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 1-13 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 1 recites “…the beam emitted from a laser source to the target material…” in line 9. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “…which the EUV light reflected from the target material…” in line 11. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “…the same incident light axis” in line 12. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the rotational disk includes a plurality of rotational disk ribs supporting a rotational disk rim to allow EUV light to penetrate relative to a predetermined area of a light focusing region through a collector mirror, which irradiates the beam emitted from a laser source to the target material by penetrating the beam to the center, receives the EUV light reflected from the target material, and collects the EUV light to the same incident light axis.”
Claim 1 recites “wherein the rotational disk includes a plurality of rotational disk ribs supporting a rotational disk rim to allow EUV light to penetrate relative to a predetermined area of a light focusing region through a collector mirror…” is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by allowing EUV light to penetrate relative to a predetermined area of a light focusing region. Since the meaning is unclear and indeterminate, the limitation is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “a collector mirror, which irradiates the beam emitted from a laser source to the target material by penetrating the beam to the center…” is indefinite because it is unclear how a mirror can irradiate a beam by penetrating the beam to the center and what is meant by this limitation. Since the meaning is unclear and indeterminate, the limitation is indefinite. Additionally, it is unclear what “the center” is referring to. It is not clear what object or space “the center” of which is being referred. This further adds to the indefiniteness of the claim limitation.
Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “the rotational disk hub”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the light passing through”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the rotational disk ribs are configured to block only 5% to 20% of the light passing through, and are arranged in such a way that an EUV light transmissive area in the light focusing region where the EUV light is connected through the collector mirror is greater than a blocking area” is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the EUV light is connected through the collector mirror”. It is not clear how light can be “connected” through the collector mirror. It is unclear what the EUV light is being connected to and how light can be connected to something.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the number of the rotational disk ribs is equal to the number of the upper coupling holes and the number of the lower coupling holes” is indefinite because it is not clear if the number of rotational disk ribs is equal to the number of the upper coupling holes, and the number of rotational disk ribs is equal to the number of the lower coupling holes, or, if the number of the rotational disk ribs is equal to the summation of the number of upper coupling holes and the number of lower coupling holes.
Claim 8 recites “the rotational disk hub”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 8.
Claim 10 recites “the upper disk ribs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the lower disk ribs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 10.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the rim flange is formed in an “L”-shape at the inner edge of the lower disk of the rotational disk rim”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herndon (US 3194400 A).
Regarding claim 1, Herndon teaches a rotational disk structure for an EUV light source device (intended use, does not carry patentable weight because the recited purpose does not result in a structural difference. See MPEP 2111.02) comprising:
a rotational disk confining a target material by centrifugal force while rotating (Fig. 1, Fig. 2 shows disc 20, Col. 4, line 40, Col. 5, lines 59-63) to generate EUV light through plasma reactions with the target material in the EUV light source device (intended use. See MPEP 2114 II., which recites “A claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”. Since Herndon teaches all structural limitations of the claim, Herndon anticipates the claim limitation as recited under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.),
wherein the rotational disk includes a plurality of rotational disk ribs supporting a rotational disk rim (ribs with channels 42 are connected to collector rim 55 such that they support the rim 48, Fig. 10, Col. 6, lines 8-11) to allow EUV light to penetrate relative to a predetermined area of a light focusing region through a collector mirror, which irradiates the beam emitted from a laser source to the target material by penetrating the beam to the center, receives the EUV light reflected from the target material, and collects the EUV light to the same incident light axis (intended use. See MPEP 2114 II. Same reasons apply as explained in the paragraph above.).
Regarding claim 2, Herndon teaches wherein the rotational disk ribs are arranged between the rotational disk hub and the rotational disk rim (Fig. 10, Fig. 2, Col. 4 lines 39-50, Col. 6, lines 8-11), and wherein the rotational disk ribs are configured to block only 5% to 20% of the light passing through, and are arranged in such a way that an EUV light transmissive area in the light focusing region where the EUV light is connected through the collector mirror is greater than a blocking area (The “configured to…” and “arranged in such a way…” limitations represent intended use of the claimed rotational disk. See MPEP 2114 II. Same reasoning applied to the functional limitations in claim 1 (see above paragraphs) apply to these functional limitations. Since Herndon teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (the rotational disk ribs are arranged between the hub and rim), Herndon anticipates the claim as recited under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.).
Regarding claim 3, Herndon teaches wherein the rotational disk rib includes a supply channel formed to supply the target material supplied from a target feeder to the rotational disk rim (Fig. 10, the ribs have channels 42 that supply the liquid to the collector ring 55, Col. 6, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the rotational disk hub further includes supply channel ribs coupled to the rotational disk hub to deliver target material supplied from a droplet feeder to the rotational disk rim.
Regarding claim 9, wherein one side of the supply channel rib is coupled to the rotational disk hub and the other side is coupled to the rotational disk rim.
Regarding claim 4, Herndon teaches wherein the rotational disk rib includes a rotational disk hub formed at a rotational center shaft (hub portion 47 formed at shaft 21 Fig. 5, Fig. 2, Fig. 8, Col. 4, line 44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 10-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ellwi, et. al. (US 20220132647 A1)
Kususe, et. al. (JP 2021001924 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E GOURLIE
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights