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 .
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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bakker et al. [US 2006/0175558 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Bakker et al. discloses an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography system (as shown in Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
a housing (48, see also paragraph [0046]) having an interior which contains a residual gas (paragraph [0067] teaches the gas in the chamber), and
at least one gas-binding component (Fig. 4 items 49 and 149) which is arranged in the interior and which comprises a gas-binding material for binding contaminating substances (paragraph [0090] teaches providing a getter material),
wherein the gas-binding component comprises at least one flow duct having at least one surface (lamellar plates 49a) with the gas-binding material, wherein a gas flow of the residual gas in the flow duct has a Knudsen number of between 0.01 and 5, wherein a casing which encapsulates a beam path of the EUV lithography system is arranged in the interior of the housing (as shown in Figs. 1-4, see also paragraphs [0073] teaches a Knudsen value ≤ 0.1), and wherein the gas-binding component is arranged within the casing (as shown in Fig. 9b, see also paragraph [0093]).
Regarding claim 2, Bakker et al. discloses wherein the gas flow of the residual gas in the flow duct has a Knudsen number of between 0.01 and 0.3 (paragraph [0073] teaches a Knudsen value ≤ 0.1).
Regarding claim 3, Bakker et al. discloses wherein the casing comprises an opening with a maintenance shaft in which the gas-binding component is arranged (paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Bakker et al. discloses wherein the residual gas in the interior of the housing has a pressure of between 1 Pa and 20 Pa, wherein the residual gas in the interior of the housing has a pressure of between 2 Pa and 12 Pa (paragraphs [0073] and [0081]-[0083] teaches the housing pressures).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Bakker et al. discloses wherein the flow duct has a flow width of between 1 mm and 30 mm, wherein the flow duct has a flow width of between 4 mm and 20 mm (paragraphs [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding claims 8-10, Bakker et al. discloses wherein the flow duct comprises two opposing surfaces, the surfaces each having the gas-binding material, with a distance between the opposing surfaces defining a flow width of the flow duct, wherein the two opposing surfaces are aligned in parallel and are formed on two planar component portions, wherein the planar component portions are formed as sheets or as films (paragraphs [0071]-[0075] teaches the parallel plates of 49a having the gas-binding material).
Regarding claim 11, Bakker et al. discloses wherein the flow duct has a cross section formed as a regular polygon (paragraphs [0071]-[0075] teaches the parallel plates of 49a in 49 and 149, see also Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Bakker et al. discloses wherein the gas-binding component has a plurality of flow ducts with mutually differently dimensioned flow widths for binding mutually differing contaminating substances (paragraphs [0073]-[0074]).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Bakker et al. discloses wherein the flow duct has a length of at least 20 cm, wherein the flow duct has a length of at least 40 cm (paragraph [0073]).
Regarding claim 16, Bakker et al. discloses wherein the gas-binding material is selected from the group consisting essentially of: Ru, Ni, NiP, Rd, Rh, Ta, Nb, Ti, Zr, and Th, and compounds of Ru, Ni, NiP, Rd, Rh, Ta, Nb, Ti, Zr, and Th (paragraphs [0089]-[0090]).
Regarding claims 17-19, Bakker et al. discloses wherein the at least one surface with the gas-binding material is structured (49 and 149), further comprising at least one reflective optical element arranged in the interior of the housing, wherein the gas-binding component is arranged adjacent to the reflective optical element, wherein the gas-binding component is arranged at least partly surrounding a surface of the reflective optical element (as shown in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 20, Bakker et al. discloses wherein the casing encapsulates the beam path of the EUV lithography system between a first mirror and a second mirror of a projection system; and wherein the gas-binding component is arranged within the casing between the first mirror and the second mirror (as shown in Figs. 5 and 6, see also paragraphs [0078]-[0080]).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakker et al. in view of Banine et al. [US 2006/0221440 A1].
Regarding claim 12, Bakker et al. discloses the EUV lithography system (as applied above).
Bakker et al. does not teach wherein the flow duct has a cross section formed as a regular hexagon.
However, Banine et al. discloses a filter for collecting debris wherein the apertures are substantially hexagonal shaped (as shown in Fig. 3, see also paragraph [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a hexagonal shaped apertures, as taught by Banine et al. in the system of Bakker et al. wherein the flow duct has a cross section formed as a regular hexagon, because such a modification provides a suitable alternative shape of the flow duct for mitigating debris emitted from a radiation source (paragraph [0010] of Banine et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied reference does not teach “the gas-binding component is arranged within the casing”, see pages 5-9 of the remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As applied above, Bakker et al. discloses wherein the gas-binding component is arranged within the casing (as shown in Fig. 9b, see also paragraph [0093]).
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC § 102 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights