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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that the instant application is a continuation of application PCT/JP2023/065084, filed on 6/6/2023, which claims priority from DE102022206112, filed on 6/20/2022.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 4, “the first mirror” should be changed to --a first mirror-- to correct antecedence.
Claim 10, line 3, “a first mirror” should be changed to --the first mirror-- or similar language to correct antecedence from claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required to place claims in better form.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “when EUV imaging light is linearly polarized, an overall number of the mirrors leads to an overall polarization rotation of no more than 10° along the imaging beam path” in lines 9-11 is vague and indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation is intended to positively require incoming light to be linearly polarized such that an overall number of the mirrors leads to an overall polarization rotation of no more than 10° along the imaging beam path, in which case the claim does not clearly recite the element or elements that introduce linearly polarized EUV imaging light to the overall number of mirrors because the claim is directed to an imaging EUV optical unit. It is unclear if the limitation is intended to recite functional language describing the manner of operating the device that the overall number of the mirrors of the imaging EUV optical unit operate on linearly polarized light to obtain an overall polarization rotation of no more than 10° along the imaging beam path, or if the language is intended to convey that the imaging EUV optical unit is merely usable with linearly polarized imaging light to obtain an overall polarization rotation of no more than 10° along the imaging beam path. The metes and bounds of the scope of the claim are therefore unclear. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as meaning an overall number of the mirrors leads to an overall polarization rotation. Thus, claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 8, 11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chapman et al. (US Patent No. 5,973,826, Chapman hereinafter), as evidenced by Scholze et al. (“Polarization dependence of multilayer reflectance in the EUV spectral range,” cited in 12/19/2024 IDS and copy included with Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Chapman discloses an imaging EUV optical unit configured to image an object field into an image field (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 28-39, the EUV system includes an optical system 409 that projects an image of a mask 407, 503 onto a wafer 411, 521), the imaging EUV optical unit comprising:
a plurality of mirrors configured to guide EUV imaging light at a wavelength of less than 30 nanometers along an imaging beam path from the object field towards the image field (Figs. 4-5, col. 28-55, col. 6, lines 1-53, the EUV wavelength is about 4 to 20 nm, and mirrors M1 505 to M4 517 direct the radiation towards the image field on wafer 411, 521), wherein:
the EUV optical unit comprises at least three normal incidence (NI) mirrors (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, the four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than about 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”));
an overall transmission of the NI mirrors is greater than 10% (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-65, each mirror has a reflectivity of around 70%; therefore, the total transmission through mirrors M1 to M4 is around 24%, greater than 10%); and
when EUV imaging light is linearly polarized, an overall number of the mirrors leads to an overall polarization rotation of no more than 10° along the imaging beam path (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, the four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than about 12°, and as evidenced by Scholze, Fig. 7, pages 2, 5-7 of document, the polarization rotation for EUV mirrors at incident angles of less than about 12° is less than 10°).
Regarding claim 2, Chapman discloses wherein the imaging EUV optical unit has precisely four NI mirrors (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”)).
Regarding claim 3, Chapman discloses wherein a first imaging of the object field in the imaging beam path occurs in the image field (Figs. 4-5, col. 28-55, col. 6, lines 1-53, the mirrors M1 to M4 projects an image of a mask 407, 503 onto a wafer 411, 521).
Regarding claim 4, Chapman discloses wherein the plurality of mirrors consists of NI mirrors (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”)).
Regarding claim 5, Chapman discloses wherein a first imaging of the object field in the imaging beam path occurs in the image field (Figs. 4-5, col. 28-55, col. 6, lines 1-53, the mirrors M1 to M4 projects an image of a mask 407, 503 onto a wafer 411, 521).
Regarding claim 8, Chapman discloses wherein the imaging EUV optical unit has a ring-field-shaped image field (Figs. 4-5, abstract, col. 5, lines 28-65, col. 6, lines 1-37, col. 7, lines 32-37, the condenser provides a ring field of illumination to the entrance pupil of the optical system).
Regarding claim 11, Chapman discloses wherein an entrance pupil of the imaging EUV optical unit is in the imaging beam path upstream of the object field (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 56-65, col. 6, lines 1-37, the condenser directs EUV light into the entrance pupil, and the light is directed to the mask).
Regarding claim 17, Chapman discloses wherein the plurality of mirrors consists of four NI mirrors (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”)).
Regarding claim 18, Chapman discloses an optical system (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-39, photolithography optical system), comprising:
an EUV imaging optical unit according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-67, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, the four mirrors M1 to M4 are arranged in the EUV optical system); and
an illumination optical unit configured to illuminate the object field with the imaging light (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-39, lines col. 56-67, col. 6, lines 1-22, a condenser illuminates the mask arranged in the object field).
Regarding claim 19, Chapman discloses an apparatus (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-39, photolithography optical system), comprising:
an EUV light source configured to provide EUV light (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 28-67, an EUV radiation source provides EUV radiation);
an EUV imaging optical unit according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-67, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, the four mirrors M1 to M4 are arranged in the EUV optical system); and
an illumination optical unit configured to illuminate the object field with the EUV light (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-39, lines col. 56-67, col. 6, lines 1-22, a condenser illuminates the mask arranged in the object field with EUV radiation).
Regarding claim 20, Chapman discloses a method of using a projection exposure apparatus comprising an illumination optical unit and an imaging optical unit (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-39, col. 6, lines 1-38, photolithography optical system comprising a condenser 405 and optical system 409 projects an image of a mask onto a wafer), the method comprising:
using the illumination optical unit to illuminate a portion of a reticle in an object field of the imaging optical unit (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-39, lines col. 56-67, col. 6, lines 1-22, a condenser illuminates the mask arranged in the object field of the optical system with EUV radiation); and
projecting the illuminated portion of the reticle into an image field of the imaging optical unit (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-67, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, the four mirrors M1 to M4 are arranged in the EUV optical system to project the image of the mask onto the wafer),
wherein the imaging optical unit is an imaging optical unit according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-67, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, the four mirrors M1 to M4 are arranged in the EUV optical system).
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 1-5, 8, 11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman (US Patent No. 5,973,826, Chapman hereinafter) in view of Rostalski et al. (WO 2020/254461, Rostalski hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Chapman discloses an imaging EUV optical unit configured to image an object field into an image field (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 28-39, the EUV system includes an optical system 409 that projects an image of a mask 407, 503 onto a wafer 411, 521), the imaging EUV optical unit comprising:
a plurality of mirrors configured to guide EUV imaging light at a wavelength of less than 30 nanometers along an imaging beam path from the object field towards the image field (Figs. 4-5, col. 28-55, col. 6, lines 1-53, the EUV wavelength is about 4 to 20 nm, and mirrors M1 505 to M4 517 direct the radiation towards the image field on wafer 411, 521), wherein:
the EUV optical unit comprises at least three normal incidence (NI) mirrors (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, the four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than about 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”));
an overall transmission of the NI mirrors is greater than 10% (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-65, each mirror has a reflectivity of around 70%; therefore, the total transmission through mirrors M1 to M4 is around 24%, greater than 10%). In an alternate interpretation, Chapman does not appear to explicitly describe when EUV imaging light is linearly polarized, an overall number of the mirrors leads to an overall polarization rotation of no more than 10° along the imaging beam path.
Rostalski discloses when EUV imaging light is linearly polarized, an overall number of the mirrors leads to an overall polarization rotation of no more than 10° along the imaging beam path (Fig. 3A-5B, page 20, lines 30-33, page 21, lines 1-27, page 23, lines 1-32, page 24, lines 1-19, polarization rotation at the exit pupil is less than 10°).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included when EUV imaging light is linearly polarized, an overall number of the mirrors leads to an overall polarization rotation of no more than 10° along the imaging beam path as taught by Rostalski in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman since including when EUV imaging light is linearly polarized, an overall number of the mirrors leads to an overall polarization rotation of no more than 10° along the imaging beam path is commonly used to improve optical performance of the system by reducing contrast loss (Rostalski, page 4, lines 10-13, page 24, lines 1-19).
Regarding claim 2, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses wherein the imaging EUV optical unit has precisely four NI mirrors (Chapman, Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”)).
Regarding claim 3, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses wherein a first imaging of the object field in the imaging beam path occurs in the image field (Chapman, Figs. 4-5, col. 28-55, col. 6, lines 1-53, the mirrors M1 to M4 projects an image of a mask 407, 503 onto a wafer 411, 521).
Regarding claim 4, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses wherein the plurality of mirrors consists of NI mirrors (Chapman, Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”)).
Regarding claim 5, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses wherein a first imaging of the object field in the imaging beam path occurs in the image field (Chapman, Figs. 4-5, col. 28-55, col. 6, lines 1-53, the mirrors M1 to M4 projects an image of a mask 407, 503 onto a wafer 411, 521).
Regarding claim 8, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses wherein the imaging EUV optical unit has a ring-field-shaped image field (Chapman, Figs. 4-5, abstract, col. 5, lines 28-65, col. 6, lines 1-37, col. 7, lines 32-37, the condenser provides a ring field of illumination to the entrance pupil of the optical system).
Regarding claim 11, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses wherein an entrance pupil of the imaging EUV optical unit is in the imaging beam path upstream of the object field (Chapman, Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 56-65, col. 6, lines 1-37, the condenser directs EUV light into the entrance pupil, and the light is directed to the mask).
Regarding claim 17, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses wherein the plurality of mirrors consists of four NI mirrors (Chapman, Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”)).
Regarding claim 18, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses an optical system (Chapman, Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-39, photolithography optical system), comprising:
an EUV imaging optical unit according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Chapman, Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-67, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, the four mirrors M1 to M4 are arranged in the EUV optical system); and
an illumination optical unit configured to illuminate the object field with the imaging light (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-39, lines col. 56-67, col. 6, lines 1-22, a condenser illuminates the mask arranged in the object field).
Regarding claim 19, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses an apparatus (Chapman, Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-39, photolithography optical system), comprising:
an EUV light source configured to provide EUV light (Chapman, Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 28-67, an EUV radiation source provides EUV radiation);
an EUV imaging optical unit according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-67, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, the four mirrors M1 to M4 are arranged in the EUV optical system); and
an illumination optical unit configured to illuminate the object field with the EUV light (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-39, lines col. 56-67, col. 6, lines 1-22, a condenser illuminates the mask arranged in the object field with EUV radiation).
Regarding claim 20, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses a method of using a projection exposure apparatus comprising an illumination optical unit and an imaging optical unit (Chapman, Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-39, col. 6, lines 1-38, photolithography optical system comprising a condenser 405 and optical system 409 projects an image of a mask onto a wafer), the method comprising:
using the illumination optical unit to illuminate a portion of a reticle in an object field of the imaging optical unit (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-39, lines col. 56-67, col. 6, lines 1-22, a condenser illuminates the mask arranged in the object field of the optical system with EUV radiation); and
projecting the illuminated portion of the reticle into an image field of the imaging optical unit (Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-67, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, the four mirrors M1 to M4 are arranged in the EUV optical system to project the image of the mask onto the wafer),
wherein the imaging optical unit is an imaging optical unit according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Figs. 4-5, col. 5, lines 27-67, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, the four mirrors M1 to M4 are arranged in the EUV optical system).
Claims 6, 7, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwab (US PGPub 2016/0085061).
Regarding claim 6, Chapman does not appear to explicitly describe wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface.
Schwab discloses wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface (Figs. 2, 3, 14-19, 26, 27, Table 2, paras. [0019], [0442], at least one normal-incidence mirror has a saddle surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface as taught by Schwab as the shape of at least one of the mirrors in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman since including wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface is commonly used to provide a mirror with the shape as desired for producing the refractive power in the projection optical unit to correct an image field (Schwab, paras. [0004], [0442]).
Regarding claim 7, Chapman does not appear to explicitly describe wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto.
Schwab discloses wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto (Fig. 15, paras. [0017], [0304], the mirror M4 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 7.5, mirror M5 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 2.5, and mirror M7 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto as taught by Schwab as the reflection surface for at least one of the mirrors in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman since including wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto is commonly used to provide a high-throughput projection optical unit to correct an image field (Schwab, paras. [0004]).
Regarding claim 13, Chapman discloses wherein the imaging EUV optical unit has precisely four N1 mirrors (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”). Chapman does not appear to explicitly describe at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface.
Schwab discloses wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface (Figs. 2, 3, 14-19, 26, 27, Table 2, paras. [0019], [0442], at least one normal-incidence mirror has a saddle surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface as taught by Schwab as the shape of at least one of the mirrors in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman since including wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface is commonly used to provide a mirror with the shape as desired for producing the refractive power in the projection optical unit to correct an image field (Schwab, paras. [0004], [0442]).
Regarding claim 14, Chapman discloses wherein the plurality of mirrors consists of NI mirrors (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”). Chapman does not appear to explicitly describe at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface.
Schwab discloses wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface (Figs. 2, 3, 14-19, 26, 27, Table 2, paras. [0019], [0442], at least one normal-incidence mirror has a saddle surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface as taught by Schwab as the shape of at least one of the mirrors in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman since including wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface is commonly used to provide a mirror with the shape as desired for producing the refractive power in the projection optical unit to correct an image field (Schwab, paras. [0004], [0442]).
Regarding claim 15, Chapman discloses wherein the imaging EUV optical unit has precisely four NI mirrors (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”). Chapman does not appear to explicitly describe at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto.
Schwab discloses wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto (Fig. 15, paras. [0017], [0304], the mirror M4 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 7.5, mirror M5 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 2.5, and mirror M7 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto as taught by Schwab as the reflection surface for at least one of the mirrors in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman since including wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto is commonly used to provide a high-throughput projection optical unit to correct an image field (Schwab, paras. [0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Chapman discloses wherein the plurality of mirrors consists of NI mirrors (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”). Chapman does not appear to explicitly describe at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto.
Schwab discloses wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto (Fig. 15, paras. [0017], [0304], the mirror M4 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 7.5, mirror M5 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 2.5, and mirror M7 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto as taught by Schwab as the reflection surface for at least one of the mirrors in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman since including wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto is commonly used to provide a high-throughput projection optical unit to correct an image field (Schwab, paras. [0004]).
Claims 6, 7, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman as modified by Rostalski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwab (US PGPub 2016/0085061).
Regarding claim 6, Chapman as modified by Rostalski does not appear to explicitly describe wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface.
Schwab discloses wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface (Figs. 2, 3, 14-19, 26, 27, Table 2, paras. [0019], [0442], at least one normal-incidence mirror has a saddle surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface as taught by Schwab as the shape of at least one of the mirrors in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman as modified by Rostalski since including wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface is commonly used to provide a mirror with the shape as desired for producing the refractive power in the projection optical unit to correct an image field (Schwab, paras. [0004], [0442]).
Regarding claim 7, Chapman as modified by Rostalski does not appear to explicitly describe wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto.
Schwab discloses wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto (Fig. 15, paras. [0017], [0304], the mirror M4 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 7.5, mirror M5 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 2.5, and mirror M7 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto as taught by Schwab as the reflection surface for at least one of the mirrors in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman as modified by Rostalski since including wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto is commonly used to provide a high-throughput projection optical unit to correct an image field (Schwab, paras. [0004]).
Regarding claim 13, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses wherein the imaging EUV optical unit has precisely four N1 mirrors (Chapman, Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”). Chapman as modified by Rostalski does not appear to explicitly describe at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface.
Schwab discloses wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface (Figs. 2, 3, 14-19, 26, 27, Table 2, paras. [0019], [0442], at least one normal-incidence mirror has a saddle surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface as taught by Schwab as the shape of at least one of the mirrors in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman as modified by Rostalski since including wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface is commonly used to provide a mirror with the shape as desired for producing the refractive power in the projection optical unit to correct an image field (Schwab, paras. [0004], [0442]).
Regarding claim 14, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses wherein the plurality of mirrors consists of NI mirrors (Chapman, Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”). Chapman as modified by Rostalski does not appear to explicitly describe at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface.
Schwab discloses wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface (Figs. 2, 3, 14-19, 26, 27, Table 2, paras. [0019], [0442], at least one normal-incidence mirror has a saddle surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface as taught by Schwab as the shape of at least one of the mirrors in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman as modified by Rostalski since including wherein at least one of the mirrors has a saddle-shaped reflection surface is commonly used to provide a mirror with the shape as desired for producing the refractive power in the projection optical unit to correct an image field (Schwab, paras. [0004], [0442]).
Regarding claim 15, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses wherein the imaging EUV optical unit has precisely four NI mirrors (Chapman, Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”). Chapman as modified by Rostalski does not appear to explicitly describe at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto.
Schwab discloses wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto (Fig. 15, paras. [0017], [0304], the mirror M4 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 7.5, mirror M5 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 2.5, and mirror M7 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto as taught by Schwab as the reflection surface for at least one of the mirrors in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman as modified by Rostalski since including wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto is commonly used to provide a high-throughput projection optical unit to correct an image field (Schwab, paras. [0004]).
Regarding claim 16, Chapman as modified by Rostalski discloses wherein the plurality of mirrors consists of NI mirrors (Chapman, Figs. 3-5, 7-9, col. 4, lines 35-41, col. 6, lines 1-53, col. 10, lines 7-37, lines 52-65, four mirrors M1 to M4 have incident angles of less than 12° (see page 8, lines 18-21 of instant application, “normal incidence (NI), that is to say at angles of incidence of less than 45°”). Chapman as modified by Rostalski does not appear to explicitly describe at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto.
Schwab discloses wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto (Fig. 15, paras. [0017], [0304], the mirror M4 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 7.5, mirror M5 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 2.5, and mirror M7 has an x/y-aspect ratio of approximately 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto as taught by Schwab as the reflection surface for at least one of the mirrors in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman as modified by Rostalski since including wherein at least one of the mirrors has a reflection surface with an aspect ratio of greater than 1.5 between a greater surface extent along a first reflection surface dimension and a smaller surface extent along a second reflection dimension perpendicular thereto is commonly used to provide a high-throughput projection optical unit to correct an image field (Schwab, paras. [0004]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zellner et al. (US PGPub 2012/0069314, Zellner hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Chapman does not appear to explicitly describe wherein: two imaging beam path portions cross in a crossing region; each imaging beam path portion is in the imaging beam path between the object field and the first mirror; and each imaging beam path portion is between two successive mirrors, or each imaging beam path portion is between a last mirror in the imaging beam path and the image field.
Zellner discloses wherein: two imaging beam path portions cross in a crossing region (Fig. 2, paras. [0030]-[0034], [0038]-[0041], the beam between mirrors M2 and M3 crosses the beam between mirrors M4 and M5);
each imaging beam path portion is in the imaging beam path between the object field and the first mirror (Fig. 2, paras. [0025]-[0026], [0030]-[0034], [0038]-[0041], the portions of the beams crossing each other between mirrors M2 and M3 and mirrors M4 and M5 are between the mirror M1 and the object field 4); and
each imaging beam path portion is between two successive mirrors, or each imaging beam path portion is between a last mirror in the imaging beam path and the image field (Fig. 2, paras. [0025]-[0026], [0030]-[0034], [0038]-[0041], the portions of the beams that cross each other are between mirrors M2 and M3 and between mirrors M4 and M5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein: two imaging beam path portions cross in a crossing region; each imaging beam path portion is in the imaging beam path between the object field and the first mirror; and each imaging beam path portion is between two successive mirrors, or each imaging beam path portion is between a last mirror in the imaging beam path and the image field as taught by Zellner in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman since including two imaging beam path portions cross in a crossing region; each imaging beam path portion is in the imaging beam path between the object field and the first mirror; and each imaging beam path portion is between two successive mirrors, or each imaging beam path portion is between a last mirror in the imaging beam path and the image field is commonly used to arrange an imaging system to reduce imaging errors with high optical throughput (Zellner, paras. [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 10, Chapman as modified by Zellner discloses wherein the two crossing imaging beam path sections are: between the object field and a first mirror in the imaging beam path (Zellner, Fig. 2, paras. [0025]-[0026], [0030]-[0034], [0038]-[0041], the portions of the beams crossing each other between mirrors M2 and M3 and mirrors M4 and M5 are between the mirror M1 and the object field 4); and between a second mirror in the imaging beam path and the third mirror in the imaging beam path (Zellner, Fig. 2, paras. [0025]-[0026], [0030]-[0034], [0038]-[0041], the portions of the beams that cross each other are between mirrors M2 and M3).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman as modified by Rostalski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zellner et al. (US PGPub 2012/0069314, Zellner hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Chapman as modified by Rostalski does not appear to explicitly describe wherein: two imaging beam path portions cross in a crossing region; each imaging beam path portion is in the imaging beam path between the object field and the first mirror; and each imaging beam path portion is between two successive mirrors, or each imaging beam path portion is between a last mirror in the imaging beam path and the image field.
Zellner discloses wherein: two imaging beam path portions cross in a crossing region (Fig. 2, paras. [0030]-[0034], [0038]-[0041], the beam between mirrors M2 and M3 crosses the beam between mirrors M4 and M5);
each imaging beam path portion is in the imaging beam path between the object field and the first mirror (Fig. 2, paras. [0025]-[0026], [0030]-[0034], [0038]-[0041], the portions of the beams crossing each other between mirrors M2 and M3 and mirrors M4 and M5 are between the mirror M1 and the object field 4); and
each imaging beam path portion is between two successive mirrors, or each imaging beam path portion is between a last mirror in the imaging beam path and the image field (Fig. 2, paras. [0025]-[0026], [0030]-[0034], [0038]-[0041], the portions of the beams that cross each other are between mirrors M2 and M3 and between mirrors M4 and M5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein: two imaging beam path portions cross in a crossing region; each imaging beam path portion is in the imaging beam path between the object field and the first mirror; and each imaging beam path portion is between two successive mirrors, or each imaging beam path portion is between a last mirror in the imaging beam path and the image field as taught by Zellner in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman as modified by Rostalski since including two imaging beam path portions cross in a crossing region; each imaging beam path portion is in the imaging beam path between the object field and the first mirror; and each imaging beam path portion is between two successive mirrors, or each imaging beam path portion is between a last mirror in the imaging beam path and the image field is commonly used to arrange an imaging system to reduce imaging errors with high optical throughput (Zellner, paras. [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 10, Chapman as modified by Rostalski in view of Zellner discloses wherein the two crossing imaging beam path sections are: between the object field and a first mirror in the imaging beam path (Zellner, Fig. 2, paras. [0025]-[0026], [0030]-[0034], [0038]-[0041], the portions of the beams crossing each other between mirrors M2 and M3 and mirrors M4 and M5 are between the mirror M1 and the object field 4); and between a second mirror in the imaging beam path and the third mirror in the imaging beam path (Zellner, Fig. 2, paras. [0025]-[0026], [0030]-[0034], [0038]-[0041], the portions of the beams that cross each other are between mirrors M2 and M3).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwab (US PGPub 2018/0074303, Schwab 303 hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Chapman does not appear to explicitly describe wherein at least one of the mirrors comprises an opening, and the imaging beam path passes through the opening.
Schwab 303 disclose wherein at least one of the mirrors comprises an opening, and the imaging beam path passes through the opening (Figs. 2, 5, 8, 32-35, paras. [0079], [0084]-[0085], [0125], [0188], [0283], [0285], mirror M8 or M6 includes an opening 17 for the imaging light 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors comprises an opening, and the imaging beam path passes through the opening as taught by Schwab 303 in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman since including wherein at least one of the mirrors comprises an opening, and the imaging beam path passes through the opening is commonly used to provide an imaging system with the design arrangement as desired to provide a compact imaging optical unit simplifying the design (Schwab 303, paras. [0011], [0020], [0285]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman as modified by Rostalski applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwab (US PGPub 2018/0074303, Schwab 303).
Regarding claim 12, Chapman as modified by Rostalski does not appear to explicitly describe wherein at least one of the mirrors comprises an opening, and the imaging beam path passes through the opening.
Schwab 303 disclose wherein at least one of the mirrors comprises an opening, and the imaging beam path passes through the opening (Figs. 2, 5, 8, 32-35, paras. [0079], [0084]-[0085], [0125], [0188], [0283], [0285], mirror M8 or M6 includes an opening 17 for the imaging light 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein at least one of the mirrors comprises an opening, and the imaging beam path passes through the opening as taught by Schwab 303 in the imaging EUV optical unit as taught by Chapman as modified by Rostalski since including wherein at least one of the mirrors comprises an opening, and the imaging beam path passes through the opening is commonly used to provide an imaging system with the design arrangement as desired to provide a compact imaging optical unit simplifying the design (Schwab 303, paras. [0011], [0020], [0285]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-5PM.
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, Minh-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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights