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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made that the instant application is a continuation of application PCT/EP2023/075902, filed on 9/20/2023, which claims priority from DE102022210518.4, filed on 10/5/2022.
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 1-13, 19, and 20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a layer of amorphous material which is compaction-sensitive on exposure to low-energy electron beam radiation” in lines 10-11 is vague and indefinite. The term “low-energy” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-energy” 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. The energy of the electron beam radiation is rendered unclear by the inclusion of “low,” and neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard that allows one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain the scope of the energy of the electron beam radiation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning a layer of amorphous material which is compaction-sensitive on exposure to electron beam radiation. Thus, claim 1 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “further comprising a first blocking layer which has transmittance of less than 10-6 for low-energy electron beam radiation” is vague and indefinite. The term “low-energy” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-energy” 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. The energy of the electron beam radiation is rendered unclear by the inclusion of “low,” and neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard that allows one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain the scope of the energy of the electron beam radiation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning a first blocking layer which has transmittance of less than 10-6 for a beam of radiation. Thus, claim 5 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a layer of amorphous material which is compaction-sensitive on exposure to low-energy electron beam radiation” in lines 10-11 and the limitation “having a transmittance of less than 10-6 for low-energy electron beam radiation” in lines 1-15 are vague and indefinite. The term “low-energy” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-energy” 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. The energy of the electron beam radiation is rendered unclear by the inclusion of “low,” and neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard that allows one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain the scope of the energy of the electron beam radiation. For the purposes of examination, the limitations are being interpreted as meaning a layer of amorphous material which is compaction-sensitive on exposure to electron beam radiation and the first blocking layer having a transmittance of less than 10-6 for low-energy electron beam radiation. Thus, claim 7 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “a second blocking layer which has a transmittance lower by at least a factor of five for electromagnetic radiation having a working wavelength of less than 30 nm than for the low-energy electron beam radiation” in lines 1-3 is vague and indefinite. The term “low-energy” is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-energy” 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. The energy of the electron beam radiation is rendered unclear by the inclusion of “low,” and neither the claim nor the specification provides a standard that allows one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain the scope of the energy of the electron beam radiation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as meaning a second blocking layer which has a transmittance lower by at least a factor of five for electromagnetic radiation having a working wavelength of less than 30 nm than for the beam of radiation. Thus, claim 9 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected as being indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 recites “wherein the energy of the electron beam radiation is less than 100 keV” and depends upon claim 14. Claim 14 recites “exposing the compaction-sensitive layer to electron beam radiation having an energy of less than 100 keV” in lines 16-17, and therefore claim 17 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 14. See MPEP 608.01(n), subsection III. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Thus, claim 17 is rejected as being of improper dependent form. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hild et al. (WO2017/009005, Hild hereinafter; cited by IDS 9/25/2025; English translation included with this Office Action) in view of Wylie-Van Eerd. (US PGPub 2020/0174379, Wyle-Van Eerd hereinafter), and as evidenced by Clauss (US PGPub 2012/0327384).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Hild discloses mirror having an optical effective surface (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, page 5 of English translation, a mirror 10, 30 includes an optical active surface 11, 31), comprising:
a mirror substrate (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pages 5, 7, mirror substrate 12, 32);
a reflection layer system that reflects electromagnetic radiation incident on the optical effective surface (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 5 and 7, reflection layer stack 21, 41 reflects the radiation incident on the surface 11, 31);
at least one piezoelectric layer arranged between the mirror substrate and the reflection layer system (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 5-6 and 7, piezoelectric layer 16, 36 is arranged between the substrate 12, 32 and the reflection layer stack 21, 41);
a first electrode arrangement situated on a side of the piezoelectric layer facing the reflection layer system and a second electrode arrangement situated on a side of the piezoelectric layer facing the mirror substrate (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 5-6 and 7, first electrode arrangement with electrodes 20, 40 are arranged between the reflection layer stack 21, 41 and second electrode arrangement 13, 34 is arranged between the piezoelectric layer 16, 36 and substrate 12, 32); and
a layer of material, which is arranged on the side of the piezoelectric layer facing the reflection layer system, and which has a thickness (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 6 and 7, common smoothing layer 18, 38 is made of quartz and is arranged between the piezoelectric layer 16, 36 and the reflection layer stack 21, 41);
wherein the first electrode arrangement and the second electrode arrangement are arranged to produce a locally variable deformation in the piezoelectric layer in response to application of an electric field (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pages. 5-6 and 7, the electrodes apply an electric field to the piezoelectric layer 16, 26 to provide a locally variable deformation). Hild does not appear to explicitly describe the layer being of amorphous material which is compaction-sensitive on exposure to low-energy electron beam radiation, and which has a thickness of at least 50 µm.
Wylie-Van Eerd discloses a layer of amorphous material which is compaction-sensitive on exposure to low-energy electron beam radiation (Figs. 2, 5, paras. [0022], [0025]-[0026], [0028], [0042]-[0046], [0077], [0079], [0084], quartz layer 38, 58 is an amorphous silicon layer or bracing layer quartz glass; amorphous silicon or quartz glass is inherently compaction-sensitive as evidenced by Clauss, paras. [0003]-[0004], [0011], [0017]-[0018]), and which has a thickness in the range of at least 30 µm (Fig. 5, paras. [0034], [0084], the quartz glass layer has a thickness in the range of at least 30 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a layer of amorphous material which is compaction-sensitive on exposure to low-energy electron beam radiation, and which has a thickness in the range of at least 30 µm as taught by Wylie-Van Eerd as the layer in the mirror as taught by Hild since including a layer of amorphous material which is compaction-sensitive on exposure to low-energy electron beam radiation, and which has a thickness in the range of at least 30 µm is commonly used to provide a smoothed layer arrangement to produce a mirror with a high-quality surface that operates to improve EUV reflection (Wylie-Van Eerd, paras. [0011], [0020]-[0022], [0027], [0084]). Although Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd suggests the general condition of a thickness in the range of at least 30 µm (Wylie-Van Eerd, Fig. 5, paras. [0034], [0084], the quartz glass layer has a thickness on the order of magnitude of 30 µm), Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd does not appear to explicitly describe the thickness of at least 50 µm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included optimizing the thickness of the layer in the mirror as taught by Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd to obtain the thickness of at least 50 µm since including wherein a thickness of at least 50 µm would have only required routine skill to determine an optimum thickness to provide a mirror with the desired compensation of sinking of a piezoelectric layer upon application of voltage to improve surface quality of the mirror (Wylie-Van Eerd, paras. [0082], [0084]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Regarding claim 2, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd discloses configured for a microlithographic projection exposure apparatus (Hild, Fig. 4, pgs. 7-8, projection exposure apparatus 400).
Regarding claim 3, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd discloses the general conditions of the layer of amorphous material has a thickness in the range of at least 30 µm (Wylie-Van Eerd, Fig. 5, paras. [0034], [0084], the quartz glass layer has a thickness on the order of magnitude of 30 µm), but Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd does not appear to explicitly describe the thickness of at least 100 µm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included optimizing the thickness of the layer in the mirror as taught by Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd to obtain the thickness of at least 100 µm since including wherein a thickness of at least 100 µm would have only required routine skill to determine an optimum thickness to provide a mirror with the desired compensation of sinking of a piezoelectric layer upon application of voltage to improve surface quality of the mirror (Wylie-Van Eerd, paras. [0082], [0084]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Regarding claim 4, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd discloses wherein:
at least one of the piezoelectric layer, the first electrode arrangement and the second electrode arrangement comprise at least one spatially inhomogeneous region (Hild, Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 5-6 and 7, first electrode arrangement with electrodes 20, 40 are spatially inhomogeneous), and
the compaction-sensitive layer is configured as a polishing layer enabling smooth surface processing by embedding the at least one spatially inhomogeneous region (Hild, Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 5-6 and 7, the electrodes 20, 40 are embedded in common smoothing layer 18, 38, and the common smoothing layer 18, 38 smooths the region with the electrodes 20, 40, and as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd, Figs. 2, 5, paras. [0022], [0025]-[0026], [0028], [0042]-[0046], [0077], [0079], [0084], quartz layer 38, 58 is an amorphous silicon layer or bracing layer quartz glass).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd discloses a first blocking layer (Hild, Figs. 1, 3, abstract, page 7, shielding layer 22, 42), but Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd does not appear to explicitly describe further comprising the first blocking layer which has transmittance of less than 10--6 for low-energy electron beam radiation.
A further embodiment of Wylie-Van Eerd discloses a first blocking layer which has transmittance of less than 10--6 for low-energy electron beam radiation (Fig. 1, 4, paras. [0018]-[0020], [0024], [0040], [0070], [0073], [0077], [0080], the transmission is less than 10-6 for electromagnetic radiation owing to the carbon layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a first blocking layer which has transmittance of less than 10--6 for low-energy electron beam radiation as taught by the further embodiment of Wylie-Van Eerd in the first blocking layer in the mirror as taught by Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd since including a first blocking layer which has transmittance of less than 10--6 for low-energy electron beam radiation is commonly used to permit interferometric measurement (Wylie-Van Eerd, para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd discloses wherein the first blocking layer is arranged between the compacting-sensitive layer and the first electrode arrangement (Hild, Figs. 1, 3, abstract, page 7, shielding layer 22, 42 is arranged between the layer 18, 38 and piezoelectric layer 16, 36, and as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd, Figs. 2, 5, paras. [0022], [0025]-[0026], [0028], [0042]-[0046], [0077], [0079], [0084], quartz layer 38, 58 is an amorphous silicon layer or bracing layer quartz glass).
Regarding claim 19, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd discloses optical system comprising an illumination device or a projection lens of a microlithographic projection exposure apparatus, and a mirror according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above, Hild, Fig. 4, pgs. 7-8, projection exposure apparatus 400 comprises an illumination system comprising mirrors 403 to 407 and a projection objective comprising mirrors 451 to 456).
Claims 7, 8, 11-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hild in view of Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Ehm et al. (US PGPub 2009/0231707, Ehm hereinafter), and as evidenced by Clauss (US PGPub 2012/0327384).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Hild discloses mirror having an optical effective surface (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, page 5 of English translation, a mirror 10, 30 includes an optical active surface 11, 31), comprising:
a mirror substrate (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pages 5, 7, mirror substrate 12, 32);
a reflection layer system that reflects electromagnetic radiation incident on the optical effective surface (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 5 and 7, reflection layer stack 21, 41 reflects the radiation incident on the surface 11, 31);
at least one piezoelectric layer arranged between the mirror substrate and the reflection layer system (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 5-6 and 7, piezoelectric layer 16, 36 is arranged between the substrate 12, 32 and the reflection layer stack 21, 41);
a first electrode arrangement situated on a side of the piezoelectric layer facing the reflection layer system and a second electrode arrangement situated on a side of the piezoelectric layer facing the mirror substrate (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 5-6 and 7, first electrode arrangement with electrodes 20, 40 are arranged between the reflection layer stack 21, 41 and second electrode arrangement 13, 34 is arranged between the piezoelectric layer 16, 36 and substrate 12, 32); and
a layer of material, which is arranged on the side of the piezoelectric layer facing the reflection layer system, and which has a thickness (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 6 and 7, common smoothing layer 18, 38 is made of quartz and is arranged between the piezoelectric layer 16, 36 and the reflection layer stack 21, 41);
a first blocking layer arranged between the layer and the first electrode arrangement (Figs. 1, 3, abstract, page 7, shielding layer 22, 42 is arranged between the layer 18, 38 and piezoelectric layer 16, 36);
wherein the first electrode arrangement and the second electrode arrangement are arranged to produce a locally variable deformation in the piezoelectric layer in response to application of an electric field (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pages. 5-6 and 7, the electrodes apply an electric field to the piezoelectric layer 16, 26 to provide a locally variable deformation). Hild does not appear to explicitly describe the layer being of amorphous material which is compaction-sensitive on exposure to low-energy electron beam radiation; the first blocking layer having a transmittance of less than 10-6 for low-energy electron beam radiation; wherein the first blocking layer contains a material selected from the group consisting essentially of tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni) and chromium (Cr).
Wylie-Van Eerd discloses a layer of amorphous material which is compaction-sensitive on exposure to low-energy electron beam radiation (Figs. 2, 5, paras. [0022], [0025]-[0026], [0028], [0042]-[0046], [0077], [0079], [0084], quartz layer 38, 58 is an amorphous silicon layer or bracing layer quartz glass; amorphous silicon or quartz glass is inherently compaction-sensitive as evidenced by Clauss, paras. [0003]-[0004], [0011], [0017]-[0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a layer of amorphous material which is compaction-sensitive on exposure to low-energy electron beam radiation, and which has a thickness in the range of at least 30 µm as taught by Wylie-Van Eerd as the layer in the mirror as taught by Hild since including a layer of amorphous material which is compaction-sensitive on exposure to low-energy electron beam radiation, and which has a thickness in the range of at least 30 µm is commonly used to provide a smoothed layer arrangement to produce a mirror with a high-quality surface that operates to improve EUV reflection (Wylie-Van Eerd, paras. [0011], [0020]-[0022], [0027], [0084]).
Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd discloses a first blocking layer (Hild, Figs. 1, 3, abstract, page 7, shielding layer 22, 42), but Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd does not appear to explicitly describe further comprising the first blocking layer which has transmittance of less than 10--6 for low-energy electron beam radiation.
A further embodiment of Wylie-Van Eerd discloses a first blocking layer which has transmittance of less than 10--6 for low-energy electron beam radiation (Fig. 1, 4, paras. [0018]-[0020], [0024], [0040], [0070], [0073], [0077], [0080], the transmission is less than 10-6 for electromagnetic radiation owing to the carbon layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a first blocking layer which has transmittance of less than 10--6 for low-energy electron beam radiation as taught by the further embodiment of Wylie-Van Eerd in the first blocking layer in the mirror as taught by Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd since including a first blocking layer which has transmittance of less than 10--6 for low-energy electron beam radiation is commonly used to permit interferometric measurement (Wylie-Van Eerd, para. [0018]).
Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd does not appear to explicitly describe the first blocking layer contains a material selected from the group consisting essentially of tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni) and chromium (Cr).
Ehm discloses a conductive layer contains a material selected from the group consisting essentially of tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni) and chromium (Cr) (paras. [0051], [0107], the conductive layer is made of nickel or molybdenum).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a layer contains a material selected from the group consisting essentially of tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni) and chromium (Cr) as taught by Ehm as the material of the first blocking layer in the mirror as taught by Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd since including the first blocking layer contains a material selected from the group consisting essentially of tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni) and chromium (Cr) is commonly used to prevent electrostatic charging of the surface of the EUV mirror (Ehm, paras. [0049]-[0051], [0107]).
Regarding claim 8, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Ehm discloses configured for a microlithographic projection exposure apparatus (Hild, Fig. 4, pgs. 7-8, projection exposure apparatus 400).
Regarding claim 11, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Ehm discloses wherein the amorphous material includes quartz glass (SiO2) or amorphous silicon (a-Si) (Wylie-Van Eerd, Figs. 2, 5, paras. [0022], [0025]-[0026], [0028], [0042]-[0046], [0077], [0079], [0084], quartz layer 38, 58 is an amorphous silicon layer or bracing layer quartz glass).
Regarding claim 12, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Ehm discloses and configured for an operating wavelength of less than 30 nm (Hild, Fig. 4, pgs. 5, and 8, the mirror is designed for working wavelength of less than 30 nm in an EUV microlithographic projection exposure apparatus).
Regarding claim 13, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Ehm discloses and configured for an operating wavelength of less than 15 nm (Hild, Fig. 4, pgs. 5, and 8, the mirror is designed for working wavelength of less than 15 nm in an EUV microlithographic projection exposure apparatus).
Regarding claim 20, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Ehm discloses microlithographic projection exposure apparatus comprising an illumination device and a projection lens, and a mirror according to Claim 7 (see claim 7 rejection above, Hild, , Fig. 4, pgs. 5, and 8, microlithographic projection exposure apparatus comprises an illumination system comprising mirrors 403 to 407 and a projection objective comprising mirrors 451 to 456).
Claims 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hild in view of Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Clauss (US PGPub 2012/0327384)
Regarding claim 14, Hild discloses method for processing a mirror (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, page 5 of English translation, a mirror 10, 30 includes an optical active surface 11, 31), having:
an optical effective surface (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, page 5 of English translation, a mirror 10, 30 includes an optical active surface 11, 31);
a mirror substrate (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pages 5, 7, mirror substrate 12, 32);
a reflection layer system configured to reflect electromagnetic radiation incident on the optical effective surface (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 5 and 7, reflection layer stack 21, 41 reflects the radiation incident on the surface 11, 31); said method comprising:
arranging at least one piezoelectric layer between the mirror substrate and the reflection layer system (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 5-6 and 7, piezoelectric layer 16, 36 is arranged between the substrate 12, 32 and the reflection layer stack 21, 41);
applying an electric field for producing a locally variable deformation by situating a first electrode arrangement on a side of the piezoelectric layer facing the reflection layer system and by situating a second electrode arrangement on a side of the piezoelectric layer facing the mirror substrate (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 5-6 and 7, first electrode arrangement with electrodes 20, 40 are arranged between the reflection layer stack 21, 41 and second electrode arrangement 13, 34 is arranged between the piezoelectric layer 16, 36 and substrate 12, 32); and
arranging a layer of material on the side of the piezoelectric layer facing the reflection layer system (Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 6 and 7, common smoothing layer 18, 38 is made of quartz and is arranged between the piezoelectric layer 16, 36 and the reflection layer stack 21, 41). Hild does not appear to explicitly describe a compaction-sensitive layer of amorphous material and generating compaction in the compaction-sensitive layer, and exposing the compaction-sensitive layer to electron beam radiation having an energy of less than 100 keV.
Wylie-Van Eerd discloses arranging a compaction-sensitive layer of amorphous material (Figs. 2, 5, paras. [0022], [0025]-[0026], [0028], [0042]-[0046], [0077], [0079], [0084], quartz layer 38, 58 is an amorphous silicon layer or bracing layer quartz glass).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included arranging a compaction-sensitive layer of amorphous material as taught by Wylie-Van Eerd as the layer on the side of the piezoelectric layer facing the reflection layer system in the mirror in the method as taught by Hild since including arranging a compaction-sensitive layer of amorphous material is commonly used to provide a smoothed layer arrangement to produce a mirror with a high-quality surface that operates to improve EUV reflection (Wylie-Van Eerd, paras. [0011], [0020]-[0022], [0027], [0084]).
Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd does not appear to explicitly describe generating compaction in the compaction-sensitive layer, and exposing the compaction-sensitive layer to electron beam radiation having an energy of less than 100 keV.
Clauss discloses generating compaction in the compaction-sensitive layer and exposing the compaction-sensitive layer to electron beam radiation having an energy of less than 100 keV (paras. [0016]-[0018], claim 13, the layer is compacted and the layer is exposed to an electron beam in which the electrons have an energy between 10 KeV and 20 KeV).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included generating compaction in the compaction-sensitive layer and exposing the compaction-sensitive layer to electron beam radiation having an energy of less than 100 keV as taught by Clauss in the method as taught by Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd since including generating compaction in the compaction-sensitive layer and exposing the compaction-sensitive layer to electron beam radiation having an energy of less than 100 keV is commonly used to produce EUV mirrors that exhibit reduced long-term surface shape changes upon exposure to EUV radiation (Clauss, paras. [0008], [0016]-[0018]).
Regarding claim 15, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Clauss discloses wherein the mirror further has, between the compaction-sensitive layer and the first electrode arrangement, a blocking layer that has a transmittance (Hild, Figs. 1, 3, abstract, page 7, shielding layer 22, 42 is arranged between the layer 18, 38 and piezoelectric layer 16, 36, and as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd, Figs. 2, 5, paras. [0022], [0025]-[0026], [0028], [0042]-[0046], [0077], [0079], [0084], quartz layer 38, 58 is an amorphous silicon layer or bracing layer quartz glass) and discloses electron beam radiation (Clauss, paras. [0016]-[0018], claim 13, the layer is compacted and the layer is exposed to an electron beam in which the electrons have an energy between 10 KeV and 20 KeV), but Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Clauss does not appear to explicitly describe the transmittance of less than 10-5 for the electron beam radiation.
A further embodiment of Wylie-Van Eerd discloses a first blocking layer which has transmittance of less than 10--6 for beam radiation (Fig. 1, 4, paras. [0018]-[0020], [0024], [0040], [0070], [0073], [0077], [0080], the transmission is less than 10-6 for electromagnetic radiation owing to the carbon layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a first blocking layer which has transmittance of less than 10--6 for beam radiation as taught by the further embodiment of Wylie-Van Eerd in the first blocking layer in the mirror with the electron beam radiation in the method as taught by Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Clauss since including a blocking layer which has a transmittance of less than 10-5 for the electron beam radiation is commonly used to permit interferometric measurement (Wylie-Van Eerd, para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 17, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Clauss discloses wherein the energy of the electron beam radiation is less than 100 keV (Clauss, paras. [0016]-[0018], claim 13, the layer is compacted and the layer is exposed to an electron beam in which the electrons have an energy between 10 KeV and 20 KeV).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hild in view of Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Clauss as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Clauss et al. (US PGPub 2012/0212721, Clauss 721 hereinafter).
Regarding claim 16, Hild in view of Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Clauss discloses the mirror having the first electrode arrangement situated on the side of the piezoelectric layer facing the reflection layer (Hild, Figs. 1, 3, 4, abstract, pgs. 5-6 and 7, first electrode arrangement with electrodes 20, 40 are arranged between the reflection layer stack 21, 41 and second electrode arrangement 13, 34 is arranged between the piezoelectric layer 16, 36 and substrate 12, 32), but Hild does not appear to explicitly describe selecting the energy from the electron beam radiation and the thickness of the compaction-sensitive layer such that the electron beam radiation does not penetrate into the mirror as far as the first electrode arrangement.
Wylie-Van Eerd discloses selecting the thickness of the compaction-sensitive layer (Fig. 5, paras. [0034], [0084], the quartz glass layer has a thickness in the range of at least 30 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included selecting the thickness of the compaction-sensitive layer as taught by Wylie-Van Eerd for the layer in the method as taught by Hild since including selecting the thickness of the compaction-sensitive layer is commonly used to determine an optimum thickness to provide a mirror with the desired compensation of sinking of a piezoelectric layer upon application of voltage to improve surface quality of the mirror (Wylie-Van Eerd, paras. [0082], [0084]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Hild in view of Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Clauss does not appear to explicitly describe selecting the energy from the electron beam radiation such that the electron beam radiation does not penetrate into the mirror as far as the first electrode arrangement.
Clauss 721 discloses selecting the energy of the electron beam on the basis of penetration depth of later EUV radiation (paras. [0013], [0038], [0040]-[0041], the energy of the electrons is selected for the depth of penetration of later EUV radiation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included selecting the energy of the electron beam on the basis of penetration depth as taught by Clauss 721 in the method as taught by Hild in view of Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Clauss since including selecting the energy of the electron beam on the basis of penetration depth in combination with the teachings of selecting the thickness of the compaction-sensitive layer and the mirror having the first electrode arrangement situated on the side of the piezoelectric layer facing the reflection layer as taught by Hild in view of Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Clauss would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art selecting the energy from the electron beam radiation and the thickness of the compaction-sensitive layer such that the electron beam radiation does not penetrate into the mirror as far as the first electrode arrangement situated on the side of the piezoelectric layer facing the reflection layer system in order to produce EUV mirrors that have stable surface shapes upon exposure to EUV radiation (Clauss 721, para. [0012]) without damaging the components of the mirror.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hild in view of Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Clauss as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Pauls et al. (US PGPub 2019/0018324, Pauls hereinafter).
Regarding claim 18, Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Clauss does not appear to explicitly describe further comprising varying the energy of the electron beam radiation during said exposing.
Pauls discloses varying the energy of the electron beam radiation during said exposing (abstract, paras. [0009], [0030]-[0032], [0070]-[0072], local compaction is arranged by varying the electron beam energy during processing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included varying the energy of the electron beam radiation during said exposing as taught by Pauls in the method as taught by Hild as modified by Wylie-Van Eerd in view of Clauss since including varying the energy of the electron beam radiation during said exposing is commonly used to produce the desired mirror surface shape with improved accuracy (Pauls, para. [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or render obvious a second blocking layer which has a transmittance lower by at least a factor of five for electromagnetic radiation having a working wavelength of less than 30 nm than for the low-energy electron beam radiation. This limitation in combination with all of the other limitations of the parent claim would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The dependent claim would likewise be allowable by virtue of its dependency.
Hild discloses a first blocking layer arranged between the layer and the first electrode arrangement (Figs. 1, 3, abstract, page 7, shielding layer 22, 42 is arranged between the layer 18, 38 and piezoelectric layer 16, 36). Hild fails to describe or render obvious a second blocking layer which has a transmittance lower by at least a factor of five for electromagnetic radiation having a working wavelength of less than 30 nm than for the low-energy electron beam radiation.
Wylie-Van Eerd discloses a first blocking layer which has transmittance of less than 10--6 for low-energy electron beam radiation (Fig. 1, 4, paras. [0018]-[0020], [0024], [0040], [0070], [0073], [0077], [0080], the transmission is less than 10-6 for electromagnetic radiation owing to the carbon layer), but Wylie-Van Eerd does not describe or render obvious a second blocking layer which has a transmittance lower by at least a factor of five for electromagnetic radiation having a working wavelength of less than 30 nm than for the low-energy electron beam radiation.
Hild et al. (US PGPub 2021/0055662) discloses multiple smoothing layers and mediator layers between the reflection layer stack and the substrate (Fig. 1, paras. [0067], [0071]-[0075], smoothing layers 18a, 18b and mediator layers 17a, 17b), but Hild et al. does not describe or render obvious a second blocking layer which has a transmittance lower by at least a factor of five for electromagnetic radiation having a working wavelength of less than 30 nm than for the low-energy electron beam radiation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA A. RIDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7538. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30AM-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.
/CHRISTINA A RIDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights