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 § 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) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suganuma et al. [US 20100140512 A1, hereafter Suganuma].
As per Claim 1, Suganuma teaches a system, comprising:
a light source configured to generate light (See fig. 1, Para 72);
a target configured to receive the light (an exposure unit 27); and
a first filter assembly 23 positioned to filter the light upstream from the target (See fig. 10-11) and including:
a filter body including a mesh defining a plurality of cells (Para 113 and 117);
a filter material positioned in the cells and configured to pass the light from the light source to the target (See fig. 10); and
a filter frame 41 configured to hold the filter body 40 (See fig. 11, Para 117).
As per Claim 2, Suganuma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the light source is a photolithography light generation chamber, the system comprising a scanner coupled to the photolithography light generation chamber, wherein the first filter is in either the scanner or the photolithography light generation chamber (See fig9, Para 112).
As per Claim 4, Suganuma teaches the system of claim 2, comprising: a light intensity sensor in the scanner downstream from the first filter assembly and configured to generate intensity signals indicative of an intensity of the light; and a control system configured to detect a failure of the first filter assembly based on the intensity signals (Para 105).
As per Claim 5, Suganuma teaches the system of claim 2, comprising: a mirror 21 in the scanner upstream from the first filter assembly (See fig. 10); a light intensity sensor in the scanner downstream from the first filter assembly and configured to generate intensity signals indicative of an intensity of the light; and a control system configured to adjust a position of the mirror responsive to the intensity signals (Para 105).
As per Claim 7, Suganuma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the mesh is embedded in the filter material (Para 113).
As per Claim 8, Suganuma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the filter body is less than 1μm in thickness (Para 113).
As per Claim 9, Suganuma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the cells include a honeycomb shape (See fig. 11 and 12).
As per Claim 10, Suganuma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the cells are triangular, rectangular, or circular (See fig. 11 and 12).
As per Claim 11, Suganuma teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the filter frame is circular, rectangular, or elliptical and has a same shape as the filter body (See fig. 11 and 12).
As per Claim 12, Suganuma teaches a device, comprising:
an optical filter 23 body including (See fig. 10-11):
a filter material configured to receive light and to pass filtered light (Para 114);
a plurality of trenches 40 in the filter material (Para 117);
a mesh including a mesh material in the trenches defining a plurality of cells of the filter material (Para 113); and
a filter frame 41 configured to hold the filter body (See fig. 11, Para 117).
As per Claim 14, Suganuma teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the filter material covers all surfaces of the mesh material (Para 117).
As per Claim 15, Suganuma teaches the device of claim 12, wherein the cells are wider in a central region of the filter 47 body than at a peripheral region of the filter body (See fig. 20, Para 144).
As per Claim 16, Suganuma teaches the device of claim 12, wherein a surface of the mesh material is coplanar with a surface of the filter material (See fig. 11-12).
As per Claim 17, Suganuma teaches a method, comprising:
holding, with a filter frame in an optical system, a filter body including a mesh defining a plurality of cells and a filter material positioned in the cells (Para 117);
receiving light at the filter body (See fig. 10);
filtering the light with the filter material in the cells (Para 117); and
receiving the light at a target 25 downstream from the filter body (See fig. 10).
As per Claim 19, Suganuma teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the optical system is a photolithography system, the method comprising: sensing an intensity of the light downstream from the filter body; and sensing a failure of the filter body based on the intensity of the light (Para 118).
As per Claim 20, Suganuma teaches the method of claim 17, comprising generating electricity with the target (Para 117).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suganuma in view of Hasegawa et al. [US 20060215137 A1, hereafter Hasegawa].
As per Claim 3, Suganuma teaches the system of claim 2.
Suganuma does not explicitly teach comprising: a first pressure sensor in the photolithography light generation chamber and configured to generate first pressure signals; a second pressure sensor in the scanner and configured to generate second pressure signals; and a control system configured to detect a failure of the first filter assembly based on the first and second pressure signals.
Hasegawa teaches a pressure sensor or pressure gauge S1 can monitor the pressure in the space. As the first optical path space 92 is connected to exhausters 32 and 33, it can be maintained at a predetermined pressure. A pressure sensor or pressure gauge S2 can monitor the pressure in the space (Para 82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the pressure monitoring system as claimed in order to control the internal pressure of the chamber in a desired level for transmission of light.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suganuma in view of Moriya et al. [US 20090314967 A1, hereafter Moriya].
As per Claim 6, Suganuma teaches the system of claim 2.
Suganuma does not explicitly teach a second filter assembly in the photolithography light generation chamber, wherein the first filter assembly is in the scanner.
Moriya teaches by providing a thin film filter between the exposure unit and the vacuum chamber, Sn debris flying from the target material (Sn) introduced into the vacuum chamber and the target plasma is prevented from flowing to the exposure unit side and contaminating optical parts within the exposure unit (Para 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the filter element in a desired location in order to prevent debris flying from the target material introduced into the vacuum chamber.
As per Claim 13, Suganuma teaches the device of claim 12.
Suganuma does not explicitly teach wherein the filter frame is stainless steel or aluminum.
Moriya teaches the holder 31 of the SPF 22 is made of a metal having a high coefficient of thermal conductivity such as copper, and has a structure in which a channel for passing a medium (water or the like) for cooling or heating the mesh is formed (Para 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the filter holder element of a metal having a high coefficient of thermal conductivity as claimed, such that the heat generated in the mesh can be efficiently removed via the holder for holding the periphery of the mesh.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suganuma in view of Nara et al. [US 20200218151 A1, hereafter Nara].
As per Claim 18, Suganuma teaches the method of claim 17.
Suganuma does not explicitly teach wherein the optical system is an x-ray system.
Nara teaches “exposure” denotes not only exposure using light but also drawing using a corpuscular beam such as an electron beam or an ion beam. Examples of the light used for exposure include an actinic ray or radiation, for example, a bright light spectrum of a mercury lamp, a far ultraviolet ray represented by an excimer laser, an extreme ultraviolet ray (EUV ray), an X-ray, or an electron beam (Para 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate the radiation source as claimed in order to produce an exposure system of particularly desired electronic device manufacturing.
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