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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “…to to…”, appearing to contain a mistype. Please correct to eliminate the duplicate “to”.
Appropriate 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 1-12 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 “a supply channel formed on each rotational disk rib to supply the target material to the rotational disk rim” is indefinite because it is not clear if the “a supply channel” is the same or different to the “a target material supply channel” recited earlier in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the rotational disk ribs supporting the rotational disk rim are configured 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 not clear what is meant by light penetrating 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 2-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “the rotational disk hub”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 5 recites “the droplet feeder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the rotational disk hub”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-7, 8, and 10-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 5.
Claim 6 recites “a storage hole, which is provided at the center thereof”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the discharge hole formed on the side of the rotational disk hub”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 6.
Claim 8 recites “an expansion part which expands a cross-sectional supply area to the end through which the target material is discharged”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally and consequently, it is not clear what “the end” is referring to or what object’s end is being referred to.
Claim 9 recites “the rotational operation of the rotational disk”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the central portion of the closure surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the discharge holes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the closure surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the entire droplets”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a rotational disk having a rotational disk rim which melts a target material for generating EUV light through plasma reactions.” This limitation is not sufficiently described in the specification to comply with 35 USC 112(a). MPEP 2163 I states, “To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.” The specification does not describe the rotational disk rim as melting a target material. Rather, the specification recites in paragraph 45 of the Detailed Description “a heating means 500 for melting the target material 210 located in the reaction space of the rotational disk 200” and in paragraph 49, “Here, the heating means 500 for melting the target material 210 preferably surrounds the exterior of the rotational disk and heats the target material supplied to the inner surface (rim) of the rotational disk to melt the target material. The heating means can use various heating elements, such as laser heating, induction methods, or ceramic-based heating elements.” Evidently, the specification describes a heating means as performing the function of melting a target material. There is no description teaching that the rotational disk rim performs the function of melting a target material. There is only the mere statement in paragraph 42 which repeats the claim language stating “a rotational disk rim which melts a target material for generating EUV light”. Since the specification is devoid of description as to how the rotational disk rim melts a target materials, other than the statements in paragraphs 45 and 49 recites above, which do not describe the rotational disk rim as melting the target material but rather a heating means melting the target material while the target material is located in the rotational disk rim, the disclosure fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 USC 112(a) because one could not reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of “a rotational disk rim which melts a target material”, as claimed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an expansion part” in claim 8.
“expansion part” is a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder since the claim has no specific structural meaning (see MPE 2181 I)
The generic placeholder “expansion part” is modified by functional language: “which expands a cross-sectional supply area to the end through which the target material is discharged.”
The generic placeholder “expansion part” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The “expansion part” will be interpreted as described in paragraphs 85-87 and Fig. 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ellwi, et. al (US 2022013264 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
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights