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 1-20 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.
As to claim 1, the terminology “basic ellipsoidal shape” fails to particularly point out the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. It is unclear what degree of deviation remains within the scope of a “basic” ellipsoidal shape and how one of ordinary skill would determine whether a given collector satisfies this limitation. Please clarify.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets “basic ellipsoidal shape” as an underlying ellipsoidal reference surface.
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, 7-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kierey et al (U.S.Pat. 10,578,972 B2) in view of Mann (U.S.Pat. 2016/0259248 A1) and further in view of Rolland et al (U.S.Pat. 8,616,712 B2).
With respect to claims 1, 9-10, 16 and 20, Kierey discloses an EUV collector and a corresponding method configured to transfer usable EUV radiation emitted from a plasma source region (19) into a spatially separated intermediate-focus region. Kierey discloses an ellipsoid collector mirror (24) having the plasma source region positioned at one ellipsoidal focus and the intermediate focus positioned at the other ellipsoidal focus (see Kierey, col.5, line 53 thru col.6 line 29; figure 2). Thus, Kierey discloses the claimed source volume, collection volume separated from the source volume, connection axis extending between the respective centers, and a collection having a basic ellipsoidal shape. Kierey does not specifically disclose that the imaging scale along the connection axis differs by at least 10% from the imaging scale along a perpendicular cross-sectional axis, as recited in the claim.
Mann teaches a reflective EUV optical imaging system having a first imaging scale in a first direction and a different second imaging scale in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction. Mann further teaches that one imaging scale may be at least 1.5 times or at least twice the other imaging scale (see Mann, paragraphs [0025-0034] and [0071-0078]). Mann expressly discloses imaging-scale rations including: 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, 1:5, 1:6, 1:8, 1:10, 2:3, 2:5 and 3:4 (see Mann, paragraphs [0041-0044]). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention configure the ellipsoidal EUV collector mirror of Kierey to image anamorphically, as taught by Mann, so that the imaging scale along one source-volume direction differs from the imaging scale along an orthogonal source-volume direction. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to permit independent control of the dimensions of the image source distribution in the two orthogonal directions and thereby adapt the image of the finite plasma source region to the dimensions and providing additional degrees of freedom for controlling the imaging properties.
Kierey as modified by Mann, do not expressly disclose representing the departure from the “basic”-ellipsoidal collector shape by Z4, Z9 and/or Z16. Rolland teaches reflective optical surfaces formed by superimposing FINGE Zernike polynomial surface contributions upon a base conic reflecting surface. Rolland further teaches using the respective Zernike coefficients as optical design and optimization variables and expressly identifies FINGE Zernike term Z9 as spherical aberrations (see Roland, col.4, lines 48 col.5 line 60; figure 1). In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to express and optimize the departure of the anamorphic collector surface resulting from the combination of Kierey and Mann using the known FINGE Zernike polynomial surface representation of Rolland. The motivation would have been to provide known mathematical surface variables for optimizing the focal and imaging characteristics of the reflective surface while retaining the underlying ellipsoidal or conic reference shape. Also, it would have been obvious to include Rolland’s expressly disclosed Z9 spherical-aberration contribution as one of the surface-departure terms because Z9 was a known parameter for modifying and optimizing the focal behavior of a powered reflective optical surface.
As to claims 2, 11 and 17, Mann’s ration of at least 4:3 corresponds to one imaging scale being approximately 33.3% greater than the other imaging scale and therefore expressly exceeds the claimed 10% threshold (see Mann, claim 1 and paragraphs [0031-0034]).
As to claims 3 and 12, Mann expressly discloses one imaging scale being twice the other, as well as ratios including 1:2, 1:3, 1:4 and larger. A ratio of 2:1 corresponds to a 100% differences and therefore exceeds the claimed 50% threshold (see Mann, paragraphs [0031-0034]).
As to claims 4 and 13, Mann expressly discloses ratios including 1:3, 1:4, 1:5, 1:6, 1:8 and 1:10. For example, 3:1 ration corresponds to one scale being 200% greater than the other and therefore exceeds the claimed 100% threshold (see Mann, paragraphs [0031-0034]).
As to claims 5 and 14, wherein a reflection surface of the collector (24) is rotationally symmetric with respect to the connection axis (see figure 1).
As to claims 6 and 15, a reflection surface of the collector (24) is a free form surface without an axis of rotational symmetry (see figure 1).
As to claim 7, Kierey further discloses a radiation source.
As to claims 8 and 18-19, Kierey discloses an illumination system (1) having a radiation source (2) and a projection objective (7) configured to image an object field illuminated by the EUV illumination system into an image field in an image plane (see figure 1).
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng et al (U.S.Pat. 11,860,544); Dinger et al (U.S. Pat. 8,934,085) disclose EUV collectors 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
7/15/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights