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 § 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 11-12 and 18 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said structuring" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “said structuring” will be considered to mean “a structuring”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said structuring" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “said structuring” will be considered to mean “a structuring”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a predefined value” in line 3. The term “a predefined value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, any value will be considered to fall within “a predefined value”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Janssen et al. (DE 102018208783 A1, hereafter Janssen ‘783, with machine translation).
Claim 1: Janssen ‘783 teaches a method for processing a workpiece (abstract, [0008]) comprising:
controlling a temperature of the workpiece by streaming a fluid through at least one channel formed inside the workpiece (Figs. 2-3, [0008]).
Claim 18: Janssen ‘783 teaches that the method can include controlling a flow velocity of the fluid streaming through the at least one channel to a predefined value ([0017]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janssen et al. ‘783 as applied to claim 1 above.
Janssen ‘783 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 16, Janssen ‘783 does not explicitly teach that the temperature of the fluid streaming through the at least one channel is at least 60°C and no more than 120°C. With respect to claim 17, Janssen ‘783 does not explicitly teach that the temperature of the fluid streaming through the at least one channel is at least 80°C and no more than 110°C.
However, the claimed method differs from the method taught by Janssen ‘783 only in the temperature of the fluid, and it has been held that, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence that said temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalics et al. (WO 2020109225 A2, hereafter Jalics ‘225) in view of Janssen et al. ‘783.
Claim 1: Jalics ‘225 teaches a method for processing a workpiece (claim 6, pg 6 ln 4-pg 7 ln 3) comprising:
controlling a temperature of the workpiece (claim 11).
Jalics ‘225 further teaches that the workpiece can be a mirror for a projection exposure apparatus (abstract, claim 6).
With respect to claim 1, Jalics ‘225 does not explicitly teach that controlling a temperature of the workpiece includes streaming a fluid through at least one channel formed inside the workpiece.
Janssen ‘783 teaches a method for processing a workpiece comprising a mirror for a projection exposure apparatus (abstract, [0001], [0008]) comprising controlling a temperature of the workpiece by streaming a fluid through at least one channel formed inside the workpiece (Figs. 2-3, [0008]). Janssen ‘783 teaches that this allows temperature control of a mirror which prevents deformations of the mirror surface and unstable drift movement or deformation caused by other temperature control methods ([0004]-[0006]). Both Janssen ‘783 and Jalics ‘225 teach methods for processing a workpiece comprising a mirror for a projection exposure apparatus (‘225, claim 6, pg 6 ln 4-pg 7 ln 3; ‘783, abstract, [0001], [0008]) comprising controlling a temperature of the workpiece (‘225, claim 11; ‘783, Figs. 2-3, [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the temperature by streaming a fluid through at least one channel formed inside the workpiece as taught by Janssen ‘783 in the method taught by Jalics ‘225 because this allows temperature control of a mirror which prevents deformations of the mirror surface and unstable drift movement or deformation caused by other temperature control methods, as taught by Janssen ‘783.
Claim 2: Jalics ‘225 teaches that the processing process can be a photolithographic structuring process (pg 7 ln 18-21, pg 10 ln 11-12).
Claim 3: Jalics ‘225 teaches that the method can include baking at least one layer while the temperature is being controlled (claim 11, pg 10 ln 15) and applying the at least one layer to the workpiece (claim 6, pg 6 ln 4-17).
Claim 4: Jalics ‘225 teaches that the processing process can comprise a photolithographic structuring process and the layer is a photoresist layer for structuring in the photolithographic structuring process (pg 7 ln 18-21, pg 10 ln 11-12).
Claim 5: Jalics ‘225 teaches that the method can include exposing the photoresist layer to drive solvent out of the photoresist layer (pg 10 ln 1-15).
With respect to claim 5, the modified teachings of Jalics ‘225 does not explicitly teach that the baking is carried out before the exposing.
However, it has been held that the selection of any order of performing process steps is obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.
Claim 6: Jalics ‘225 teaches that the method can include exposing the photoresist layer to drive solvent out of the photoresist layer (pg 10 ln 1-15) where baking is carried out after said exposing (pg 10 ln 1-15, pg 12 ln 27-pg 13 ln 4, pg 20 ln 11-20).
Claim 7: Jalics ‘225 teaches that the workpiece (37) can be a mirror and applying the layer (40) comprises applying the layer to a surface of the mirror (abstract, claim 6, Figs. 4-11, col 17 ln 5-14).
Claim 8: Jalics ‘225 teaches that the layer (40) is applied to a reflective, and therefore optical, surface of the mirror (37) (Figs. 4-7, pg 15 ln 16-22).
Claim 9: Jalics ‘225 teaches that the mirror comprises a substrate (37) (Figs. 4-11).
With respect to claim 9, the modified teachings of Jalics ‘225 do not explicitly teach that the method includes forming the at least one channel in the substrate.
Janssen ‘783 teaches a method for processing a workpiece comprising a mirror for a projection exposure apparatus (abstract, [0001], [0008]) comprising controlling a temperature of the workpiece by streaming a fluid through at least one channel formed inside the workpiece (Figs. 2-3, [0008]). Janssen ‘783 teaches that the method can include forming the at least one channel in a substrate of the workpiece (Figs. 2-3, [0008]). Janssen ‘783 teaches that this at least one channel allows temperature control of a mirror which prevents deformations of the mirror surface and unstable drift movement or deformation caused by other temperature control methods ([0004]-[0006]). Both Janssen ‘783 and Jalics ‘225 teach methods for processing a workpiece comprising a mirror for a projection exposure apparatus (‘225, claim 6, pg 6 ln 4-pg 7 ln 3; ‘783, abstract, [0001], [0008]) comprising controlling a temperature of the workpiece (‘225, claim 11; ‘783, Figs. 2-3, [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of forming the at least one channel in the substrate taught by Janssen ‘783 to the method taught by the modified teachings of Jalics ‘225 because this at least one channel allows temperature control of a mirror which prevents deformations of the mirror surface and unstable drift movement or deformation caused by other temperature control methods, as taught by Janssen ‘783.
Claim 10: Jalics ‘225 teaches that the method can include structuring the layer to form a structure on the surface of the mirror (Figs. 4-11, pg 17 ln 11-29).
Claim 11: Jalics ‘225 teaches that the layer can be structured to form a grating structure on the surface of the mirror (pg 15 ln 11-pg 16 ln 9).
Claim 12: Jalics ‘225 teaches that structuring the layer can include forming a copper layer (pg 2 ln 21-24, pg 3 ln 5-16), which is an electrically conductive material.
Claim 13: Jalics ‘225 teaches that the structuring the layer can include forming a structured protective layer on the surface of the mirror (pg 2 ln 21-24, pg 3 ln 5-16), which corresponds to the claimed passivation layer.
Claim 14: Jalics ‘225 teaches that the mirror can be configured as an extreme ultraviolet lithography mirror (pg 3 ln 18-20).
Claim 15: Jalics ‘225 teaches that the grating structure on the mirror forms a spectral filter (abstract).
Claims 16-17: With respect to claim 16, the modified teachings of Jalics ‘225 do not explicitly teach that the temperature of the fluid streaming through the at least one channel is at least 60°C and no more than 120°C. With respect to claim 17, the modified teachings of Jalics ‘225 do not explicitly teach that the temperature of the fluid streaming through the at least one channel is at least 80°C and no more than 110°C.
However, the claimed method differs from the method taught by the modified teachings of Jalics ‘225 only in the temperature of the fluid, and it has been held that, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence that said temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 18: With respect to claim 18, the modified teachings of Jalics ‘225 do not explicitly teach that the method further comprises controlling a temperature and/or a flow velocity of the fluid streaming through the at least one channel to a predefined value.
Janssen ‘783 teaches a method for processing a workpiece comprising a mirror for a projection exposure apparatus (abstract, [0001], [0008]) comprising controlling a temperature of the workpiece by streaming a fluid through at least one channel formed inside the workpiece (Figs. 2-3, [0008]). Janssen ‘783 teaches that the method can include controlling a flow velocity of the fluid streaming through the at least one channel to a predefined value ([0017]). Janssen ‘783 teaches that this allows avoiding turbulent flow and minimizing dynamic excitation which could cause deformities of the mirror surface ([0005], [0017]). Both Janssen ‘783 and Jalics ‘225 teach methods for processing a workpiece comprising a mirror for a projection exposure apparatus (‘225, claim 6, pg 6 ln 4-pg 7 ln 3; ‘783, abstract, [0001], [0008]) comprising controlling a temperature of the workpiece (‘225, claim 11; ‘783, Figs. 2-3, [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control a flow velocity of the fluid streaming through the at least one channel to a predefined value as taught by Janssen ‘783 in the method taught by the modified teachings of Jalics ‘225 because this allows avoiding turbulent flow and minimizing dynamic excitation which could cause deformities of the mirror surface, as taught by Janssen ‘783.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/SHAMIM AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights