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 .
Claims 1 – 18 are presented for examination.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rimkus et al. (EP 4087373 A1; pub. Sep. 11, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Rimkus et al. disclose: A system for generating stable ultrashort pulses of XUV and soft X-ray radiation from laser-ablated plumes of a liquid target (para. [0026], [0042], [0058]-[0059]), comprising :
a laser source a pre-pulse (para. [0058]-[0059]);
a laser source of a main pulse (para. [0041]-[0042]);
wherein the pre-pulse is directed and focused to a surface of the liquid target to ablate the surface of the liquid target (para. [0040]-[0041], [0048]-[0049], [0058]), forming a plasma plume generating harmonics (para. [0038]); the main pulse being selected for driving the harmonics (para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 2, Rimkus et al. disclose: the pre-pulse is selected with an energy of at least 0.5 mJ (para. [0052], [0057]); and the main pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 1 and 4 mJ (para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Rimkus et al. disclose: the pre-pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 0.5 and 1 mJ (para. [0052], [0057]); and the main pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 1 and 4 mJ (para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Rimkus et al. disclose: the pre-pulse is selected with an energy of at least 0.5 mJ (para. [0052], [0057]); and the main pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 1 and 4 mJ (para. [0052]); the system comprising ones of dielectric and metallic mirrors directing the pre-pulse and the main pulse to the surface of the liquid target (fig.1 item 5, para. [0006]), the pre-pulse making the ablation and the main pulse passing through the plasma plume created by the pre-pulse and hence driving the harmonics (para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, Rimkus et al. disclose: the pre-pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 0.5 and 1 mJ (para. [0052], [0057]); and the main pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 1 and 4 mJ (para. [0052]), the system comprising ones of dielectric and metallic mirrors directing the pre-pulse and the main pulse to the surface of the liquid target (fig.1 item 5, para. [0006]), the pre-pulse making the ablation and the main pulse passing through the plasma plume created by the pre-pulse and hence driving the harmonics (para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 9, Rimkus et al. disclose: the target is positioned in a vacuum chamber (para. [0053]).
Regarding claim 10, Rimkus et al. disclose: A method for generating stable ultrashort pulses of XUV and soft X-ray radiation from laser-ablated plumes of a liquid target, comprising:
selecting a pre-pulse and a main pulse; and
directing and focusing the pre-pulse to a surface of the liquid target to ablate the surface of the liquid target, forming a plasma plume generating harmonics; the main pulse being selected for driving the harmonics (the claim contains the same substantive limitations as claim 1, therefore, the claim is rejected on the same basis).
Regarding claim 11, Rimkus et al. disclose: the pre-pulse is selected with an energy of at least 0.5 mJ (para. [0052], [0057]); and the main pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 1 and 4 mJ (para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 12, Rimkus et al. disclose: the pre-pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 0.5 and 1 mJ (para. [0052], [0057]); and the main pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 1 and 4 mJ (para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 13, Rimkus et al. disclose: the pre-pulse is selected with an energy of at least 0.5 mJ (para. [0052], [0057]); and the main pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 1 and 4 mJ (para. [0052]); the system comprising using ones of dielectric and metallic mirrors to direct the pre-pulse and the main pulse to the surface of the liquid target (fig.1 item 5, para. [0006]), the pre-pulse making the ablation and the main pulse passing through the plasma plume created by the pre-pulse and hence driving the harmonics (para. [0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Rimkus et al. disclose: the pre-pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 0.5 and 1 mJ (para. [0052], [0057]); and the main pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 1 and 4 mJ (para. [0052]), the method comprising using ones of dielectric and metallic mirrors to direct the pre-pulse and the main pulse to the surface of the liquid target (fig.1 item 5, para. [0006]), the pre-pulse making the ablation and the main pulse passing through the plasma plume created by the pre-pulse and hence driving the harmonics (para. [0038]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimkus et al. (EP 4087373 A1; pub. Sep. 11, 2022) in view of Schafgans et al. (WO2021/239357 A1; pub. Dec. 02, 2021) and further in view of Siffalovic “Femtosecond Time-Resolved Photolectron Spectroscopy in Extreme Ultraviolet Region” Dissertation Thesis, Mr. 2002, pg.1 - 112.
Regarding claim 6, Rimkus et al. are silent about: a laser source of a probe pulse selected with a higher repetition rate than a repetition rate of the pre-pulse, to probe the surface of the target.
In a similar field of endeavor Schafgans et al. disclose: a laser source of a probe pulse selected to probe the surface of the target (para. [0034]-[0035]) motivated by the benefits for getting the properties of the target without disturbing the target (Schafgans et al. para. [0035]).
In light of the benefits for getting the properties of the target without disturbing the target as taught by Schafgans et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the probe light of Schafgans et al. in the device of Rimkus et al.
Schafgans et al. are silent about: a laser source of a probe pulse selected with a higher repetition rate than a repetition rate of the pre-pulse.
In a similar field of endeavor Siffalovic disclose: a laser source of a probe pulse selected with a ultrafast repetition rate (pg.26 2.2.1 1st para.) motivated by the benefits for improving EUV & soft x-ray yield and efficiency.
In light of the benefits for improving EUV & soft x-ray yield and efficiency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the probe light of Siffalovic in the device of Rimkus et al. and Schafgans et al.
Siffalovic are silent about: a laser source of a probe pulse selected with a higher repetition rate than a repetition rate of the pre-pulse. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have: a laser source of a probe pulse selected with a higher repetition rate than a repetition rate of the pre-pulse motivated by the benefits for improving EUV & soft x-ray yield and efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Rimkus et al., Schafgans et al. and Siffalovic disclose: a laser source of a probe pulse selected with a higher repetition rate than a repetition rate of the pre-pulse, to probe the surface of the target (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 6).
Claims 7 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimkus et al. (EP 4087373 A1; pub. Sep. 11, 2022) in view of Riggs et al. (US 2023/0018949 A1; pub. Jan. 19, 2023).
Regarding claim 7, Rimkus et al. disclose: the pre-pulse is selected with an energy of at least 0.5 mJ; and the main pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 1 and 4 mJ; the system comprising ones of dielectric and metallic mirrors directing the pre-pulse and the main pulse to the surface of the liquid target, the pre-pulse making the ablation and the main pulse passing through the plasma plume created by the pre-pulse and hence driving the harmonics (see rejection of claim 4).
Rimkus et al. are silent about: the system further comprising a laser source of a probe pulse, the probe pulse being directed and focused on the surface of the target to overlap with the pre-pulse on the surface of the liquid target for interferometry to probe the surface of the target.
In similar field of endeavor Riggs et al. disclose: a laser source of a probe pulse, the probe pulse being directed and focused on the surface of the target to overlap with the pre-pulse on the surface of the liquid target for interferometry to probe the surface of the target (para. [0160], [0202]) motivated by the benefits for improving EUV & soft x-ray yield and efficiency.
In light of the benefits for improving EUV & soft x-ray yield and efficiency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the probe light of Riggs et al. in the device of Rimkus et al.
Regarding claim 16, Rimkus et al. and Riggs et al. disclose: the pre-pulse is selected with an energy of at least 0.5 mJ; and the main pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 1 and 4 mJ; the method comprising using ones of dielectric and metallic mirrors to direct the pre-pulse and the main pulse to the surface of the liquid target, the pre-pulse making the ablation and the main pulse passing through the plasma plume created by the pre-pulse and hence driving the harmonics; the method further comprising overlapping a probe pulse with the pre- pulse on the surface of the liquid target for interferometry to probe the surface of the target (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 7).
Claims 8 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimkus et al. (EP 4087373 A1; pub. Sep. 11, 2022) in view of Schafgans et al. (WO2021/239357 A1; pub. Dec. 02, 2021) in view of Siffalovic “Femtosecond Time-Resolved Photolectron Spectroscopy in Extreme Ultraviolet Region” Dissertation Thesis, Mr. 2002, pg.1 – 112 and further in view of Riggs et al. (US 2023/0018949 A1; pub. Jan. 19, 2023).
Regarding claim 8, Rimkus et al. disclose: the pre-pulse is selected with an energy of at least 0.5 mJ; and the main pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 1 and 4 mJ; the system comprising ones of dielectric and metallic mirrors directing the pre-pulse and the main pulse to the surface of the liquid target, the pre-pulse making the ablation and the main pulse passing through the plasma plume created by the pre-pulse and hence driving the harmonics (see rejection of claim 4).
Rimkus et al. are silent about: the system further comprising a laser source of a probe pulse of a higher repetition rate than a repetition rate of the pre-pulse.
In a similar field of endeavor Schafgans et al. disclose: a laser source of a probe pulse selected to probe the surface of the target (para. [0034]-[0035]) motivated by the benefits for getting the properties of the target without disturbing the target (Schafgans et al. para. [0035]).
In light of the benefits for getting the properties of the target without disturbing the target as taught by Schafgans et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the probe light of Schafgans et al. in the device of Rimkus et al.
Schafgans et al. are silent about: a laser source of a probe pulse selected with a higher repetition rate than a repetition rate of the pre-pulse.
In a similar field of endeavor Siffalovic disclose: a laser source of a probe pulse selected with a ultrafast repetition rate (pg.26 2.2.1 1st para.) motivated by the benefits for improving EUV & soft x-ray yield and efficiency.
In light of the benefits for improving EUV & soft x-ray yield and efficiency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the probe light of Siffalovic in the device of Rimkus et al. and Schafgans et al.
Siffalovic are silent about: a laser source of a probe pulse selected with a higher repetition rate than a repetition rate of the pre-pulse, the probe pulse being directed and focused on the surface of the target to overlap with the pre-pulse on the surface of the liquid target for interferometry to probe the surface of the target.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have: a laser source of a probe pulse selected with a higher repetition rate than a repetition rate of the pre-pulse motivated by the benefits for improving EUV & soft x-ray yield and efficiency.
In similar field of endeavor Riggs et al. disclose: the probe pulse being directed and focused on the surface of the target to overlap with the pre-pulse on the surface of the liquid target for interferometry to probe the surface of the target (para. [0160], [0202]) motivated by the benefits for improving EUV & soft x-ray yield and efficiency.
In light of the benefits for improving EUV & soft x-ray yield and efficiency, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the probe light of Riggs et al. in the device of Rimkus et al., Schafgans et al. and Siffalovic.
Regarding claim 17, Rimkus et al., Schafgans et al. and Siffalovic and Riggs et al. disclose: the pre-pulse is selected with an energy of at least 0.5 mJ; and the main pulse is selected with an energy in a range between 1 and 4 mJ; the method comprising using ones of dielectric and metallic mirrors to direct the pre-pulse and the main pulse to the surface of the liquid target, the pre-pulse making the ablation and the main pulse passing through the plasma plume created by the pre-pulse and hence driving the harmonics; the method further comprising selecting a probe pulse of a higher repetition rate than a repetition rate of the pre-pulse, and directing and focusing the probe pulse to the surface of the target to overlap with the pre-pulse on the surface of the target for interferometry to probe the surface of the target (the claim is rejected on the same basis as claim 8).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rimkus et al. (EP 4087373 A1; pub. Sep. 11, 2022) in view of Wu et al. “Dynamics of laser produced plasma from foam targets for future nanolithography devices and x-ray sources”, natureportfolio, Scientific Reports 2021, pg.1 -14.
Regarding claim 18, Rimkus et al. are silent about: positioning the target under a vacuum in a range between 10-⁵ to 10-7 torr.
In a similar field of endeavor Wu et al. disclose: positioning the target under a vacuum in a range between 10-⁵ to 10-7 torr (pg.3 1st para.) motivated by the benefits for minimizing contamination (Wu et al. pg.3 1st para.).
In light of the benefits for minimizing contamination as taught by Wu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the chamber of Wu et al. for the target of Rimkus et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
