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/EP2023/068705, filed on 7/6/2023, which claims priority from DE102022207052.6, filed on 7/11/2022.
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 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 14 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 4, the limitation “wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm” in lines 1-2 is vague and indefinite. The slope variation metric in the unit of “°/µm” is unclear, and the specification does not provide guidance such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the slope variation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein structures of the defect-free partial flank portion have a maximum slope variation. Thus, claim 4 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm” in lines 1-2 is vague and indefinite. The slope variation metric in the unit of “°/µm” is unclear, and the specification does not provide guidance such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the claimed slope variation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein structures of the defect-free partial flank portion have a maximum slope variation. Thus, claim 6 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm” in lines 1-2 is vague and indefinite. The slope variation metric in the unit of “°/µm” is unclear and the specification does not provide guidance such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the slope variation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein structures of the defect-free partial flank portion have a maximum slope variation. Thus, claim 7 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 150°/µm” in lines 1-2 is vague and indefinite. The slope variation metric in the unit of “°/µm” is unclear and the specification does not provide guidance such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the slope variation as claimed. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein structures of the defect-free partial flank portion have a maximum slope variation. Thus, claim 10 is rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 150°/µm” in lines 1-2 is vague and indefinite. The slope variation metric in the unit of “°/µm” is unclear and the specification does not provide guidance such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the slope variation as claimed. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning wherein structures of the defect-free partial flank portion have a maximum slope variation. Thus, claim 11 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalics et al. (WO2020/109225, Jalics hereinafter) in view of Clauss et al. (DE102010030913, Clauss hereinafter; cited by 1/62025 IDS; English translation attached with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Jalics discloses a mirror (Figs. 1-6, abstract, a mirror comprises a grating structure), comprising:
a spectral filter configured as a grating structure for light reflected by the mirror (Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 15, lines 1-27, a mirror comprising a spectral filter in the form of a grating structure 30); and
a protective layer supported by the grating structure (Figs. 1-7, page 16, lines 12-20, a protective layer 38 is formed on the grating ridges 31), wherein:
the grating structure comprises first and second grating levels specifying first and second optical path lengths for the reflected light (Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, the grating ridges 31 includes upper surfaces of front sides 32 and lower surfaces of bottoms 35 that provide different optical path lengths for reflected radiation);
the grating structure comprises a plurality of overall flank portions, a plurality of first grating level portions at the first grating level, and a plurality of second grating level portions at the second grating level (Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, the grating ridges 31 are trapezium-shaped having sidewalls 33 between the front sides 32 and bottoms 35);
each overall flank portion is between corresponding first and second grating level structure portions (Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, the sidewalls 33 are between front sides 32 and bottoms 35);
each overall flank portion comprises a defect-free partial flank portion making up at least 90% of an extent of the overall flank portion (Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps; therefore, the sidewalls 33 are “a defect-free partial flank portion making up at least 90% of an extent of the overall flank portion”). Jalics does not appear to explicitly describe a lower limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion is exclusively from 0.01 µm to 1 µm; an upper limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion is exclusively from 0.1 µm to 100 µm exclusive; and above the lower limit spatial wavelength and below the upper limit spatial wavelength, an effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion is less than 10 nm.
Clauss discloses a lower limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion is exclusively from 0.01 µm to 1 µm (Figs. 1-5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs of page 5, page 7, fourth paragraph of attached English translation, in a medium spatial frequency range between 1 µm and 1 mm, the surface roughness is less than 0.3 nm, and in a high spatial frequency range between 0.01 µm and 1 µm, the surface roughness is less than 0.2 nm rms);
an upper limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion is exclusively from 0.1 µm to 100 µm exclusive (Figs. 1-5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs of page 5, page 7, fourth paragraph, in a medium spatial frequency range between 1 µm and 1 mm, the surface roughness is less than 0.3 nm, and in a high spatial frequency range between 0.01 µm and 1 µm, the surface roughness is less than 0.2 nm rms); and
above the lower limit spatial wavelength and below the upper limit spatial wavelength, an effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion is less than 10 nm (Figs. 1-5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs of page 5, page 7, fourth paragraph, in a medium spatial frequency range between 1 µm and 1 mm, the surface roughness is less than 0.3 nm, and in a high spatial frequency range between 0.01 µm and 1 µm, the surface roughness is less than 0.2 nm rms).
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 above the lower limit spatial wavelength and below the upper limit spatial wavelength, an effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion is less than 10 nm as taught by Clauss as the surface of the flank portion of the mirror as taught by Jalics since including above the lower limit spatial wavelength and below the upper limit spatial wavelength, an effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion is less than 10 nm is commonly used to provide high reflectivity for high intensity while increasing image contrast in EUV radiation (Clauss, page 5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs).
Regarding claim 2, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses wherein the effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion above the lower limit spatial wavelength is less than 3 nm (Clauss, page 5 of English translation, in a high spatial frequency range between 0.01 µm and 1 µm, the surface roughness is less than 0.2 nm rms).
Regarding claim 3, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses wherein, for each overall flank portion, the defect-free partial flank portion makes up at least 95% of an extent of the overall flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps; therefore, the sidewalls 33 satisfy “the defect-free partial flank portion makes up at least 95% of an extent of the overall flank portion”).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses the general condition of a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps, and as modified by Clauss, Figs. 1-5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs of page 5, page 7, fourth paragraph, the substrate has an intended surface shape with a surface roughness having a maximum slope variation), but Jalics as modified by Clauss does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm. However, absent evidence of criticality, 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 optimizing the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in the mirror as taught by Jalics as modified by Clauss to have obtained the maximum slope is no more than 200°/µm since including wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm would have only required routine skill to determine an optimum maximum slope variation of the structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in order to achieve the surface roughness desired to improve reflectivity (Clauss, page 5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Regarding claim 5, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses wherein, for each overall flank portion, the defect-free partial flank portion makes up at least 95% of an extent of the overall flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps; therefore, the sidewalls 33 satisfy “the defect-free partial flank portion makes up at least 95% of an extent of the overall flank portion”).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses the general condition of a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps, and as modified by Clauss, Figs. 1-5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs of page 5, page 7, fourth paragraph, the substrate has an intended surface shape with a surface roughness having a maximum slope variation), but Jalics as modified by Clauss does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm. However, absent evidence of criticality, 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 optimizing the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in the mirror as taught by Jalics as modified by Clauss to have obtained the maximum slope is no more than 200°/µm since including wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm would have only required routine skill to determine an optimum maximum slope variation of the structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in order to achieve the surface roughness desired to improve reflectivity (Clauss, page 5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses the general condition of a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps, and as modified by Clauss, Figs. 1-5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs of page 5, page 7, fourth paragraph, the substrate has an intended surface shape with a surface roughness having a maximum slope variation), but Jalics as modified by Clauss does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm. However, absent evidence of criticality, 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 optimizing the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in the mirror as taught by Jalics as modified by Clauss to have obtained the maximum slope is no more than 200°/µm since including wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm would have only required routine skill to determine an optimum maximum slope variation of the structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in order to achieve the surface roughness desired to improve reflectivity (Clauss, page 5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Regarding claim 8, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses wherein the defect-free partial flank portion is manufactured by a subtractive method and/or by an additive method (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 17, lines 1-29, page 18, lines 1-28, page 19, lines 1-27 the sidewalls 33 are produced by etching the structuring layer 40 and substrate 37).
Regarding claim 9, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses wherein the effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion above the lower limit spatial wavelength is less than 0.3 nm (Clauss, page 5 of English translation, in a high spatial frequency range between 0.01 µm and 1 µm, the surface roughness is less than 0.2 nm rms).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses the general condition of a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps, and as modified by Clauss, Figs. 1-5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs of page 5, page 7, fourth paragraph, the substrate has an intended surface shape with a surface roughness having a maximum slope variation), but Jalics as modified by Clauss does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 150°/µm. However, absent evidence of criticality, 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 optimizing the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in the mirror as taught by Jalics as modified by Clauss to have obtained the maximum slope is no more than 150°/µm since including wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 150°/µm would have only required routine skill to determine an optimum maximum slope variation of the structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in order to achieve the surface roughness desired to improve reflectivity (Clauss, page 5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses the general condition of a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps, and as modified by Clauss, Figs. 1-5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs of page 5, page 7, fourth paragraph, the substrate has an intended surface shape with a surface roughness having a maximum slope variation), but Jalics as modified by Clauss does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 150°/µm. However, absent evidence of criticality, 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 optimizing the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in the mirror as taught by Jalics as modified by Clauss to have obtained the maximum slope is no more than 150°/µm since including wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 150°/µm would have only required routine skill to determine an optimum maximum slope variation of the structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in order to achieve the surface roughness desired to improve reflectivity (Clauss, page 5, fourth and fifth full paragraphs). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Regarding claim 12, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses wherein, in a plan view, an area of the overall flank portions define is at most 5% of an area of the overall reflections surface of the mirror (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 5, lines 7-16 , page 15, lines 17-27, the sidewalls 33 form at most 5% of the total reflection surface area of the mirror).
Regarding claim 13, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses wherein, for each overall flank portion, an angle between the overall flank portion and the first grating level is less than 90° (Jalics, p. 16, lines 21-26, the sidewalls 33 have a steepness in a range of 15 to 60).
Regarding claim 14, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses wherein, for each overall flank portion, an angle between the overall flank portion and the first grating level is less than 90° (Jalics, p. 16, lines 21-26, the sidewalls 33 have a steepness in a range of 15° to 60°).
Regarding claim 15, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses wherein, for each overall flank portion, an angle between the overall flank portion and the first grating level is between 5° and 80° (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, p. 16, lines 21-26, the sidewalls 33 have a steepness in a range of 15° to 60°).
Regarding claim 16, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses an optical unit configured to guide illumination light along a path to an object field in an object plane (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-22, an illumination optical unit 4 illuminates a reticle in the object field 5 of the object plane 6), the optical unit comprising:
a mirror according to a mirror according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 14, lines 15-26, page 15, lines 1-10, the illumination optical unit 4 includes a mirror having a spectral filter with grating structure 30),
wherein the mirror is along the path of the illumination light to the object field (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 14, lines 15-26, page 15, lines 1-10, the illumination optical unit 4 includes a mirror having a spectral filter with grating structure 30).
Regarding claim 17, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses an optical system (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-22, an illumination optical unit 4), comprising:
an illumination optical unit configured to guide illumination light along a path to an object field in an object plane (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-22, an illumination optical unit 4 illuminates a reticle in the object field 5 of the object plane), the illumination optical unit comprising a mirror according to claim 1 along the path of the illumination light to the object field (see claim 1 rejection above, Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 14, lines 15-26, page 15, lines 1-10, the illumination optical unit 4 includes a mirror having a spectral filter with grating structure 30); and
a projection optical unit configured to project the object field to an image field in an image plane (Jalics, Fig. 1, page 13, lines 12-22, projection optical unit 7 projects an image of the reticle in the object field 5 onto a wafer in the image plane 9).
Regarding claim 18, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses an illumination system (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-22, an illumination optical unit 4), comprising:
an EUV light source configured to produce EUV light (Jalics, Fig. 1, page 13, lines 12-29, the radiation source 3 is an EUV radiation source);
an illumination optical unit configured to guide the EUV light along a path to an object field in an object plane (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-29, page 14, lines 1-10, an illumination optical unit 4 guides the EUV light from the radiation source 3 and illuminates a reticle in the object field 5 of the object plane),
wherein the illumination optical unit comprises a mirror according to claim 1 along the path of the EUV light to the object field (see claim 1 rejection above, Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 14, lines 15-26, page 15, lines 1-10, the illumination optical unit 4 includes a mirror having a spectral filter with grating structure 30).
Regarding claim 19, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses a projection exposure apparatus (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-22, microlithographic exposure apparatus 1), comprising:
an EUV light source configured to produce EUV light (Jalics, Fig. 1, page 13, lines 12-29, the radiation source 3 is an EUV radiation source);
an illumination optical unit configured to guide the EUV light along a path to an object field in an object plane (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-29, page 14, lines 1-10, an illumination optical unit 4 guides the EUV light from the radiation source 3 and illuminates a reticle in the object field 5 of the object plane), the illumination optical unit comprising a mirror according to claim 1 along the path of the EUV light to the object field (see claim 1 rejection above, Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 14, lines 15-26, page 15, lines 1-10, the illumination optical unit 4 includes a mirror having a spectral filter with grating structure 30); and
a projection optical unit configured to project the object field to an image field in an image plane (Jalics, Fig. 1, page 13, lines 12-22, projection optical unit 7 projects an image of the reticle in the object field 5 onto a wafer in the image plane 9).
Regarding claim 20, Jalics as modified by Clauss discloses a method of using a projection exposure apparatus comprising an illumination optical unit and a projection optical unit (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 13, lines 12-29, page 14, lines 1-10, , microlithographic exposure apparatus 1 comprises illumination optical unit 4 and projection optical unit 7 and images a structure on the reticle in object plane 6 onto a light-sensitive layer of a wafer in image plane 9), the method comprising:
using the illumination optical unit to illuminate structures of an object in an object field of an object plane (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-29, page 14, lines 1-10, an illumination optical unit 4 guides the EUV light from the radiation source 3 and illuminates a reticle in the object field 5 of the object plane); and
using the projection optical unit to project the illuminated structures of the object in the object field to an image field in an image plane (Jalics, Fig. 1, page 13, lines 12-22, projection optical unit 7 projects an image of the reticle in the object field 5 onto a wafer in the image plane 9),
wherein the illumination optical unit comprises a mirror according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 14, lines 15-26, page 15, lines 1-10, the illumination optical unit 4 includes a mirror having a spectral filter with grating structure 30).
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalics et al. (WO2020/109225, Jalics hereinafter) in view of Schuster et al. (US PGPub 2019/0094699, Schuster hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Jalics discloses a mirror (Figs. 1-6, abstract, a mirror comprises a grating structure), comprising:
a spectral filter configured as a grating structure for light reflected by the mirror (Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 15, lines 1-27, a mirror comprising a spectral filter in the form of a grating structure 30); and
a protective layer supported by the grating structure (Figs. 1-7, page 16, lines 12-20, a protective layer 38 is formed on the grating ridges 31), wherein:
the grating structure comprises first and second grating levels specifying first and second optical path lengths for the reflected light (Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, the grating ridges 31 includes upper surfaces of front sides 32 and lower surfaces of bottoms 35 that provide different optical path lengths for reflected radiation);
the grating structure comprises a plurality of overall flank portions, a plurality of first grating level portions at the first grating level, and a plurality of second grating level portions at the second grating level (Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, the grating ridges 31 are trapezium-shaped having sidewalls 33 between the front sides 32 and bottoms 35);
each overall flank portion is between corresponding first and second grating level structure portions (Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, the sidewalls 33 are between front sides 32 and bottoms 35);
each overall flank portion comprises a defect-free partial flank portion making up at least 90% of an extent of the overall flank portion (Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps; therefore, the sidewalls 33 are “a defect-free partial flank portion making up at least 90% of an extent of the overall flank portion”). Jalics does not appear to explicitly describe a lower limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion is exclusively from 0.01 µm to 1 µm; an upper limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion is exclusively from 0.1 µm to 100 µm exclusive; and above the lower limit spatial wavelength and below the upper limit spatial wavelength, an effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion is less than 10 nm.
Schuster discloses a lower limit spatial wavelength over each portion is 1 µm (Figs. 2-11, paras. [0051], [0054]-[0055], [0061]-[0062], the lower limit of the spatial wavelength is in the range of 1 µm);
an upper limit spatial wavelength over each portion is exclusively from 0.1 µm to 100 µm exclusive (Figs. 2-11, paras. [0051], [0054]-[0055], [0060]-[0062], the upper limit of the spatial wavelength is greater than 10 µm); and
above the lower limit spatial wavelength and below the upper limit spatial wavelength, an effective roughness of the portion is less than 10 nm (Figs. 2-11, paras. [0051]-[0055], [0058]-[0059], [0076], the effective roughness is in the region of 0.53 nm to 2.1 nm).
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 a lower limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion is 1 µm; an upper limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion is exclusively from 0.1 µm to 100 µm exclusive; and above the lower limit spatial wavelength and below the upper limit spatial wavelength, an effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion is less than 10 nm as taught by Schuster for each defect-free partial flank portion in the mirror as taught by Jalics since including a lower limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion is 1 µm; an upper limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion is exclusively from 0.1 µm to 100 µm exclusive; and above the lower limit spatial wavelength and below the upper limit spatial wavelength, an effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion is less than 10 nm is commonly used to optimally reduce the loss of desired EUV wavelength radiation while obtaining the desired intensity distribution (Schuster, paras. [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0010]-[0011], [0015], [0056]). Although Jalics as modified by Schuster suggests the general conditions of the lower limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion is 1 µm (Schuster, Figs. 2-11, paras. [0051], [0054]-[0055], [0061]-[0062], the lower limit of the spatial wavelength is in the range of 1 µm), Jalics as modified by Schuster does not appear to explicitly describe the lower limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion is exclusively from 0.01 µm to 1 µm. However, absent evidence of criticality, 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 optimizing the lower limit spatial wavelength over each defect free partial flank portion in the mirror as taught by Jalics as modified by Schuster to obtain the lower limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion is exclusively from 0.01 µm to 1 µm since optimizing the lower limit spatial wavelength over each defect-free partial flank portion in the mirror would have only required routine skill to determine an optimum lower limit of the spatial wavelength to obtain the desired targeted increase in effective roughness to obtain the desired intensity distribution without EUV light loss (Schuster, paras. [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0010]-[0011], [0015], [0018], [0056]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Regarding claim 2, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses wherein the effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion above the lower limit spatial wavelength is less than 3 nm (Schuster, Figs. 2-11, paras. [0051]-[0055], [0058]-[0059], [0076], the effective roughness is in the region of 0.53 nm to 2.1 nm).
Regarding claim 3, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses wherein, for each overall flank portion, the defect-free partial flank portion makes up at least 95% of an extent of the overall flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps; therefore, the sidewalls 33 satisfy “the defect-free partial flank portion makes up at least 95% of an extent of the overall flank portion”).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses the general condition of a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps, and as modified by Schuster, Figs. 2-11, paras. [0051]-[0055], [0058]-[0059], [0076], the mirror surface has an effective roughness having a maximum slope variation), but Jalics as modified by Schuster does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm. However, absent evidence of criticality, 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 optimizing the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in the mirror as taught by Jalics as modified by Schuster to have obtained the maximum slope is no more than 200°/µm since including wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm would have only required routine skill to determine an optimum maximum slope variation of the structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in order to achieve the surface roughness desired to obtain the desired intensity distribution without EUV light loss (Schuster, paras. [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0010]-[0011], [0015], [0018], [0056). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Regarding claim 5, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses wherein, for each overall flank portion, the defect-free partial flank portion makes up at least 95% of an extent of the overall flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps; therefore, the sidewalls 33 satisfy “the defect-free partial flank portion makes up at least 95% of an extent of the overall flank portion”).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses the general condition of a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps, and as modified by Schuster, Figs. 2-11, paras. [0051]-[0055], [0058]-[0059], [0076], the mirror surface has an effective roughness having a maximum slope variation), but Jalics as modified by Schuster does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm. However, absent evidence of criticality, 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 optimizing the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in the mirror as taught by Jalics as modified by Schuster to have obtained the maximum slope is no more than 200°/µm since including wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm would have only required routine skill to determine an optimum maximum slope variation of the structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in order to achieve the surface roughness desired to obtain the desired intensity distribution without EUV light loss (Schuster, paras. [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0010]-[0011], [0015], [0018], [0056). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses the general condition of a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps, and as modified by Schuster, Figs. 2-11, paras. [0051]-[0055], [0058]-[0059], [0076], the mirror surface has an effective roughness having a maximum slope variation), but Jalics as modified by Schuster does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm. However, absent evidence of criticality, 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 optimizing the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in the mirror as taught by Jalics as modified by Schuster to have obtained the maximum slope is no more than 200°/µm since including wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 200°/µm would have only required routine skill to determine an optimum maximum slope variation of the structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in order to achieve the surface roughness desired to obtain the desired intensity distribution without EUV light loss (Schuster, paras. [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0010]-[0011], [0015], [0018], [0056). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Regarding claim 8, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses wherein the defect-free partial flank portion is manufactured by a subtractive method and/or by an additive method (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 17, lines 1-29, page 18, lines 1-28, page 19, lines 1-27 the sidewalls 33 are produced by etching the structuring layer 40 and substrate 37).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses the general condition of a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps, and as modified by Schuster, Figs. 2-11, paras. [0051]-[0055], [0058]-[0059], [0076], the mirror surface has an effective roughness having a maximum slope variation), but Jalics as modified by Schuster does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 150°/µm. However, absent evidence of criticality, 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 optimizing the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in the mirror as taught by Jalics as modified by Schuster to have obtained the maximum slope is no more than 150°/µm since including wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 150°/µm would have only required routine skill to determine an optimum maximum slope variation of the structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in order to achieve the surface roughness desired to obtain the desired intensity distribution without EUV light loss (Schuster, paras. [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0010]-[0011], [0015], [0018], [0056). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Regarding claim 12, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses wherein, in a plan view, an area of the overall flank portions define is at most 5% of an area of the overall reflections surface of the mirror (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 5, lines 7-16 , page 15, lines 17-27, the sidewalls 33 form at most 5% of the total reflection surface area of the mirror).
Regarding claim 13, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses wherein, for each overall flank portion, an angle between the overall flank portion and the first grating level is less than 90° (Jalics, p. 16, lines 21-26, the sidewalls 33 have a steepness in a range of 15 to 60).
Regarding claim 14, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses wherein, for each overall flank portion, an angle between the overall flank portion and the first grating level is less than 90° (Jalics, p. 16, lines 21-26, the sidewalls 33 have a steepness in a range of 15° to 60°).
Regarding claim 15, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses wherein, for each overall flank portion, an angle between the overall flank portion and the first grating level is between 5° and 80° (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, p. 16, lines 21-26, the sidewalls 33 have a steepness in a range of 15° to 60°).
Regarding claim 16, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses an optical unit configured to guide illumination light along a path to an object field in an object plane (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-22, an illumination optical unit 4 illuminates a reticle in the object field 5 of the object plane 6), the optical unit comprising:
a mirror according to a mirror according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 14, lines 15-26, page 15, lines 1-10, the illumination optical unit 4 includes a mirror having a spectral filter with grating structure 30),
wherein the mirror is along the path of the illumination light to the object field (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 14, lines 15-26, page 15, lines 1-10, the illumination optical unit 4 includes a mirror having a spectral filter with grating structure 30).
Regarding claim 17, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses an optical system (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-22, an illumination optical unit 4), comprising:
an illumination optical unit configured to guide illumination light along a path to an object field in an object plane (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-22, an illumination optical unit 4 illuminates a reticle in the object field 5 of the object plane), the illumination optical unit comprising a mirror according to claim 1 along the path of the illumination light to the object field (see claim 1 rejection above, Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 14, lines 15-26, page 15, lines 1-10, the illumination optical unit 4 includes a mirror having a spectral filter with grating structure 30); and
a projection optical unit configured to project the object field to an image field in an image plane (Jalics, Fig. 1, page 13, lines 12-22, projection optical unit 7 projects an image of the reticle in the object field 5 onto a wafer in the image plane 9).
Regarding claim 18, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses an illumination system (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-22, an illumination optical unit 4), comprising:
an EUV light source configured to produce EUV light (Jalics, Fig. 1, page 13, lines 12-29, the radiation source 3 is an EUV radiation source);
an illumination optical unit configured to guide the EUV light along a path to an object field in an object plane (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-29, page 14, lines 1-10, an illumination optical unit 4 guides the EUV light from the radiation source 3 and illuminates a reticle in the object field 5 of the object plane),
wherein the illumination optical unit comprises a mirror according to claim 1 along the path of the EUV light to the object field (see claim 1 rejection above, Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 14, lines 15-26, page 15, lines 1-10, the illumination optical unit 4 includes a mirror having a spectral filter with grating structure 30).
Regarding claim 19, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses a projection exposure apparatus (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-22, microlithographic exposure apparatus 1), comprising:
an EUV light source configured to produce EUV light (Jalics, Fig. 1, page 13, lines 12-29, the radiation source 3 is an EUV radiation source);
an illumination optical unit configured to guide the EUV light along a path to an object field in an object plane (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-29, page 14, lines 1-10, an illumination optical unit 4 guides the EUV light from the radiation source 3 and illuminates a reticle in the object field 5 of the object plane), the illumination optical unit comprising a mirror according to claim 1 along the path of the EUV light to the object field (see claim 1 rejection above, Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 14, lines 15-26, page 15, lines 1-10, the illumination optical unit 4 includes a mirror having a spectral filter with grating structure 30); and
a projection optical unit configured to project the object field to an image field in an image plane (Jalics, Fig. 1, page 13, lines 12-22, projection optical unit 7 projects an image of the reticle in the object field 5 onto a wafer in the image plane 9).
Regarding claim 20, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses a method of using a projection exposure apparatus comprising an illumination optical unit and a projection optical unit (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 13, lines 12-29, page 14, lines 1-10, , microlithographic exposure apparatus 1 comprises illumination optical unit 4 and projection optical unit 7 and images a structure on the reticle in object plane 6 onto a light-sensitive layer of a wafer in image plane 9), the method comprising:
using the illumination optical unit to illuminate structures of an object in an object field of an object plane (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 13, lines 12-29, page 14, lines 1-10, an illumination optical unit 4 guides the EUV light from the radiation source 3 and illuminates a reticle in the object field 5 of the object plane); and
using the projection optical unit to project the illuminated structures of the object in the object field to an image field in an image plane (Jalics, Fig. 1, page 13, lines 12-22, projection optical unit 7 projects an image of the reticle in the object field 5 onto a wafer in the image plane 9),
wherein the illumination optical unit comprises a mirror according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Jalics, Figs. 1-7, abstract, page 14, lines 15-26, page 15, lines 1-10, the illumination optical unit 4 includes a mirror having a spectral filter with grating structure 30).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalics as modified by Schuster as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clauss.
Regarding claim 9, Jalics as modified by Schuster discloses wherein the effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion above the lower limit spatial wavelength is around 0.53 nm (Schuster, Figs. 2-11, paras. [0051]-[0055], [0058]-[0059], [0076], the effective roughness is in the region of 0.53 nm), but Jalics as modified by Schuster does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion above the lower limit spatial wavelength is less than 0.3 nm.
Clauss discloses the effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion above the lower limit spatial wavelength is less than 0.3 nm (page 5, fifth full paragraph, in a high spatial frequency range between 0.01 µm and 1 µm, the surface roughness is less than 0.2 nm rms).
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 the effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion above the lower limit spatial wavelength is less than 0.3 nm as taught by Clauss as the effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank in the mirror as taught by Jalics as modified by Schuster since including the effective roughness of the defect-free partial flank portion above the lower limit spatial wavelength is less than 0.3 nm is commonly used to provide high reflectivity for high intensity EUV radiation (Clauss, page 5, fifth full paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Jalics as modified by Schuster in view of Clauss discloses the general condition of a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion (Jalics, Figs. 1-7, page 15, lines 1-27, page 16, lines 1-26, page 17, lines 1-10, the sidewalls 33 have defined sidewall steepness with the protective layer 38 formed covering the substrate completely without gaps, and as modified by Schuster, Figs. 2-11, paras. [0051]-[0055], [0058]-[0059], [0076], the mirror surface has an effective roughness having a maximum slope variation), but Jalics as modified by Schuster in view of Clauss does not appear to explicitly describe wherein the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 150°/µm. However, absent evidence of criticality, 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 optimizing the maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in the mirror as taught by Jalics as modified by Schuster in view of Clauss to have obtained the maximum slope is no more than 150°/µm since including wherein a maximum slope variation of structures of the defect-free partial flank portion is no more than 150°/µm would have only required routine skill to determine an optimum maximum slope variation of the structures of the defect-free partial flank portion in order to achieve the surface roughness desired to obtain the desired intensity distribution without EUV light loss (Schuster, paras. [0004], [0006]-[0007], [0010]-[0011], [0015], [0018], [0056). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
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