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
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) 1-9, 14, 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueda et al. [US 20200312479 A1, hereinafter Ueda].
As per Claims 1, 9, 18 and 19, Ueda teaches a chamber (See fig. 15A, a chamber 2a) in which a target 27 (shown in figure 1) is turned into plasma to generate extreme ultraviolet light at a plasma generation region by the target being irradiated with laser light 32, the chamber comprising:
a gas supply port 40 through which a gas is supplied into the chamber (See fig. 2, Para 76-78);
a light concentrating mirror (an EUV condensing mirror) configured to concentrate the extreme ultraviolet light;
a first exhaust pipe (exhaust port 391) arranged in the chamber 2a, surrounding the plasma generation region, and including a first opening through which the gas supplied into the chamber is sucked and through which the extreme ultraviolet light is radiated toward the light concentrating mirror, and a first exhaust port through which the gas sucked through the first opening is exhausted to an outside of the chamber (See fig. 15A, Para 171); and
a second exhaust pipe 395 arranged in the chamber, and including a second opening which is located in a periphery of the first opening and through which the gas supplied into the chamber is sucked, and a second exhaust port through which the gas sucked through the second opening is exhausted to the outside of the chamber (See fig. 15A, Para 171);
a target supply unit 26 configured to generate a droplet 27 being the target and supply the droplet to the plasma generation region 25;
a laser light generation unit configured to generate the laser light 252 (Para 80); and
an exhaust device configured to exhaust the gas through the first exhaust port and the second exhaust port (See fig. 15).
As per Claim 2, Ueda teaches the chamber according to claim 1, wherein the second opening is arranged as facing toward a radiation region (region A2) of the extreme ultraviolet light traveling from the plasma generation region toward a reflection surface of the light concentrating mirror (See fig. 15A).
As per Claim 3, Ueda teaches the chamber according to claim 2, wherein the second opening is arranged on a side toward an end of the first opening from a reflection point, of the reflection surface of the light concentrating mirror, closest to the plasma generation region (See fig. 15A).
As per Claim 4, Ueda teaches the chamber according to claim 1, wherein the gas is a hydrogen gas (Para 77).
As per Claim 5, Ueda teaches the chamber according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the second exhaust pipes are arranged (See fig. 15).
As per Claim 6, Ueda teaches the chamber according to claim 1, wherein the second opening is arranged at a position overlapping a trajectory of the target when viewing the first opening and the second opening from the light concentrating mirror (See fig. 15B).
As per Claim 7, Ueda teaches the chamber according to claim 1, wherein the second exhaust pipe covers the first exhaust pipe over an entire length thereof (See fig. 15B).
As per Claim 8, Ueda teaches the chamber according to claim 1, wherein the periphery of the first opening is a region in the chamber (See fig. 15A at 291a), excluding a first region through which the extreme ultraviolet light traveling toward the light concentrating mirror from the first opening passes and a second region through which the extreme ultraviolet light reflected by the light concentrating mirror passes, on a side toward the plasma generation region from a reflection point, of a reflection surface of the light concentrating mirror, closest to the plasma generation region (See fig. 6 and 15).
As per Claim 14, Ueda teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation system according to claim 9, wherein a plurality of the exhaust devices are arranged (See fig. 15).
As per Claim 15, Ueda teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation system according to claim 9, wherein the exhaust device includes a first exhaust device connected to the first exhaust pipe, and a second exhaust device connected to the second exhaust pipe (Para 164).
As per Claim 17, Ueda teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation system according to claim 9, wherein the periphery of the first opening is a region in the chamber, excluding a first region through which the extreme ultraviolet light traveling toward the light concentrating mirror from the first opening passes and a second region through which the extreme ultraviolet light reflected by the light concentrating mirror passes, on a side toward the plasma generation region from a reflection point, of a reflection surface of the light concentrating mirror, closest to the plasma generation region (See fig. 6 and 15).
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.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda as applied above, in view of Nagai et al. [US 20170238407 A1, hereinafter Nagai].
As per Claims 10-13 and 16, Ueda teaches the extreme ultraviolet light generation system according to claim 9, further comprising a processor configured to control an exhaust amount of the gas.
Nagai teaches each ejection path 81 may include a valve 81a detachable from a valve 82a provided in the ejection path in the vicinity of the ejection device 82. The open/close and attachment/detachment of the valves 82a and 81a may be performed by either the operator or the EUV light generation controller 5 through an actuator not illustrated (See fig. 9A, Para 317).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the flow control mechanism as disclosed by Nagai in the radiation source of Ueda in order to effectively control and avoid debris from passing into the projection system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882