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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 8, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the absorber layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the repetition rate of the pulsed laser irradiation is between 1 kHz and 1 MHz” and depends from claim 1 that recites “a first pulse and a second pulse of the plurality of pulses are separated by a time of 100 ns or less.” A separation time of 100 ns or less requires a frequency of at least 10 MHz. It is unclear how the frequency can be lower than the required frequency for claim 1.
The term “essentially small” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oshemkov et al. [WO 2022/201138, copy filed by the applicant on March 3, 2025].
For claim 1, Oshemkov teaches a method for treating an optical element for the extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wavelength range, the method comprising:
providing a pulsed laser irradiation (pulses applied to an optical element, see page 6, second paragraph), wherein the pulsed laser irradiation comprises:
a plurality of pulse sequences (more than one surface modification), each pulse sequence comprising a plurality of pulses; wherein a first pulse and a second pulse of the plurality of pulses are separated by a time of 100 ns or less (greater than 100 MHz, 10 ns, see page 9 fourth paragraph); and
directing the laser irradiation onto the optical element (mask, see page 7 paragraph 2) for the EUV wavelength range.
For claim 3, Oshemkov teaches the directing the laser irradiation onto the optical element comprises: directing the laser irradiation onto a first region of the optical element for a first time period; and directing the laser irradiation onto a second region of the optical element for a second time period (pulse applied to two different locations from single laser system, see Figs. 7 and 9).
For claim 4, Oshemkov teaches the first region and the second region differ at least partly; and wherein the laser irradiation directed onto the first region and the laser irradiation directed onto the second region differ in one or more of: a pulse power (variable energy pulses at different locations, see Figs. 6, 7, and 9 and pages 26-30), a pulse pitch, and a laser beam diameter.
For claim 6, Oshemkov teaches the optical element for the EUV wavelength range comprises a multilayer system; wherein the multilayer system is configured to reflect light in the EUV range, between 10 and 20 nm (approximately 10 nm to 15 nm, see page 1 paragraph 2).
For claim 7, Oshemkov teaches the directing the laser irradiation onto the optical element for the EUV wavelength range comprises directing the laser irradiation onto a backside of the optical element for the EUV wavelength range (backside energy pulses incident in multilayer 160, see pages 10-11 and 23).
For claim 8, Oshemkov teaches the laser irradiation directed onto the optical element is adapted to treat a portion of the optical element near the absorber layer of the optical element, a portion spaced from the absorber layer by 200 nm or less (multilayer stack 160 is adjacent the absorber layer 260, where bottom layers are at least 130 nm from the absorber layer, see thickness in pages 19 and 20).
For claim 10, Oshemkov teaches the optical element for the EUV wavelength range comprises a mask (see page 7).
For claim 12, Oshemkov teaches a wavelength of the pulsed laser irradiation is between 400 and 1500 nm; the repetition rate of the pulsed laser irradiation is between 1 kHz and 1 MHz; and/or a laser pulse length of the pulsed laser irradiation is in the femtosecond range (see page 9).
For claim 13, Oshemkov teaches the first pulse and the second pulse of the plurality of pulses are separated by a time of at least 10 ns (greater than 100 MHz, 10 ns, see page 9 fourth paragraph).
For claim 14, Oshemkov teaches the pulses of the plurality of pulses are repeated at a frequency of 10 MHz to 1 GHz (see page 9).
For claim 17, Oshemkov teaches the laser irradiation is directed onto a surface of the optical element for the EUV wavelength range with a laser beam diameter in the range between 1 μm to 100 μm; and/or further comprising adjusting at least one parameter of the pulsed laser irradiation based at least in part on the dimensions of the optical element for the EUV wavelength range (a focal point spot diameter of essentially 1 μm, focal position is adjustable, see page 25, paragraph 1).
For claim 18, Oshemkov teaches the method is further adapted to provide an essentially small uncorrectable registration error over at least a part of the optical element (heat conduction over a small area to produce surface modification, see Fig. 6).
For claim 19, Oshemkov teaches an apparatus (see Fig. 5) for treating an optical element for the extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wavelength range, wherein the apparatus comprises:
a laser source (530) configured to provide a pulsed laser irradiation, wherein the pulsed laser irradiation comprises:
a plurality of pulse sequences, each pulse sequence comprising a plurality of pulses; wherein a first pulse and a second pulse of the plurality of pulses are separated by a time of 100 ns or less (the repetition rate of the photon pulses comprises the range from 1 Hz to 1 GHz, see page 24); and
means (550) for directing the laser irradiation onto the optical element for the EUV wavelength range.
For claim 20, Oshemkov teaches a control means (570 and 575) configured to control the apparatus to, preferably automatically, execute a method for treating the optical element, the method comprising: controlling the laser source to provide the pulsed laser irradiation (computer 575 may control the laser source 530, see page 25); and controlling the means for directing the laser irradiation to direct the laser irradiation onto the optical element for the EUV wavelength range (moving the objective, see Fig. 5 and page 25).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshemkov in view of Lin et al. [US 2011/0161893].
For claims 2 and 5, Oshemkov teaches adjusting the pulse power, the pulse pitch, and/or the laser beam diameter of the laser irradiation directed onto the first region and of the laser irradiation directed onto the second region according to a predetermined function (desired depth, height or shape of surface modification by adjusting energy of each pulse or focal position, see pages 28-31).
Oshemkov fails to teach receiving error map information of the optical element; and wherein providing the pulsed laser irradiation is based at least partly on the error map information.
Lin teaches receiving error map information of the optical element; and wherein providing the pulsed laser irradiation is based at least partly on the error map information (auto-mapping generating a defect distribution map with a location, size, and/or depth of each defect present, sent to laser repair station 500 to correct remaining defects, see Figs. 2-4 and [0018]-[0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the error map as taught by Lin the positioning of the laser irradiation location as taught by Oshemkov in order to provide locations to perform the method of treatment to reduce defects of the mask.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshemkov in view of Shoki [US 2004/0196579].
For claim 9, Oshemkov teaches reducing the reflectivity of the multilayer system of light in the EUV range (silicide formation, see page 28), but fails to explicitly teach reducing the reflectivity of the multilayer system of light in the EUV range by 0% to 10%; shifting the wavelength of maximum reflectivity by 0 nm to 1 nm; and/or keeping an uncorrectable registration impact below 1 nm for an EUV reflectivity reduction of at least 6%.
Shoki teaches reducing the reflectivity of the multilayer system of light in the EUV range by 0% to 10% (silicide decreases the reflectivity of the reflective multilayer film by about 5% see [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the reduction amount as taught by Shoki in the silicide formation as taught by Oshemkov in order to limit the impact on the EUV reflectivity while providing the surface modification.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshemkov in view of Wu et al. [US 2020/0057362].
For claim 11, Oshemkov fails to teach creating a black border on the optical element by reducing a reflectivity of the optical element in at least one region of the optical element onto which the laser irradiation is directed, wherein the region at least partly extends along a rim of the optical element.
Wu teaches creating a black border on the optical element by reducing a reflectivity of the optical element in at least one region of the optical element onto which the laser irradiation is directed, wherein the region at least partly extends along a rim of the optical element (black border formation, see Fig. 2 and [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the black border as taught by Wu in the mask treatment as taught by Oshemkov in order provide a location for attaching a pellicle to protect the surface of the mask pattern.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshemkov in view of Kyusho et al. [US 2002/0009843].
For claims 15 and 16, Oshemkov teaches a frequency of 1 GHz to 100 GHz (see page 24), but fails to teach at least one of the pulses comprises at least one sub-sequence comprising a plurality of sub-pulses; wherein a first sub-pulse and a second sub-pulse of the plurality of sub-pulses are separated by a time between 1 ps and 100 ns; and/or wherein the sub-pulses of the plurality of sub-pulses are repeated at a frequency of 1 GHz to 100 GHz, wherein the first pulse comprises an intensity that is different from an intensity of the second pulse.
Kyusho teaches at least one of the pulses comprises at least one sub-sequence comprising a plurality of sub-pulses (plurality of pulses in a packet, see Figs. 3A-3C and 4); wherein a first sub-pulse and a second sub-pulse of the plurality of sub-pulses are separated by a time between 1 ps and 100 ns (20 pieces of the laser pulses are produced continuously at time intervals of 5 ns, see [0134], the first pulse extracted by the optical shutter 2 (pulse slicing unit) and a second pulse delayed by the time intervals of 1.0 ns to 6.7 ns, see [0142]); and/or wherein the sub-pulses of the plurality of sub-pulses are repeated at a frequency of 1 GHz to 100 GHz, wherein the first pulse comprises an intensity that is different from an intensity of the second pulse (varied pulse amplitude in a pulse packet, see Figs. 3A-3C and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sub pulses at different intensities as taught by Kyusho in the laser treatment method as taught by Oshemkov to optimize pulse energy to more gradually heat up different materials and reduce the likelihood of greater damage (see [0115] of Kyusho).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Magana et al. [US 2020/0050097] teaches a laser ablation technique with EUV masks. Mengel et al. [WO 2012/103933] teaches correcting mask defects with a femtosecond laser.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights