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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,796,917 B2 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,292,687 B2, both issued to Yang et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of application 19/084239 are directed to the same invention of the claims of US 11,796,917 B2 and US 12,292,687 B2. In this instance the claims of application 19/084239 are broader than that of U.S. 11,796,917 B2 and US 12,292,687 B2. As such, the claims of application 19/084239 are met by the claims of US 11,796,917 B2 and US 12,292,687 B2.
Claims 1-20 are similar to claims 1-20 of US 11,796,917 B2 and US 12,292,687 B2, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai [US 2007/0273852 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Arai discloses a pattern formation method (paragraph [0001]), comprising: adjusting a width of an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation beam and a location of the EUV radiation beam on a reticle in accordance with a pattern area size of a pattern area of the reticle such that a size of the EUV radiation beam on the reticle is the same as the pattern area size of the pattern area of the reticle; scanning the EUV radiation beam on the reticle; and exposing a photo resist layer with a reflected EUV radiation beam from the reticle (paragraphs [0088]-[0124] teaches main controller obtains the spectral width of the laser beam suitable for the reticle that is used, and sends the information to laser controller as a spectral width setting desired value).
Regarding claim 2, Arai discloses wherein an increase of intensity per unit area of the reflected EUV radiation beam on the reticle after the adjusting the width is greater when the width before adjustment is W1 compared to an increase of intensity per unit area of the reflected EUV radiation beam on the reticle after the adjusting the width when the width before adjustment is W2 and W1>W2 (paragraphs [0049] and [0075]).
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 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai in view of Schwab [WO 2013/174680 A2].
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 15, Arai discloses a method of adjusting a beam width of an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation beam, determining an extent of reflected EUV radiation beam on the reticle; receiving a width of layout patterns on the reticle from a database; and continuing the moving and the determining until the width of the reflected EUV radiation beam on the reticle is the same as the width of the layout patterns on the reticle (paragraphs [0088]-[0124] teaches main controller obtains the spectral width of the laser beam suitable for the reticle that is used, and sends the information to laser controller as a spectral width setting desired value).
Aria does not teach transmitting the EUV radiation beam to a first mirror that comprises two or more facets; directing a reflected EUV radiation beam from the first mirror to the reticle; moving at least one facet of the two or more facets of the first mirror with respect to other facets of the two or more facets to modify a width of the reflected EUV radiation beam on the reticle.
However, Schwab discloses an adjustment device serves for adjusting mirrors (17, 25) for guiding used radiation (12) along a beam path (as shown in Figs. 2-7). Specifically Schwab discloses transmitting the EUV radiation beam to a first mirror that comprises two or more facets; directing a reflected EUV radiation beam from the first mirror to the reticle; moving at least one facet of the two or more facets of the first mirror with respect to other facets of the two or more facets to modify a width of the reflected EUV radiation beam on the reticle (as shown in Figs. 2-7, see also pages 12-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an adjustment device serves for adjusting mirrors of two or more facet mirrors for guiding used radiation along a beam path, as taught by Schwab in the system of Aria wherein a beam width controller coupled with the two or more facets and configured to modify a width and a location of a reflected extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation beam reflected from the two or more facets to a reticle because such a modification provides a suitable alternative configuration of an adjustment device with increased sensitivity of the detected adjustment parameter in relation to a maladjustment of the mirrors to be adjusted (page 5 lines 4-9 of Schwab).
Regarding claims 4-7, Aria in view of Schwab discloses wherein the at least one facet is moved in a direction of EUV radiation beam transmission to adjust the width of the reflected EUV radiation beam from the first mirror on the reticle, wherein the at least one facet is moved in a lateral direction relative to the direction of EUV radiation beam transmission to laterally move the reflected EUV radiation beam from the first mirror on the reticle, wherein the EUV radiation beam originates from an EUV radiation source, and wherein the EUV radiation beam is reflected from a second mirror before impinging on the first mirror, wherein the second mirror comprises two or more second facets, the pattern formation method further comprising: adjusting a curvature of at least one second facet of the two or more second facets of the second mirror to adjust the width of the reflected EUV radiation beam from the first mirror on the reticle (as shown in Figs. 2-7, see also pages 12-26 of Schwab).
Regarding claims 9-11, Aria in view of Schwab discloses wherein the adjusting the width of the third EUV radiation beam comprises moving at least one first facet of the two or more first facets of the first mirror with respect to other first facets of the two or more first facets and moving at least one second facet of the two or more second facets of the second mirror with respect to other second facets of the two or more second facets, wherein the two or more first facets of the first mirror are disposed side by side in two separate facet sections, and wherein each facet section comprises one or more first facets, wherein the two separate facet sections of the first mirror comprise a first facet section and a second facet section, and wherein the moving the at least one first facet of the two or more first facets comprises moving at least one first facet of the first facet section or the second facet section (as shown in Figs. 2-7, see also pages 12-26 of Schwab).
Regarding claims 9-11, Aria in view of Schwab discloses further comprising: independently moving each one of the first facets of the first mirror and moving each one of the second facets of the second mirror to adjust the width of the third EUV radiation beam on the reticle; and moving the first facets and the second facets by an actuator coupled and controlled by a beam width controller, further comprising: sending one or more first voltages by the beam width controller to the actuator to move the first facets; and sending one or more second voltages by the beam width controller to the actuator to move the second facets, further comprising: independently moving one or more first facets along a transmission direction of the first EUV radiation beam to reduce the width of the third EUV radiation beam on the reticle; and independently moving one or more second facets along the direction of the first EUV radiation beam to reduce the width of the third EUV radiation beam on the reticle (as shown in Figs. 2-7, see also pages 12-26 of Schwab).
Regarding claims 16-20, Aria in view of Schwab discloses further comprising an actuator configured to move one or more facets with respect to other one or more facets of the two or more facets so that the width of the reflected EUV radiation beam reflected from the two or more facets to the reticle is modified, wherein a movement of the one or more facets is configured to reduce the width of the reflected EUV radiation beam on the reticle, wherein: the beam width controller is coupled to the actuator and configured to control the movement of the one or more facets via the actuator, further comprising: an image detector, wherein the reflected EUV radiation beam is directed by the two or more facets to the image detector, and wherein the image detector is configured to measure the reflected EUV radiation beam on the image detector, further comprising: an analyzer module coupled between the image detector and the beam width controller, wherein the analyzer module is configured to determine the width of the EUV radiation beam on the image detector, and wherein the analyzer module is configured to command the beam width controller to adjust the width of EUV radiation beam if the width of EUV radiation beam extends beyond layout patterns of the reticle (as shown in Figs. 2-7, see also pages 12-26 of Schwab).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights