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 1-19 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.
As to claims 1, 18 and 19, the claims recite “a position of the target in the second target image does not overlap with a position thereof in the first target image”. The terms “does not overlap” render the claims indefinite because they fail to provide an objective boundary for determining the required spatial relationship between the target positions in the two images. It is unclear whether “does not overlap” requires complete non-overlap at a pixel level or whether overlap is measured by centroid position, bounding box, contour or intensity distribution. Furthermore, the claims recite “a processor configured to create a background image using at least the second target image” . The phrase “using at least the second target image” is indefinite since it does not specify how the background image is generated. It is unclear whether the background image is identical to the second image or the background image is a filtered version, masking is applied or additional images are combined. The absence of algorithmic or structural limitations defining how the background image is created renders the scope of the claims ambiguous.
Notwithstanding the indefiniteness issues discussed above, and in order to advance prosecution, the claims are interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under this interpretation, the claimed operations correspond to conventional digital image processing techniques, including background subtraction, masking, filtering and thresholding.
In particular, for purposes of examination only, the following interpretations are applied: the phrase “does not overlap” is interpreted as requiring that the spatial regions corresponding to the detected target positions in the first and second images are sufficiently separated such that the target occupies distinguishable locations in the respective images. The phrase “create a background image using at least the second target image” is interpreted as generating a background reference image based on image data from the second image, including but not limited to direct use, averaging, filtering or subtract-based processing.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senekerimya et al (U.S.Pat. 9,241,395B2) in view of Hosoda (U.S.Pat. 11,333,981).
With respect to claims 1-2, 12-14, 18 and 19, Senekerimya discloses an EUV light generating apparatus (100), corresponding electronic device manufacturing methods comprising substantially all limitations of the instant claims such as: a chamber (110) ; a target supply device (106) configured to supply a target into the chamber; a target imaging device/detection system configured to create a first target image by imaging a region including a target and a second target image by imaging the region a timing at which a position of the target in the second target image does not overlap with a position thereof in the first target image (see col.5, lines 1-27; DDM) and a processor (see col.4, lines 45-46) configured to process imaging data to determine target position and timing for laser firing. Senekerimya does not explicitly disclose: creating “a background image from at least the second target image, creating a background corrected image by correcting the first target image and detecting a position of the target based on the background corrected image” as recited in the claims. Hosoda discloses target image capturing device and discloses acquisition of background luminance, calculation of average luminance, histogram-based luminance analysis, use of defined windows/regions (W1-W4), averaging processing over multiple measurement frame, luminance correction and normalization and timing control adjustments (see abstract). Thus, Hosoda provides explicit teachings of background reference acquisition and processing in an EUV imaging context. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply background acquisition techniques as taught by Hosoda to Senekerimya’s target imaging system to improve target detection accuracy.
As to claims 3-4, Hosoda teaches periodic measurement and background related processing. Selecting an acquisition interval (including hourly scale) is a routine design parameter based on drift rate and contamination rate in EUV system. It is the Examiner’s position that this is an obvious optimization.
As to claims 5-6, Hosoda (figure 18) discloses defining measurement windows/regions (W1-W4). These regions function as masks for selecting/excluding portions of image data. Thus, masking limitations is disclosed by Hosoda.
With respect to claims 7-8, Hosoda discloses calculating average luminance, generating histogram, acquiring histogram peak value and performing averaging processing (see figure 19).
As to claims 9-10, Hosoda teaches averaging processing. Averaging filter is explicitly consistent with its processing scheme. Gaussian filter is a known alternative smoothing filter. It is the Examiner’s position that choosing between averaging and Gaussian is an obvious design choice.
As to claim 11, Hosoda (see figure 22; 28) teaches histogram-based luminance processing . Histogram analysis is commonly used to determine threshold values and thus, applying binarization after background correction is a routine segmentation step.
As to claims 12-16, Hosoda explicitly teaches: (see figures 22-24) summing luminance over multiple frames, dividing by window size and multi-frame averaging. Thus, creating background image based on plurality of frames is directly taught.
As to claim 17, it is noted that Senekerimya discloses synchronization of droplet timing with imaging and laser firing (see col.4, lines 45-55). Hosoda teaches trigger timing and delay adjustment. Shifting image acquisition timing relative to droplet frequency is an obvious phase control technique. Setting shift equal to half period (1/2f) is a predictable phase offset to capture alternate droplet positions.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Su et al (U.S.Pat. 12,204,250B2) discloses an EUV light generating apparatus and has been cited for technical background.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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 Minh 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
2/24/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882