Claims 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 § 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 1-10, 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittern et la (U.S.Pat. 9,760,019) in view of Ho et al (US 2019/0025576).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1 and 19-20, Bittner discloses a projection exposure apparatus including an illumination system and a projection lens (see figure 1) for imaging a pattern from an object plane (12) into an image plane (14). Bitter further discloses a housing (22) an optical element (e.g., lens element 28) disclosed in the projection lens, and a heating device units (238) and infrared light source (240) configured to radiate infrared radiation 244 as heating radiation onto local regions or zones of the lens element 28. Thus, Bittern teaches heating an optical element via electromagnetic radiation to include the optical behavior of the optical element. Bittner does not expressly disclose a first elastic element fixing the optical via the housing. Ho discloses that, in lithographic projection lenses, large-diameter lenses are retained in les barrels using three-point support retainers supplemented by elastic supporting structures to reduce clamping stress and lens deformation (see paragraph [0005] and figures 4, 6). Ho further teaches that lens deformation and accumulated wavefront error degrade optical quality, and that the support positions of lens elements may be arranged to reduce superposition of aberration (see paragraph [0008]). 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 to provide the optical element/lens element of Bittern with elastic supporting/retaining structure of Ho, because both references concern high precision lithographic projection optics and both address wavefront error/optical degradation caused by optical element deformation. The modification would have predictably reduced clamping stress and lens deformation while maintaining or improving the wavefront compensation function of Bittner’s radiation-heated optical element.
As to claims 2 and 7, Bittner discloses plural optical elements in the projection exposure apparatus/projection lens, and Ho discloses a plurality of lenses each retained by elastic/supporting retaining structures. Therefore, providing first and second optical elements each fixed by respective elastic elements would have been obvious for reducing deformation and accumulated wavefront error in a multi-lens lithographic projection system.
As to claim 3, Ho teaches elastic supporting structures, that retain lenses in a lens barrel to reduce clamping stress and deformation. It would have been obvious to configured such elastic support to apply a spring force to the optical element in a direction appropriate to retain the element in the housing, as a predictable implementation of Ho’s elastic support in Bittner’s projection exposure apparatus.
As to claim 4, Bittner discloses that the thermal manipulator 236 includes irradiation unit 238 and infrared light source 240 that radiate infrared light with adjustable intensity onto regions/zones of lens element (28), thereby providing a second elastic/optical element environment in which the spring force/support arrangement of Ho may be used.
As to claim 5, Ho discloses elastic supporting retaining structures between a lens and a lens barrel/housing and teaches that such support reduces lens deformation and clamping stress. It would have been obvious to place the spring force-transmitting elastic support between first and second optical elements or between an optical element and an adjacent solid sleeve/retainer component to reduce deformation while maintaining precise optical alignment.
As to claim 6, Ho discloses that the optical element is retained in a lens barrel/retaining structure, and thus teaches or suggest a receptacle or receiving structure formed in the housing, against which the optical element or its elastic support is pressed.
As to claim 8, Ho discloses a first elastic/support element positioned between optical elements or lens-retaining structures in a muti-lens optical system. Such positioning would have been obvious to apply to Bittner’s projection lens to reduce deformation and wavefront error.
As to claim 9, Ho teaches that the lens is held by a holding/retaining device, including support elements, in a lens barrel. Therefore, the claimed holding element is taught or at least suggested.
As to claim 10, Ho discloses retaining devices/support structures for holding lenses in a lens barrel. A retaining ring is a known and predictable form of such a lens-retaining device, and its use would have been obvious to retain the optical element in Bittner’s projection lens while reducing stress as taught by Ho.
As to claims 13-16, Bittner discloses an actuator (140)/a displacement unit configured to position the first optical element in a plane perpendicular (Z direction) to a longitudinal axis (X/Y) of the housing and wherein the actuator has a sleeve and the first optical element is arranged in the sleeve (see figures (3).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Bitnner (US.Pat. 9,760,019) in view of Ho (U.S 2019/0025576) and further in view of Kuppe et al (US 2023/0348309).
As to claims 11-12, Bittner and Ho teach the projection exposure apparatus and optical element mounting arrangement as discussed respect to claims 1-10. Bittern as modified by Ho lacks to show a lid having a bayonet lock on outer surface of the housing. Kuppe discloses an optical element and having a holding element and a protective cap (5002) with a bayonet lock (see paragraph [0274]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the holding element of the optical assembly of Bittner/Ho with a lid as taught by Kuppe in order to project internal optical components for contamination and facilitate servicing and maintenance of the assembly.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bitnner (US.Pat. 9,760,019) in view of Ho (U.S 2019/0025576) and further in view of Shibazaki (US 2016/0004169 A1).
As to claims 17-18, Bittner as modified by Ho discloses a projection exposure apparatus comprising substantially all limitations of the instant claims except for the heating device having a labyrinth seal. This feature is well known in the art. For example, Shibazaki discloses projection exposure apparatus (PL) having a labyrinth seal (LB). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to employ a labyrinth seal of Shibazaki into the projection exposure apparatus of Bittner and Ho to improve protection of optical components and maintain stable operating conditions within the optical assembly.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stolz et al (US 2023/0018331) and Fengler et al (US 2022/0373899 A1) disclose projection exposure devices 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
Hnv
6/12/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights