising performing a photolithography process with the extreme ultraviolet radiation that enters the scanner (claim 21, col. 26, lines 31-32).
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US PGPub 2021/0349396, Chen hereinafter; provisional 63/021478, filed on 5/7/2020) in view of Ueno et al. (US PGPub 2008/0087840, Ueno hereinafter).
The applied Chen reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses a method (Figs. 1-10, paras. [0030]-[0036], [0039]-[0043], [0091]-[0095], the photolithography system 100 includes an EUV generation chamber 101 that generates EUV radiation from a plasma), comprising:
generate EUV light by generating a plasma in an EUV generation chamber (Figs. 1-10, paras. [0030]-[0035], [0039], [0066], [0081], [0086], a plasma generating EUV light is produced in the EUV generation chamber 101);
generate first sensor signals by sensing side-scatter light from the plasma (Fig. 4, paras. [0065], [0067], [0091]-[0095], light sensors 162 detect side scattering of EUV radiation generated by the plasma);
generate a 3D model of the plasma based on the sensor signals (Figs. 1, 4-10, paras. [0086], [0091]-[0095], [0098], the control system 134 determines a 3D plasma model using the data from light sensors 162 and charged particle sensors 160); and
adjust generation of the plasma based on the 3D model (Figs. 1, 4-10, paras. [0076]-[0077], [0091]-[0098], [0111], [0124], the control system 134 determines the adjustments to the prepulse laser, the plasmatizing laser, and the droplets to control plasma generation from the model). Although the published application of Chen discloses generating second sensor signals by detecting charged particles from the plasma (Fig. 4, paras. [0064], [0066], [0078]-[0080], charged particle detectors 160 generate sensor signals indicative of charged particles), the provisional application 63/021478, filed 5/7/2020 of Chen does not appear to explicitly describe the subject matter of generating second sensor signals by detecting charged particles from the plasma prior to the effective filing date of 1/15/2021 of the instant application.
Ueno discloses generate second sensor signals by detecting charged particles from the plasma (Figs. 1, 5, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0068]-[0069], [0074], ion detector 22 detects the amount of ions emitted from the plasma and provides the signal to control unit 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included generate second sensor signals by detecting charged particles from the plasma as taught by Ueno as second sensor signals in the method as taught by Chen since including generate second sensor signals by detecting charged particles from the plasma is commonly used to determine the change in contamination thickness on the surface of an EUV collector mirror to adjust plasma generation parameters to obtain the desired contamination deposition to extend the life of the collector mirror (Ueno, paras. [0051], [0061], [0068]-[0069], [0074]-[0075]).
Regarding claim 18, Chen as modified by Ueno discloses wherein generating the plasma includes: outputting a stream of droplets from a droplet generator (Chen, Figs. 1, 4-10, paras. [0031]-[0032], [0035]-[0042], [0086]-[0089], [0092]-[0098], droplet generator 114 generates and outputs a stream of droplets); and
generating, in a plasma generation chamber, a plasma by irradiating the droplets with a laser (Chen, Figs. 1, 4-10, paras. [0030]-[0036], [0039]-[0042], [0066], [0081], [0086], [0095], laser 106 outputs pulses of light to irradiate droplets 140 to generate the EUV plasma in EUV plasma generation chamber 101).
Regarding claim 19, Chen as modified by Ueno discloses wherein adjusting generation of the plasma includes adjusting one or more of: a timing of the laser; a pulse power of the laser; a pulse profile of the laser; a position of the laser (Chen, Figs. 1, 4-10, paras. [0076], [0077], [0095]-[0098], [0111], [0124], the control system 134 adjusts parameters such as laser pulse timing, laser pulse location, laser pulse energies).
Regarding claim 20, Chen as modified by Ueno discloses wherein adjusting generation of the plasma includes adjusting one or more of: a velocity of the droplets; a size of the droplets; an initial temperature of the droplets; and a trajectory of the droplets (Chen, Figs. 1, 4-10, paras. [0038], [0076]-[0078], [0095]-[0098], [0111], [0124], the control system 134 adjusts parameters such as droplet speed, droplet size, droplet temperature).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejections set forth in this Office action or if a proper Terminal Disclaimer is filed.
Further, claims 6, 7-10 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious a first magnetic deflector in the scanner; a second magnetic deflector in the scanner downstream from the first magnetic deflector; a first charged particle capture box in the scanner; a first electromagnetic lens in the first charged particle capture box; and a second charged particle capture box in the scanner. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claim 1 render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious deflecting, with a magnetic deflector in the scanner, charged particles from the EUV generator to an electromagnetic lens in a charged particle capture box in the scanner; directing, with the electromagnetic lens, the charged particles onto a charged particle detector in the first charged particle capture box; and deflecting, into a second charged particle capture box with a second deflector downstream from the first deflector, second charged particles into a second charged particle capture box within the scanner. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claim 12 render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The dependent claims are likewise allowable by virtue of their dependency upon an allowable independent claim as stated above.
Albright et al. (US PGPub 2023/0063156, Albright hereinafter) discloses directing extreme ultraviolet light emitted by the plasma to a scanner (Figs. 1, 7, paras. [0067]-[0077], the EUV radiation produced by the plasma is output to a lithographic apparatus LA); performing a photolithography process with the extreme ultraviolet radiation that enters the scanner (Figs. 1, 7, paras. [0063]-[0067], the EUV radiation illuminates a patterning device MA, and the pattern on the patterning device is projected onto a substrate W in the lithographic apparatus LA); and deflecting, into a first charged particle capture box and with a magnetic deflector, first charged particles that enter the scanner, the first charged particle capture box and the magnetic deflector located within the scanner (Figs. 1 and 7, paras. [0063], [0118], [0160], [0163]-[0167], the lithographic apparatus LA includes debris collector 99 located on both sides of the radiation beam B to collect debris including charged particles. Magnet 52 includes a magnet array inside the lithographic apparatus to deflect ion particles); and deflecting into a second charged particle capture box with the magnetic deflector, second charged particles that enter the scanner, the second charged particle capture box located within the scanner (Figs. 1 and 7, paras. [0063], [0118], [0160], [0163]-[0167], the lithographic apparatus LA includes debris collector 99 located on both sides of the radiation beam B to collect debris including charged particles. Magnet 52 includes a magnet array inside the lithographic apparatus to deflect ion particles). Although Albright discloses a magnet array to deflect charged particles (Figs. 1 and 7, paras. [0063], [0118], [0160], [0163]-[0167]), Albright fails to describe or render obvious a second magnetic deflector in the scanner downstream from the first magnetic deflector and a first electromagnetic lens in the first charged particle capture box. Although Albright discloses deflecting, into a second charged particle capture box with a second deflector downstream from the first deflector, second charged particles into a second charged particle capture box within the scanner (Figs. 1, 2, and 7, paras. [0063], [0118], [0160], [0163]-[0167], the lithographic apparatus LA includes debris collector 99 located on both sides of the radiation beam B to collect debris including charged particles. Magnet 52 includes a magnet array inside the lithographic apparatus to deflect ion particles. Further, the claim language “a second deflector downstream from the first deflector” does not require a second magnetic deflector. Para. [0165] describes the magnet 52 is used with the electrodes 30, 52 of Fig. 2 and is positioned closer to the opening 8 or the immediate focus as compared to the electrodes 30, 32. Thus, the embodiment of Albright described in para. [0165] and Figs. 1 and 7 describes the claim language “deflecting, into a second charged particle capture box with a second deflector downstream from the first deflector, second charged particles into a second charged particle capture box within the scanner), Albright does not disclose or render obvious an electromagnetic lens in the charged particle capture box in the scanner and directing, with the electromagnetic lens, the charged particles onto a charged particle detector in the first charged particle capture box.
Tomita et al. (US PGPub 2017/0280545, Tomita hereinafter) discloses a photolithography system (Figs. 1, 2, 6-8, 18, 19), comprising: a plasma generation chamber (Figs. 1, 2, 6-8, 18, 19, and 31, paras. [0082], [0095], a plasma is generated in chamber 2); a scanner coupled to the plasma generation chamber (Fig. 1, paras. [0083], [0085], [0088], [0202], exposure unit 6 and connection section 29 are coupled to chamber 2); a droplet generator configured to output a stream of droplets into the plasma generation chamber (Figs. 1, 2, 6-8, 18, 19, 29, and 31, paras. [0082], [0088], [0095]-[0096], [0109], [0246]-[0248], target feeder 26 supplies targets 27 into chamber 2); a laser configured to generate a plasma from the droplets by irradiating the droplets in the plasma generation chamber (Figs. 1, 2, 6-8, 18, 19, 29, and 31, paras. [0082], [0083], [0087], [0095]-[0096], [0109], laser unit 3 emits a laser to irradiate targets 27 to produce EUV radiation from a plasma); one or more light sensors configured to detect extreme ultraviolet radiation emitted from the plasma and to output first sensor signals indicative of the extreme ultraviolet radiation (Figs. 1, 2, 6-8, 18, 19, 29, and 31, paras. [0092]-[0094], [0097], [0102], [0106], [0109]-[0111], [0123]-[0124], [0128], [0149], [0152]-[0153], [0173]-[0174], [0185], [0187], [0221], [0265], [0275], an energy sensor 52 measures energy of the EUV light 251 and outputs a detection value to EUV light generation controller 5, and a Thomson scattering measurement system includes spectrometer 130 with CCD camera 135 to output measurement results to the EUV light generation controller 5); and a control system configured to receive the first sensor signals, to analyze the first sensor signals, and to adjust plasma generation parameters based, at least in part, on the first sensor signals (Figs. 1, 2, 6-8, 18, 19, 29, and 31, paras. [0084], [0089]-[0090], [0107]-[0109], [0111], [0139], [0149], [0166]-[0167], [0202], [0209], [0211], [0213]-[0231], [0236], [0258], EUV light generation controller 5 receives signals from energy sensor 52 and spectrometer 130. The EUV light generation controller 5 controls parameters of the EUV light generation system). Tomita does not describe or render obvious a first magnetic deflector in the scanner; a second magnetic deflector in the scanner downstream from the first magnetic deflector; a first charged particle capture box in the scanner; a first electromagnetic lens in the first charged particle capture box; and a second charged particle capture box in the scanner, or deflecting, with a magnetic deflector in the scanner, charged particles from the EUV generator to an electromagnetic lens in a charged particle capture box in the scanner; directing, with the electromagnetic lens, the charged particles onto a charged particle detector in the first charged particle capture box; and deflecting, into a second charged particle capture box with a second deflector downstream from the first deflector, second charged particles into a second charged particle capture box within the scanner.
Ueno et al. (US PGPub 2011/0284775, Ueno 775 hereinafter) discloses a first charged particle capture box coupled to the scanner (Figs. 2-4, 11, 14, paras. [0030]-[0033], [0042], one of ion collection units 24 and 25 that collects ions and is coupled to EUV exposure apparatus 11); a second charged particle capture box coupled to the scanner (Figs. 2-4, 11, 14, paras. [0030]-[0033], [0042], the second of ion collection units 24 and 25 that collects ions and is coupled to EUV exposure apparatus 11); a deflector configured to deflect first charged particles into the first charged particle capture box and to deflect second charged particles into the second charged particle capture box (Figs. 2-4, 11, 14, paras. [0030]-[0033], [0042], [0044]-[0045], electromagnetic coils 21, 22 generate a magnetic field to deflect ions to the ion collection units 24 and 25). Ueno 775 does not describe or render obvious the charged particle capture boxes and deflector within the scanner. Ueno therefore fails to describe or suggest a first magnetic deflector in the scanner; a second magnetic deflector in the scanner downstream from the first magnetic deflector; a first charged particle capture box in the scanner; a first electromagnetic lens in the first charged particle capture box; and a second charged particle capture box in the scanner, or deflecting, with a magnetic deflector in the scanner, charged particles from the EUV generator to an electromagnetic lens in a charged particle capture box in the scanner; directing, with the electromagnetic lens, the charged particles onto a charged particle detector in the first charged particle capture box; and deflecting, into a second charged particle capture box with a second deflector downstream from the first deflector, second charged particles into a second charged particle capture box within the scanner.
Wieringa et al. (US PGPub 2007/0143032, Wieringa hereinafter) discloses one or more second charged particle detectors positioned in the scanner and configured to detect second charged particles within the scanner and to generate third sensor signals indicative of the second charged particles detected within the scanner (Fig. 6, paras. [0038], [0054]-[0056], [0065], [0119]-[0121], the lithographic apparatus includes a test surface to detect species of contamination, including ions and other charged particles, in situ using detector 1510. Processor 1520 determines the species and is used for feedback and control). Wieringa does not describe or render obvious a first magnetic deflector in the scanner; a second magnetic deflector in the scanner downstream from the first magnetic deflector; a first charged particle capture box in the scanner; a first electromagnetic lens in the first charged particle capture box; and a second charged particle capture box in the scanner, or deflecting, with a magnetic deflector in the scanner, charged particles from the EUV generator to an electromagnetic lens in a charged particle capture box in the scanner; directing, with the electromagnetic lens, the charged particles onto a charged particle detector in the first charged particle capture box; and deflecting, into a second charged particle capture box with a second deflector downstream from the first deflector, second charged particles into a second charged particle capture box within the scanner.
Kraus et al. (US PGPub 2011/0211179, Kraus hereinafter) discloses wherein one or more second charged particle detectors are positioned in the one or more charged particle capture boxes and are configured to detect charged particles (Figs. 1-3, paras. [0045]-[0047], the ion traps 21, 21a detect the trapped ions 23). Kraus does not describe or render obvious a first magnetic deflector in the scanner; a second magnetic deflector in the scanner downstream from the first magnetic deflector; a first charged particle capture box in the scanner; a first electromagnetic lens in the first charged particle capture box; and a second charged particle capture box in the scanner, or deflecting, with a magnetic deflector in the scanner, charged particles from the EUV generator to an electromagnetic lens in a charged particle capture box in the scanner; directing, with the electromagnetic lens, the charged particles onto a charged particle detector in the first charged particle capture box; and deflecting, into a second charged particle capture box with a second deflector downstream from the first deflector, second charged particles into a second charged particle capture box within the scanner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-5PM.
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, Minh-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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882