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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the bellows" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12253806 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims and the above patent have claims drawn to a radiation source comprising: a laser chamber configured to generate a first laser beam; an optical system coupled to the laser chamber and configured to receive the first laser beam and output an output laser beam; and a gas purge system configured to supply a gas into the optical system at a pressure less than atmospheric pressure.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamashita et al. [US 20030142714 A1, hereafter Yamashita].
As per Claim 8, Yamashita teaches a radiation source (Para 46) comprising:
a laser chamber 12 configured to generate a first laser beam 21 (Para 36);
an optical system 54 coupled to the laser chamber via a bellows (Para 36),
wherein the optical system is configured to receive the first laser beam and output an output laser beam (Para 39); and
a gas purge system configured to supply a helium-containing gas into the optical system (Para 40).
As per Claim 9, Yamashita teaches the radiation source of claim 8, wherein the gas purge system includes a gas supply pump configured to supply the helium gas into the optical system, and a second pump configured to substantially remove a second gas from the optical system (See fig. 13, Para 62).
As per Claim 14, Yamashita teaches the radiation source of claim 8 further comprising: a second laser chamber configured to at least indirectly receive the first laser beam and amplify the first laser beam to generate a second laser beam, wherein the optical system is configured to receive the second laser beam and output the output laser beam (Para 40).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Elliott et al. [US 5771260 A, hereafter Elliott].
As per Claims 1 and 15, Yamashita teaches a radiation source (Para 46) comprising:
a laser chamber 12 configured to generate a first laser beam 21 (Para 36);
an optical system 54 coupled to the laser chamber and configured to receive the first laser beam and output an output laser beam (Para 39); and
a gas purge system configured to supply a gas into the optical system (Para 40).
Yamashita does not explicitly teach a gas purge system configured to supply a gas into the optical system at a pressure less than atmospheric pressure.
Elliott teaches an enclosure system for optical laser devices which prevents contamination of the optics housed within the enclosure system; and since the individual modules are sealable, they eliminate the formation of toxic ozone and they can be purged with gas to increase the output level of the laser beam and also prevent airborne contaminants from contaminating the optical components (Column 5 lines 11-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a gas purge system as claimed in order to prevent contamination and increase the energy of laser beam.
As per Claim 2, Yamashita in view of Elliott teaches the radiation source of claim 1.
Elliott further disclosed wherein the gas purge system includes a gas supply pump configured to supply the gas into the optical system at the pressure less than atmospheric pressure (Column 5 lines 11-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a gas purge system as claimed in order to prevent contamination and increase the energy of laser beam.
As per Claim 3, Yamashita in view of Elliott teaches the radiation source of claim 2.
Yamashita further disclosed wherein the gas purge system further includes a second pump configured to substantially remove a second gas from the optical system (Para 62).
As per Claim 4, Yamashita in view of Elliott teaches the radiation source of claim 3.
Yamashita further disclosed wherein the gas is a nitrogen-containing gas and the second gas is an oxygen-containing gas (Para 40).
As per Claim 5, Yamashita in view of Elliott teaches the radiation source of claim 1.
Elliott further disclosed wherein the pressure is between about 50 Torr and about 700 Torr (Column 5 lines 11-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a gas purge system as claimed in order to prevent contamination and increase the energy of laser beam.
As per Claim 6, Yamashita in view of Elliott teaches the radiation source of claim 1.
Yamashita in view of Elliott further disclosed wherein: the optical system includes a first optical module and a second optical module; and the gas purge system includes: a first gas supply pump coupled to the first optical module and configured to supply the gas into the first optical module at the pressure less than atmospheric pressure; and a second gas supply pump coupled to the second optical module and configured to supply the gas into the second optical module at the pressure less than atmospheric pressure (See Yamashita fig. 13 in view of Elliott Column 5 lines 11-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a gas purge system as claimed in order to prevent contamination and increase the energy of laser beam.
As per Claim 7, Yamashita in view of Elliott teaches the radiation source of claim 1.
Yamashita further disclosed wherein the radiation source is configured to output the output laser beam to an illumination system configured to condition the output laser beam during a lithography process (Para 46).
As per Claims 10 and 11, Yamashita teaches the radiation source of claim 8, wherein the gas purge system includes a gas supply pump configured to supply the helium gas into the optical system (Para 40).
Yamashita does not explicitly teach wherein the gas purge system includes a gas supply pump configured to supply the helium gas into the optical system at a pressure about atmospheric pressure.
Elliott teaches an enclosure system for optical laser devices which prevents contamination of the optics housed within the enclosure system; and since the individual modules are sealable, they eliminate the formation of toxic ozone and they can be purged with gas to increase the output level of the laser beam and also prevent airborne contaminants from contaminating the optical components (Column 5 lines 11-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a gas purge system as claimed in order to prevent contamination and increase the energy of laser beam.
As per Claims 12 and 13, Yamashita in view of Elliott teaches the radiation source of claim 8.
Yamashita in view of Elliott further disclosed wherein: the optical system comprises a first optical module and a second optical module; and the gas purge system includes: a first gas supply pump coupled to the first optical module and configured to supply the helium gas into the first optical module; and a second gas supply pump coupled to the second optical module and configured to supply the helium gas into the second optical module (See Yamashita fig. 1 and 13 in view of Elliott Column 5 lines 11-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a gas purge system as claimed in order to prevent contamination and increase the energy of laser beam.
As per Claim 16, Yamashita in view of Elliott teaches the method of claim 15.
Yamashita further disclosed wherein supplying the gas into the optical system includes directing the gas toward a bellows, wherein the bellows is arranged between the first laser chamber and the optical system (Para 36).
As per Claim 17, Yamashita in view of Elliott teaches the method of claim 15.
Yamashita further disclosed directing, through the optical system, the first laser beam toward a second laser chamber; amplifying the first laser beam and redirecting and directing the amplified laser beam toward a second optical system; generating a second laser beam from the second laser chamber; and supply a second gas into the second optical system at a second pressure less tan atmosphere pressure (See fig. 1).
As per Claim 18, Yamashita in view of Elliott teaches the method of claim 15.
Yamashita further disclosed removing a first oxygen-containing gas from the optical system; and removing a second oxygen-containing gas from a second optical system (See fig. 1, Para 12).
As per Claim 19, Yamashita in view of Elliott teaches the method of claim 15.
Yamashita further disclosed further comprising: supplying a second gas into a second optical system at a pressure about atmospheric pressure, wherein the gas is a nitrogen-containing gas and the second gas is a helium-containing gas (Para 40).
As per Claim 20, Yamashita in view of Elliott teaches the method of claim 19.
Yamashita further disclosed wherein outputting the output beam includes directly directing the output beam from the optical system toward an illumination system (Para 43).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference US 6341006 B1 to Murayama et al. listed in the IDS filed on 02/18/2025 teach other prior art apparatus/method of the optical path that can be divided into a plurality of hermetic blocks each having an inert gas sealed therein by a plurality of partition devices, that may anticipate or obviate the claims of the applicant's invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights