DETAILED ACTION
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 1-4 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,573,495, provided in IDS filed 7/30/2024, hereinafter ‘495. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same or identical invention with the same limitations as shown in the table below.
Claims of the instant application
Claims of ‘495
1. An EUV source, comprising:
one or more DGL nozzles across one or more DGL nozzle control regions; and
one or more MFCs configured to control a flow velocity of a fluid in the one or more DGL nozzles.
1. An extreme ultraviolet (EUV) source, comprising:
a plurality of dynamic gas lock (DGL) nozzles;
a plurality of pressure sensors, wherein each pressure sensor of the plurality of pressure sensors is to detect a pressure in a respective DGL nozzle control region of a plurality of DGL nozzle control regions,
wherein each DGL nozzle control region includes a different set of DGL nozzles from the plurality of DGL nozzles, and
wherein each pressure sensor of the plurality of pressure sensors is arranged at a different DGL nozzle of the plurality of DGL nozzles;
a plurality of mass flow controllers (MFCs), wherein each MFC of the plurality of MFCs is to control a flow velocity in a respective DGL nozzle control region of the plurality of DGL nozzle control regions,
wherein each MFC of the plurality of MFCs is associated with a different DGL nozzle control region of the plurality of DGL nozzle control regions; and
a plurality of manifolds, wherein each manifold is connected to a different DGL nozzle control region of the plurality of DGL nozzle control regions.
2. The EUV source of claim 1, wherein the one or more DGL nozzle control regions comprises a plurality of DGL nozzle control regions, each comprising at least one DGL nozzle of the one or more DGL nozzles.
1. An extreme ultraviolet (EUV) source, comprising:
a plurality of dynamic gas lock (DGL) nozzles;
a plurality of pressure sensors, wherein each pressure sensor of the plurality of pressure sensors is to detect a pressure in a respective DGL nozzle control region of a plurality of DGL nozzle control regions,
wherein each DGL nozzle control region includes a different set of DGL nozzles from the plurality of DGL nozzles, and
wherein each pressure sensor of the plurality of pressure sensors is arranged at a different DGL nozzle of the plurality of DGL nozzles;
a plurality of mass flow controllers (MFCs), wherein each MFC of the plurality of MFCs is to control a flow velocity in a respective DGL nozzle control region of the plurality of DGL nozzle control regions,
wherein each MFC of the plurality of MFCs is associated with a different DGL nozzle control region of the plurality of DGL nozzle control regions; and
a plurality of manifolds, wherein each manifold is connected to a different DGL nozzle control region of the plurality of DGL nozzle control regions.
3. The EUV source of claim 2, wherein each DGL nozzle control region, of the plurality of DGL nozzle control regions, comprises a same quantity of the one or more DGL nozzles.
4. The EUV source of claim 1, wherein each DGL nozzle control region of the plurality of DGL nozzle control regions includes a same quantity of DGL nozzles.
4. The EUV source of claim 1, further comprising:
one or more manifolds, across the one or more DGL nozzle control regions, configured to provide the fluid to a fluid channel for injection by the one or more DGL nozzles.
13. A radiation source, comprising:
a plurality of pressure sensors, wherein each pressure sensor of the plurality of pressure sensors is positioned at a respective dynamic gas lock (DGL) nozzle of a plurality of DGL nozzles of an intermediate focus (IF) cap,
wherein each pressure sensor of the plurality of pressure sensors is to provide a signal indicating a respective pressure at a corresponding DGL nozzle of the plurality of DGL nozzles;
a plurality of mass flow controllers (MFCs), wherein each MFC of the plurality of MFCs is to control a flow velocity in a respective DGL nozzle control region of a plurality of DGL nozzle control regions,
wherein each DGL nozzle control region is associated with a respective subset of DGL nozzles from the plurality of DGL nozzles; and
a plurality of manifolds, wherein each manifold of the plurality of manifolds is to provide a fluid to a respective DGL nozzle control region of the plurality of DGL nozzle control regions.
6. The EUV source of claim 4, wherein the one or more manifolds comprises a plurality of manifolds that each has a same distance for a path of the fluid.
7. The EUV source of claim 1, wherein distances of fluid paths through each of the plurality of manifolds are substantially the same among the plurality of manifolds.
As seen from the mapping above, claims 1, 4, 7, and 13 of ‘495 includes all the limitations of claims 1-4 and 6 of the instant application while also reciting further limitations.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,085,861, hereinafter ‘861. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same or identical invention with the same limitations as shown in the table below.
Claims of the instant application
Claims of ‘861
1. An EUV source, comprising:
one or more DGL nozzles across one or more DGL nozzle control regions; and
one or more MFCs configured to control a flow velocity of a fluid in the one or more DGL nozzles.
1. An extreme ultraviolet (EUV) source, comprising:
one or more dynamic gas lock (DGL) nozzles across one or more DGL nozzle control regions; and
one or more pressure sensors, across the one or more DGL nozzle control regions, configured to detect a pressure in the one or more DGL nozzle control regions.
4. The EUV source of claim 1, further comprising: one or more mass flow controllers (MFCs) configured to control a flow velocity in the one or more DGL nozzle control regions.
2. The EUV source of claim 1, wherein the one or more DGL nozzle control regions comprises a plurality of DGL nozzle control regions, each comprising at least one DGL nozzle of the one or more DGL nozzles.
2. The EUV source of claim 1, wherein each DGL nozzle control region of a plurality of DGL nozzle control regions, including the one or more DGL nozzle control regions, includes a different DGL nozzle of a plurality of DGL nozzles, including the one or more DGL nozzles.
4. The EUV source of claim 1, further comprising:
one or more manifolds, across the one or more DGL nozzle control regions, configured to provide the fluid to a fluid channel for injection by the one or more DGL nozzles.
6. The EUV source of claim 1, further comprising:
one or more manifolds connected to the one or more DGL nozzle control regions.
As seen from the mapping above, claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 of ‘861 includes all the limitations of claims 1-2 and 4 of the instant application while also reciting further limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Labetski et al. (US PGPub 20200089124, provided from IDS filed 7/30/2024, hereinafter Labetski).
Regarding claim 1, Fig 9b of Labetski discloses an EUV source (an EUV source, see abstract), comprising:
one or more dynamic gas lock nozzles across one or more DGL nozzle control regions (showerhead 101 includes a first and second plurality of nozzles 120a, 120b to direct gas to a first and second region, see Fig. 9b and paragraph [0184]); and
one or more mass flow controllers configured to control a flow velocity of a fluid in the one or more DGL nozzles (nozzles supply gas from a separately controlled first and second supply 103a, 103b via a control (not shown), see paragraph [0184]; control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]).
Regarding claim 2, Labetski discloses the one or more DGL nozzle control regions comprises a plurality of DGL nozzle control regions, each comprising at least one DGL nozzle of the one or more DGL nozzles (the first and second plurality of nozzles 120a, 120b may be separately supplied with separately controlled gas delivery systems (not shown), see paragraph [0185]).
Regarding claim 4, Labetski discloses one or more manifolds, across the one or more DGL nozzle control regions, configured to provide the fluid to a fluid channel for injection by the one or more DGL nozzles (showerhead 101 (manifold) allows introduction of gas through the plurality of nozzles 120a, 120b, see Fig. 9b and paragraph [0184]).
Regarding claim 5, Labetski discloses the one or more DGL nozzle control regions comprises a plurality of DGL nozzle control regions (plurality of regions denoted by nozzles supplied by first and second gas supplies 103a, 103b, see Fig. 9b), and wherein the one or more DGL nozzles comprises a plurality of DGL nozzles that are each associated with a different DGL control region of the plurality of DGL nozzle control regions (first gas supply 103a supplies gas to first nozzles 120a and second gas supply 103b supplies gas to second nozzles 120b, see Fig. 9b and paragraph [0184]).
Regarding claim 7, Labetski discloses a radiation source (an EUV source, see abstract), comprising:
one or more DGL nozzles across one or more DGL nozzle control regions (showerhead 101 includes a first and second plurality of nozzles 120a, 120b to direct gas to a first and second region, see Fig. 9b and paragraph [0184]); and
one or more MFC configured to receive an indication associated with a flow velocity of a fluid in at least one DGL nozzle of the one or more DGL nozzles (nozzles supply gas from a separately controlled first and second supply 103a, 103b via a control (not shown), see paragraph [0184]; control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]); and
adjust, based on the indication, the flow velocity of the fluid in the at least one DGL nozzle (first gas flow 16 may have a flow rate in the range of 5 to 30 slm, to suppress particulate debris from reaching the illumination system, flow rates of the first gas flow larger than 15 slm may be required, see paragraph [0131]; nozzles supply gas from a separately controlled first and second supply 103a, 103b via a control (not shown), see paragraph [0184]; control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]).
Regarding claim 8, Labetski discloses the indication comprises a mass flow value associated with the flow velocity of the fluid in the at least one DGL nozzle, and wherein the one or more MFCs are further configured to compare the mass flow value to a threshold to determine whether to adjust the flow velocity of the fluid in the at least one DGL nozzle (first gas flow 16 may have a flow rate in the range of 5 to 30 slm, to suppress particulate debris from reaching the illumination system, flow rates of the first gas flow larger than 15 slm may be required (e.g. threshold value to suppress particulate debris), see paragraph [0131]; control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]; nozzles supply gas from a separately controlled first and second supply 103a, 103b via a control (not shown), see paragraph [0184]).
Regarding claim 9, Labetski discloses the flow velocity of the fluid in the at least one DGL nozzle is adjusted via a valve of the one or more MFCs (nozzles supply gas from a separately controlled first and second supply 103a, 103b via a control (not shown), see paragraph [0184]; control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]).
Regarding claim 13, Labetski discloses one or more manifolds, across the one or more DGL nozzle control regions, configured to provide the fluid to a fluid channel for injection by the one or more DGL nozzles (showerhead 101 (manifold) allows introduction of gas through the plurality of nozzles 120a, 120b, see Fig. 9b and paragraph [0184]).
Regarding claim 14, Labetski discloses each MFC, of the one or more MFCs, is installed on a different manifold of the one or more manifolds (nozzles supply gas from a separately controlled first and second supply 103a, 103b via a control (not shown), see paragraph [0184]; control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]).
Regarding claim 15, Labetski discloses a method comprising: receiving an indication associated with a flow velocity of a fluid in at least on DGL nozzle of the one or more DGL nozzles across one or more DGL nozzle control regions (nozzles supply gas from a separately controlled first and second supply 103a, 103b via a control (not shown), see paragraph [0184]; control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]); and
adjusting, based on the indication, the flow velocity of the fluid in the at least one DGL nozzle (first gas flow 16 may have a flow rate in the range of 5 to 30 slm, to suppress particulate debris from reaching the illumination system, flow rates of the first gas flow larger than 15 slm may be required, see paragraph [0131]; nozzles supply gas from a separately controlled first and second supply 103a, 103b via a control (not shown), see paragraph [0184]; control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]).
Regarding claim 17, Labetski discloses the flow velocity of the fluid in the at least one DGL nozzle is adjust via a valve (nozzles supply gas from a separately controlled first and second supply 103a, 103b via a control (not shown), see paragraph [0184]; control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]).
Regarding claim 18, Labetski discloses the indication is received based on a measurement associated with the flow velocity of the fluid in the at least one DGL nozzle (first gas flow 16 may have a flow rate in the range of 5 to 30 slm, to suppress particulate debris from reaching the illumination system, flow rates of the first gas flow larger than 15 slm may be required (e.g. threshold value to suppress particulate debris), see paragraph [0131]; control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]).
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 3, 6, 10-12, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labetski.
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 9b of Labetski discloses a plurality of DGL nozzles (first and second plurality of nozzles 120a, 120b, see paragraph [0184]).
While Labetski does not explicitly disclose for each DGL nozzle control region comprises a same quantity of the one or more DGL nozzles, Labetski recognizes the number of patterns for distributing the first and second plurality of nozzles 120a, 120b of the vessel may be changed to suit the need of different configurations (see paragraph [0190]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the quantity of nozzles such that the first and second plurality of nozzles can be equal for the purpose of enabling control over flow paths within a particular vessel as taught by Labetski (see paragraphs [0185] and [0190]).
Regarding claim 6, Labetski discloses the showerhead 101 (manifold) provides a plurality of nozzles 120a, 120b that each has a path for the gas (see Fig. 9b).
Labetski does not explicitly disclose a plurality of manifolds such that each has a same distance for a path of the fluid, Labetski recognizes the number of patterns for distributing the first and second plurality of nozzles 120a, 120b of the vessel may be changed to suit the need of different configurations (see paragraph [0190]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan before the effective filing date to modify the shape and quantity of showerheads such that nozzles such that the first and second plurality of nozzles can be of equal distance for the purpose of enabling control over flow paths within a particular vessel as taught by Labetski (see paragraphs [0185] and [0190]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious at the time of invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have multiple showerheads over different portions of the vessel, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 10, Labetski discloses a flow velocity of the fluid in the at least one DGL nozzle is measured and provides, based on the measurement, the indication associated with the flow velocity of the fluid in the at least one DGL nozzle (first gas flow 16 may have a flow rate in the range of 5 to 30 slm, to suppress particulate debris from reaching the illumination system, flow rates of the first gas flow larger than 15 slm may be required (e.g. threshold value to suppress particulate debris), see paragraph [0131]; control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]).
Labetski does not explicitly disclose a sensor to perform the measurement, however a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the disclosed flow rate control of the gas (e.g. control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]) would inherently be able to accurately measure the flow velocity for the purpose of enabling control over flow paths within a particular vessel as taught by Labetski (see paragraphs [0185] and [0190]).
Regarding claim 11, Labetski does not explicitly disclose a sensor to perform the measurement automatically on a periodic basis, however a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the disclosed flow rate control of the gas (e.g. control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]) would inherently be able to accurately measure the flow velocity for the purpose of enabling control over flow paths within a particular vessel as taught by Labetski (see paragraphs [0185] and [0190]).
Regarding claim 12, Labetski does not explicitly disclose a sensor to perform the measurement automatically on a measurement request, however a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the disclosed flow rate control of the gas (e.g. control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]) would inherently be able to accurately measure the flow velocity for the purpose of enabling control over flow paths within a particular vessel as taught by Labetski (see paragraphs [0185] and [0190]).
Regarding claim 19, Labetski does not explicitly disclose a sensor to perform the measurement automatically on a periodic basis, however a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the disclosed flow rate control of the gas (e.g. control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]) would inherently be able to accurately measure the flow velocity for the purpose of enabling control over flow paths within a particular vessel as taught by Labetski (see paragraphs [0185] and [0190]).
Regarding claim 20, Labetski does not explicitly disclose a sensor to perform the measurement automatically on a measurement request, however a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the disclosed flow rate control of the gas (e.g. control of maximum velocity of the gas may be in the range of about 1000 to 3000 m/s, see paragraph [0130]) would inherently be able to accurately measure the flow velocity for the purpose of enabling control over flow paths within a particular vessel as taught by Labetski (see paragraphs [0185] and [0190]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANWAY CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at (571) 272-2328. 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.
Hanway Chang
/HC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2878
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights