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 .
Objected Informalities
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In The Claims
Claims 4, 17 and 19, “EUV wavefront” should be -- wavefront --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Rejection under First Paragraph
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 4 and 17-19 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification is unclear for reciting the limitation "EUV wavefront” as recited in claims 4, 17 and 19. How is the EUV wavefront that is generated?
Additional explanations are needed if applicant insists on including this feature in claims 4, 17 and 19 without the insertion of new matter.
Clarification without the introduction of new matter is required.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-5, 8-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eurlings et al. (2016/0334711) in view of Hunt (2003/0179433) and Suzuki et al. (2015/0264792).
Eurlings et al. (2016/0334711) discloses, in figs. 1-16, an apparatus for generating extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which includes
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 17, 18, 19, 20,
a radiation source configured to generate a pre-pulse laser 71 and a main pulse laser 2” to heat target droplets to convert the target droplets to plasma at a predetermined position 4” (see fig. 10, [0053], [0118], [0119], [0140], [0144], [0187]-[0190]);
the adjustable time delay between the pre-pulse and the main pulse is considered to be inherent in the Eurlings et al. (2016/0334711) apparatus for generating extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation as Eurlings et al. (2016/0334711) discloses that a pre-pulse laser beam may be directed to be incident on a fuel target before a main-pulse laser beam 2 is incident on the fuel target (see [0053], [0187]);
a selectively deformable mirror 132 disposed in a path of the excitation laser (see fig. 15, [0070], [0071]);
a wavefront aberration detector 123 configured to measure a variation in a wavefront generated when target droplets 4 are converted to plasma by radiation generated by the radiation source (see fig. 15, [0061]-[0065], [0071], [0165]-[0167], [0176], [0177]); and
a controller 125 configured to automatically adjust a configurable parameter of the selectively deformable mirror 132 change a wavefront of one or both of the pre-pulse and the main pulse based on feedback of the variation in the wavefront detected by the detector 123 (see fig. 15, [0177]).
Using the deformable mirror that comprises isolated deformable regions separated by electrically insulating regions as recited in claims 1 and 17 is considered to be obvious variation in design, since it is well known in the art as Hunt (2003/0179433) discloses, in figs. 1-3, a system for modulating an incoming optical wavefront, which includes a deformable mirror 17 comprising isolated deformable regions 21 separated by electrically insulating regions 22 (see figs. 2, 3, [0017], [0018]), thus would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the deformable mirror comprising isolated deformable regions separated by electrically insulating regions in the Eurlings et al. (2016/0334711) apparatus for controlling the wavefront to generate extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the feedback parameter is selected from the group consisting of a variation in EUV energy generated from heating the target droplets, a position and/or trajectory of a target droplet, a position of a focal point of the excitation laser, a time delay between a pre-pulse of the excitation laser and a main pulse of the excitation laser, a laser power, a time delay between successive pre-pulses, a time delay between successive main pulses, a width of an excitation pulse at the focal point, a spatial separation between the pre-pulse of the excitation laser and the main pulse of the excitation laser, and a combination thereof (see figs. 4, 5A, 5B, [0055], [0084], [0086], [0108], [0114], [0117], [0119], [0120], [0122], [0140], [0171], [0183], [0184]).
Regarding claims 8, 9, wherein
Applying a voltage in a range from 1 Vdc to 200 Vdc to each of the isolated deformable regions comprising a piezo crystal is considered to be obvious variation in design, since it is well known in the art as Suzuki et al. (2015/0264792) discloses, in figs. 1-22, a laser beam controlling device for an EUV generating apparatus, which includes a deformable mirror 87 comprising isolated deformable regions separated by electrically insulating regions (see figs. 13A, 13B, 13C), wherein each of the isolated deformable regions comprises a piezo crystal 874 (see fig. 13C, [0226], [0227], [0228]) and is selectively applied by one voltage (see fig. 13C) for tilting the isolated deformable region to reflect a laser beam at an angle, thus would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the deformable mirror including isolated deformable regions separated by electrically insulating regions, and to selective apply a voltage in a range from 1 Vdc to 200 Vdc to each of the isolated deformable regions for tilting each of the isolated deformable regions in the Eurlings et al. (2016/0334711) apparatus for controlling the wavefront to generate extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation.
Claims 10-16 are allowable.
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art fails to disclose an apparatus and/or method for generating extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which includes a selectively deformable mirror having a diameter in a range from 13 cm to 17 cm as recited in claim 6; an adjustable tilt angle of each of isolated deformable regions with respect to an initial tilt angle in a range from -2.0 mrad to +2.0 mrad as recited in claim 7; or controlling a selectively deformable mirror disposed in a path of an excitation laser based on a spatial separation measured between a pre-pulse and a main pulse as recited in claim 10.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Tomita et al. (2017/0280545) discloses an apparatus for generating extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which includes a deformable mirror and a time delay for controlling a pre-pulse laser and a main pulse laser.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIET TUAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2479. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert H. Kim can be reached on 571-272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KIET T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights