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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on Apr. 2, 2026 is acknowledged. However, after a review, the restriction requirement is withdrawn. The examiner regrets any inconvenience to applicant.
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) 1-6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stamm et al. (Stamm) (6,714,577).
Regarding claim 1, Stamm discloses a laser device (Fig. 7) comprising: a laser chamber (1) configured to accommodate laser gas including fluorine (col. 15, line 61 – col. 16, line 20, “molecular fluorine laser”); a pair of discharge electrodes (1a, 1b, col. 15, line 61 – col. 16, line 6) arranged inside the laser chamber (Fig. 7); a gas supply port (through tubing 16) arranged in the laser chamber (col. 17, lines 5-10); and an XeF2 crystal to be vaporized as being arranged in an XeF2 vaporization space communicating with the gas supply port (Fig. 2, col. 11, lines 37-58, “xenon is preferably supplied using a solid xenon containing species such as XeF2”, col. 11, lines 59-67, “XeF2 would dissociate into xenon gas and F2 gas”).
Regarding claim 2, Stamm discloses a temperature adjuster (heating element 24, Fig. 2) configured to adjust a temperature of the XeF2 crystal (col. 11, lines 59-61).
Regarding claim 3, Stamm discloses a processor (col. 16, lines 58-61, “the processor 11 controls the gas supply unit which includes gas supply valves 12 and a gas additive supply 13”) for controlling the temperature adjuster based on a target total pressure and target xenon concentration of the laser gas in the laser chamber (col. 11, line 59 – col. 12, line 9, “amount of released xenon depends on the temperature applied to the solid xenon compound”, “the xenon pressure or partial pressure can be adjusted by controlling the temperature within the container”).
Regarding claim 4, Stamm discloses wherein the processor determines a target vapor pressure of the XeF2 crystal based on the target total pressure (col. 7, lines 4-16, col. 10, lines 16-17) and the target xenon concentration (abstract), and controls the temperature adjuster based on the target vapor pressure (col. 11, line 37 – col. 12, line 25).
Regarding claim 5, Stamm discloses wherein the XeF2 vaporization space communicates with the laser chamber via a first pipe (23) including a first valve (V3, Fig. 2, col. 11, lines 37-55).
Regarding claim 6, Stamm discloses wherein the XeF2 vaporization space includes a buffer tank (26, Fig. 2) communicating with the laser chamber via the first pipe (23), and an XeF2 container communicating with the buffer tank via a second pipe (20) including a second valve (V1) and accommodating the XeF2 crystal (22).
Regarding claim 20, Stamm discloses an electronic device manufacturing method, comprising: generating laser light using a laser device (Fig. 7); outputting the laser light to an exposure apparatus (DUV or VUV lithography, col. 15, lines 61-66); and exposing a photosensitive substrate to the laser light in the exposure apparatus to manufacture an electronic device (inherent to DUV or VUV lithography), the laser device including: a laser chamber (1) configured to accommodate laser gas including fluorine (col. 15, line 61 – col. 16, line 20, “molecular fluorine laser”); a pair of discharge electrodes (1a, 1b, col. 15, line 61 – col. 16, line 6) arranged inside the laser chamber (Fig. 7); a gas supply port (through tubing 16) arranged in the laser chamber (col. 17, lines 5-10); and an XeF2 crystal to be vaporized as being arranged in an XeF2 vaporization space communicating with the gas supply port (Fig. 2, col. 11, lines 37-58, “xenon is preferably supplied using a solid xenon containing species such as XeF2”, col. 11, lines 59-67, “XeF2 would dissociate into xenon gas and F2 gas”).
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stamm et al. (Stamm).
Regarding claim 13, although Stamm does not disclose wherein the buffer tank includes a discharge reactor for dissociating an XeF2 gas, Stamm discloses dissociating an XeF2 gas to xenon gas and F2 gas in the container of XeF2 crystal (col. 11, lines 59-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a separate buffer tank with a discharge reactor so that after sublimation of XeF2 crystal in container (22), the gas is dissociated in the separate buffer tank so that the amount of Xe gas introduced is closely controlled.
Claim(s) 14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stamm et al. (Stamm) in view of Ikeda et al. (Ikeda) (2010/0086459).
Regarding claim 14, Stamm does not disclose a gas regeneration device that purifies and boosts the laser gas discharged from the laser chamber, wherein the buffer tank is arranged in a path for the gas regeneration device. Ikeda discloses a gas regeneration device (21, 23, Fig. 1, para 0030) that purifies (21, 23, para 0033-43) and boosts (25, para 0055-0060) the laser gas discharged from the laser chamber (10, Fig. 1, 2, para 0030-0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the gas regeneration device of Ikeda to the invention of Stamm with the buffer tank (26) of Stamm connected to the gas regeneration path in order to reuse the xenon gas which can be scarce and precious as taught by Ikeda.
Regarding claim 16, Stamm does not disclose a fan arranged in the laser chamber, and configured to cause the laser gas in the laser chamber to circulate through the laser chamber; a gas discharge port arranged in the laser chamber; and a gas flow path configured to return the laser gas discharged from the laser chamber through the gas discharge port to the laser chamber through the gas supply port by utilizing a gas flow generated by the fan, wherein the XeF2 crystal is arranged in the gas flow path. Ikeda discloses a fan (13, Fig. 2) arranged in the laser chamber (10), a gas discharge port (51a, Fig. 1) arranged in the laser chamber; and a gas flow path configured to return the laser gas discharged from the laser chamber through the gas discharge port to the laser chamber through the gas supply port by utilizing a gas flow generated by the fan (the gas is discharged at 51a and returns at 51b in Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the fan and the gas flow path of Ikeda to the invention of Stamm so that the gas flow path of Ikeda and the XeF2 crystal are incorporated so that Xe gas can be reused and also replenished from the XeF2 crystal for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 17, Stamm does not disclose a filter arranged in the gas flow path, wherein the XeF2 crystal is arranged downstream of the filter in the gas flow path. Ikeda discloses a filter (26) arranged in the gas flow path (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a filter in the gas flow path to remove impurities as taught by Ikeda in para 0056 and to place the filter upstream of the XeF2 crystal in the gas flow path since the gas from the crystal would not require a filter to remove impurity.
Regarding claim 18, Stamm discloses an exhaust device configured to exhaust the laser chamber (col. 17, lines 24-31, “means for releasing gas including xenon from the tube 1 should it be desired to reduce the pressure in the tube 1”), a gas supply device (Fig. 2, 7) configured to supply the laser gas into the laser chamber (1); and a processor (col. 16, lines 58-61) to control the gas supply and to controls the exhaust device to exhaust a part of the laser gas from the laser chamber, thereby adjusting an amount of an XeF2 gas in the laser chamber (col. 17, lines 11-31). Although Stamm does not disclose that the processor controls the gas supply device to supply the laser gas into the laser chamber when a pressure in the laser chamber has reached a vapor pressure of the XeF2 crystal, Stamm discloses wherein the processor controls the gas supply device to supply the laser gas into the laser chamber until predetermined pressure is reached (col. 17, lines 11-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the gas supply device to supply the laser gas into the laser chamber when a pressure in the laser chamber has reached a vapor pressure of the XeF2 crystal by appropriately setting the predetermined pressure in the laser chamber.
Regarding claim 19, Stamm discloses a temperature adjuster (24) configured to adjust a temperature of the XeF2 crystal (col. 11, lines 59-67); a gas supply device (Fig. 2) configured to supply the laser gas into the laser chamber (1); and a processor (col. 16, lines 58-61), wherein the processor controls the gas supply device so that the laser gas is supplied to the laser chamber until a pressure in the laser chamber becomes a first set pressure (col. 17, lines 11-31). Although Stamm does not specifically discloses controlling the temperature adjuster so that a vapor pressure of the XeF2 crystal becomes a second set pressure higher than the first set pressure, thereby adjusting an amount of an XeF2 gas in the laser chamber, Stamm discloses adjusting the temperature adjuster to adjust the amount of XeF2 gas in the laser chamber (col. 11, line 59 – col. 12, line 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set a second set pressure to be a vapor pressure of the XeF2 crystal higher than the first pressure to adjust the amount of XeF2 gas in order to control the amount of gas and the pressure in the laser chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 7, none of the prior art of record teaches or discloses an exhaust device for exhausting an inside of the XeF2 vaporization space, a third valve arranged between the XeF2 vaporization space and the exhaust device, and a processor, wherein the processor opens the third valve and controls the exhaust device so that a pressure in the XeF2 vaporization space becomes a first pressure, and closes the third valve and controls the temperature adjuster so that the vapor pressure of the XeF2 crystal becomes a second pressure higher than the first pressure in combination with the rest of the limitations.
Stamm et al. discloses exhaust device for exhausting gas from the laser chamber (col. 17, lines 24-31, “means for releasing gas including xenon from the tube 1 should it be desired to reduce the pressure in the tube 1”). However, Stamm does not disclose an exhaust device for exhausting an inside of the XeF2 vaporization space, a third valve arranged between the XeF2 vaporization space and the exhaust device.
Regarding claim 15, none of the prior art of record teaches or discloses wherein the gas regeneration device includes a first path routed through the buffer tank, and a second path branching from the first path, from upstream of the buffer tank in the first path, and merging into the first path, into downstream of the buffer tank in the first path, as bypassing the buffer tank in combination with the rest of the limitations.
Ikeda et al. discloses a regeneration device (Fig. 1) with a first path that starts from 51a to 51b in Fig. 1, but does not disclose any branching off of the path and bypassing of a buffer tank. Ikeda et al. does not disclose the first path routed through the buffer tank, and a second path branching from the first path, from upstream of the buffer tank in the first path, and merging into the first path, into downstream of the buffer tank in the first path, as bypassing the buffer tank.
Tsushima et al. (2020/0403371) discloses a laser regeneration device (50), but does not disclose any branching off of a path of the laser regeneration device and bypassing of a buffer tank.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eden (4,249,143) discloses XeF2 crystal or solid that is gradually converted to gas as a part of the laser medium (col. 3, lines 42-51). However, Eden discloses an optically pumped laser and does not disclose a laser device with a pair of discharge electrode in a laser chamber, and does not disclose the buffer tank and the exhaust device arrangements as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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.
/PETER B KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 May 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights