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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter.
With respect to claims 20-21, applicants have claims directed to a control device programmed and a computer program product that cover signals per se. It has been held that a claim drawn to such a computer readable media that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Correction is required.
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 1-21 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 claim 1, the limitation of “each of the sensors is arranged stationarily in a beam path” is vague. The claim fails to specify relative to what reference frame the sensors are arranged stationarily. It is unclear stationary relative to the illumination system ? or relative to the facet mirrors? or relative to the object plane? Or relative to one another? Because micromirrors are pivotable, but other components are “stationary”, the absence of a defined reference frame renders the scope unclear.
As to claim 8, the limitation of “ascertaining an optimal pivot position” is vague. The claim does not recite optimal with respect to what metric? maximum intensity? or geometric center alignment? Furthermore, the term “methodically pivoting” lacks objective boundaries and fails to define the manner in which pivoting is performed.
Notwithstanding the indefiniteness noted above, for purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted as follows:
“arranged stationarily” is interpreted as meaning fixed relative to the illumination system housing.
“optimal pivot position” is interpreted as a position corresponding to maximum detected intensity.
“methodically pivoting” in interpreted as sequentially varying pivot angle over a defined range.
Under this reasonable interpretation, the claims are rejected under §103 as set forth below.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Bieling et al (U.S.Pat. 9,874,819 A1) in view of Campion (U.S.Pat. 8,624,177).
With respect to claims 1-2, 8, and 20-21, Bieling discloses an arrangement for system-integrated calibration of facet mirrors (22) of a microlithographic illumination system and corresponding methods (2; see figure 1) and comprising: at least one electromagnetic radiation-emitting radiation source (3) wherein the facet mirrors (22) are each configured as a micro-electromechanical system with a plurality of individually pivotable micromirrors (see figure 6) and wherein each of micromirrors is individually adjustable and arranged in the illumination optical unit. Although Bieling does not explicitly disclose tilt sensors associated with each micromirrors but Bieling teaches the position/orientation of the facet mirror can be measured (see col.27, lines 9-15). Therefore, tilt sensors are seen to be inherent features of the system of Bieling and they must be present to function as intended. Thus, Bieling discloses substantially all features of the instant claim except for a radiation detector as recited. This feature is well known in the art. For example, Campion discloses an optical system having a calibration radiation source; a radiation detector; pivoting micromirrors (see abstract; figure 1; see col.7, lines 44-58) such that a beam is detected and optimizing mirror orientation based on detected signal. In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Bieling and Campion to obtain the claimed invention as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective of the claimed invention to employ the radiation detector as suggested by Campion into the illumination mirror arrays of Bieling for detecting the radiation/intensity emitted from the radiation source and thereby adjusting the position of the facet mirrors and improving alignment accuracy of the facet mirrors and reducing illumination errors.
As to claim 3, it is the Examiner’s position that use of wavelength filtering for detector matching source wavelength is well-known design choice and it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ a bandpass filter or a stop into the radiation detector as suggested by Campion for matching source wavelength of the illumination system.
As to claims 4-5, Bieling discloses the radiation source is an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) exposure radiation source (10) or at least one high power light-emitting diode or a laser emits the light in the visible range (see col.8, lines 50-56).
With respect to claim 6, Bieling as modified by Campion, lacks to disclose placement of detector in intermediate optical plane, as recited. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to place the detector as suggested by Campion near the object plane of the illumination system for precisely detecting the radiation emitted for the radiation source.
As to claim 7, Bieling discloses the micromirrors of the facet mirrors are each pivotable about two non-parallel axes (see figure 6).
As to claim 9, the claim recites verifying the beam path desired by testing for a detector signal ...with the micromirrors affecting the beam path until radiation is determined by the radiation detector. As discussed, Campion teaches pivoting micromirrors, monitoring a detector signal and adjusting mirror orientation until sufficient detected radiation is obtained. Thus, Campion clearly discloses verifying beam path by testing for a detector signal.
As to claim 10, the claim recites methodically pivoting according to a given search pattern in the absence of a detector signal until radiation above a minimum intensity is detected. It is noted that Campion discloses scanning mirror orientation over a range, searching for detector response and identifying threshold signal level (see col.22, lines 30-45). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to employ a systematic search pattern and threshold detection as suggested by Campion to locate beam alignment.
As to claim 11, Campion discloses maximining detected radiation to determine optimal mirror orientation. It is the Examiner’s position that detecting slope or peak intensity is inherent in performing a signal optimization process and identifying maximum intensity and analyzing signal variation during pivoting is a routine feedback optimization technique.
As to claims 12-13, the claim recites carrying out ascertaining and determining separately for each pivot axis. As discussed, Campion teaches adjusting mirror orientation when a mirror pivots about two axes, calibration of each axis separately is a predictable implementation detail and thus separately calibration each axis avoids cross-coupling and is conventional engineering practice.
As to claim 14, the claim recites performing calibration for a selected micromirror with at least three different beam paths. As discussed, Campion teaches calibration of micromirror position based on detected radiation. Employing multiple measurement configurations is a well-known refinement in optical calibration systems. It would have been obvious to perform calibration under multiple beam paths to improve precision.
As to claim 15, the claim recites selected initially pivoted micromirrors are not located on a straight line. It is the Examiner’s position that the spatial selection of micromirrors is a design choice since selecting non-collinear mirrors can reduce systematic alignment bias and improve calibration stability.
As to claim 16, the claim recites an n-dimensional characteristic of the tilt sensor adapted for recalibrating the tilt sensor, where n equals number of pivot axes. Campion teaches adjusting mirror orientation using detected feedback. Since when mirrors pivot about multiple axes, calibration parameters necessarily correspond to those axes, therefore adapting a multi-dimensional calibration characteristic, matching the number of axes is a predictable and necessary engineering implementation.
As to claim 17, the claim recites mirrors closer to the radiation source along the radiation path are calibrated first. It would have been obvious to calibrate mirrors nearer to the source before downstream mirrors since aligning elements closer to the source first stabilizes downstream beam propagation.
As to claim 18, the claim recites calibration implemented in parallel with microlithographic exposure carried out with remaining micromirrors. Since feedback control during operation is known in optical and MEMS system. Therefore, applying calibration concurrently with exposure is an obvious extension of detector-based feedback control.
As to claim 19, the claim recites spectrally and/or temporally decoupling radiation used for calibration from exposure radiation. In view of the teachings of Campion, it would have been obvious to spectrally or temporally decouple calibration radiation to avoid exposure contamination.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fiolka et al (US 2013/0100429 A1); Deguenther et al (U.S.Pat. 10,444,631 B2) disclose microlithographic projection devices having facet mirrors and have 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
3/2/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882