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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that halftone does not disclose the binary pixel manipulation, but this feature is taught by Anbarjafari. As Chang’s segmentation is done via a data file it is a digital image that is being combined with a common pattern [0025, 0011-0012, claim 1]. Applicant argues that Chang does not teach a static image pattern comprises a binary pixel pattern wherein each pixel is either fully illuminated or dark, but this is the definition of a halftone distribution pattern: a series of fully opaque dots with increasing or decreasing pitch spacing in order to create a pattern that appears as a deepening gray continuous gradient to the human eye. Applicant argues that the white line created in Fig 5A is counter to the continuous power distribution, but continuous does not mean uniform and 5A demonstrates a continuous gradient from high dosage to the low dosage.
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 1-4, 6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2004/0191643) in view of Irie (US 2004/0070740) and Anbarjafari (Image Video Lecture 07).
As to claim 1, Chang teaches a system for exposing a material with images, where the system comprises an exposure table (12) and an electronic light projector (phrased as projection optics/illumination optical system) [0025, 0003, Claim 1] arranged above the exposure table phrased as stage and being adapted to project images towards a material arranged at the exposure table (Chang denotes a “stepper system” 0025 which he previously describes in background [0004]) [0025, 0004, claim 1], where the electronic light projector and the exposure table is configured to be moved relative to each other and where the electronic light projector (projection optics) and is operated in method to provide a sequence of images to be exposed represented by image data (the data file) [0025, 0037], - superimpose a static image pattern phrased as a common pattern onto the edge sections of the images to be exposed [0025, 0037], resulting in a sequence of combined images, and where the electronic light projector (13) is configured to expose the combined images sequentially onto the material [0025, 0029, Fig 9A, 9B]. Chang teaches that the edge blending areas (ie where the stitching portions of each image meet) [Fig 2A-10B] are formed by the movement of the projector relative to the material exposed in both x and y directions [0004, 0025, 0023, Claim 1]. The stitching areas have varying heights orthogonal to the stripe length see Fig 4 where the stitch area has either no height or height equals the width of the stripe [Fig 4,7] and the stripe width varies in a direction orthogonal to the length of the stripe [Fig 9A, 0037]. The halftone grayscale distribution describes a gradient from dense intensity to sparse intensity: the exposure dose from the light source itself is unchanged, but the intensity amount “seen” by the wafer is changed as a result of the change in the pattern density. Fig. 2B indicates that the dose distribution between different exposure stripes is blended in the stitching area 202, because the exposure is overlapped, so that the dosage is uniform across all regions of the corresponding pattern areas in the wafer such that the power and pixel edge differences between adjacent exposure stripes and provides a continuous power distribution curve [0025, 0026, 0029, 0030, 0032, 0038, claim 1]. As each image is surrounded by the stitching areas with the coupling patterns/static image patterns as explained above this would result in static image pattern being replicated along the entire length of each exposure stripe such that each row within an overlap zone includes a portion of the static image pattern [0025, 0026, 0029, 0030, 0032, 0037, 0038, claim 1]. Chang teaches the static image pattern or coupling patter is digitally superimposed onto edge sections of each image by the projector control unit without being embedded in a mask[0025-0027, 0029, 0030, 0032, 0038, claim 1]. The examiner interprets "without being embedded in a mask" as this requirement as stating that a physical mask is not used to block the light to create the pattern during illumination. Chang teaches halftone distribution pattern: a series of fully opaque dots with increasing or decreasing pitch spacing in order to create a pattern that appears as a deepening gray gradient to the human eye, ie a binary pixel pattern wherein each pixel is either fully illuminated or dark.
Chang’s system implies some sort of projector control unit to carry out the method described, but does not explicitly state a projector control unit.
Irie teaches a method of exposing material with a light beam [Abstract]. Irie notes that the relative motion between the electronic light projector and the stage is coordinated by a main control system (or projector control unit) in order to correct and control the exposure process including relative movement of the table and projector [Fig 2, 0064-0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chang and included the projector control unit including movement of the projector relative to the table, as suggested by Irie, in order to correct and control the exposure process.
As explained above Chang teaches combining the common pattern with the image through the digital data file, but does not explicitly state this is accomplished by performing an “AND” logical operation pixel by pixel.
Anbarjafari teaches operations for digital images and notes that performing an “AND” logical operation pixel by pixel[0:17] in order to arrive at the intersection between the 2 images to combine the images and isolate regions of interest[1:51-2:31]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chang and had the common pattern and image of Chang be combined via a logical AND operation pixel by pixel, as suggested by Anbarjafari, in order to combine the images and isolate regions of interest.
As Chang notes a halftone distribution pattern: a series of fully opaque dots with increasing or decreasing pitch spacing in order to create a pattern that appears as a deepening, continuous gray gradient to the human eye this would be a continuous power distribution in the overlap zone between strips.
As to claim 2, Chang notes the images to be exposed are in form of CAD (Computer aided design) image data (72) with a static image pattern (71) superimposed on to the data pattern given by the CAD file on each side of the image area. While it is unclear exactly how the CAD image data differs from image data generally as explained above, Chang’s “data file” must come from a computer of some sort and therefore would reasonably be interpreted as being created with the aid of a computer. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would “at once envisage” the data file as being a CAD file, see MPEP 2131.02. Further still, one of ordinary skill in the art of controlled exposure lithography systems would be aware of known file formats suitable for such a purpose, and as the genus of file formats composed by the image data file of Chang capable of being utilized by such a control system and the sub genus of file formats composed by the claimed “CAD image data” are identical or near identical is size and used for the same purpose (of superimposing a “common pattern” or “static image pattern” as explained above), see MPEP 2144.08.
As to claim 3, Chang teaches the material (11) is a photosensitive as overexposure results in “hot spots,” the material must be photo sensitive in some way [0012, 0031].
As to claim 4, Chang teaches the exposure device and the stage are moved relative to one another in order to set up the sequence of images as described above, but does not explicitly state the electronic light projector is connected to a motor controller providing a synchronization signal to the electronic light projector for controlling the movement of the electronic light projector relative to the exposure table.
Irie teaches a method of exposing material with a light beam [Abstract]. Irie notes that the relative motion between the electronic light projector and the stage is coordinated motor control unit which relays signals via the main control system to the projector [Fig 2, 0065, 0081, 0064-0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chang and included motor controller providing a synchronization signal to the electronic light projector, as suggested by Irie, in order to correct and control the exposure process.
As to claim 6, Chang teaches the superimposed pattern on one side of the exposure stripe is complementary to the other side of the adjacent exposure stripe [Fig 9a, 0037, 0025].
As to claim 8, Chang teaches the superimposed pattern has a width between a full projected image width and one projected image pixel as the static pattern is a portion of the size full image [Fig 9a].
As to claim 9, Chang teaches the superimposed pattern has a length corresponding to number of rows in one projected image as the static pattern spans the entire image it would have a length as the number of rows of the image [Fig 9a].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2004/0191643) in view of Irie (US 2004/0070740) and Anbarjafari (Image Video Lecture 07), as applied above to claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, and in further view of Okuyama (US 2003/0011860). Note this is an alternative rejection of claim 2
As to claim 2, Chang taught the feature of the CAD image data as explained above.
In the alternative, Okuyama teaches a apparatus for exposing photosensitive material in stepwise fashion using CAD data in order to control the exact pattern during manufacturing[0110 -0114, 0120]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Change and had the image data be CAD image data, as suggested by Okuyama, in order to control the exact pattern during manufacturing.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2004/0191643) in view of Jorgenson (EP 3053729) and Anbarjafari (Image Video Lecture 07).
As to claim 1, Chang teaches a system for exposing a material with images, where the system comprises an exposure table (12) and an electronic light projector (phrased as projection optics/illumination optical system) [0025, 0003, Claim 1] arranged above the exposure table phrased as stage and being adapted to project images towards a material arranged at the exposure table (Chang denotes a “stepper system” 0025 which he previously describes in background [0004]) [0025, 0004, claim 1], where the electronic light projector and the exposure table is configured to be moved relative to each other and where the electronic light projector (projection optics) and is operated in method to provide a sequence of images to be exposed represented by image data (the data file) [0025, 0037], - superimpose a static image pattern phrased as a common pattern onto the edge sections of the images to be exposed [0025, 0037], resulting in a sequence of combined images, and where the electronic light projector (13) is configured to expose the combined images sequentially onto the material [0025, 0029, Fig 9A, 9B]. Chang teaches that the edge blending areas (ie where the stitching portions of each image meet) [Fig 2A-10B] are formed by the movement of the projector relative to the material exposed in both x and y directions [0004, 0025, 0023, Claim 1]. The stitching areas have varying heights orthogonal to the stripe length see Fig 4 where the stitch area has either no height or height equals the width of the stripe [Fig 4,7] and the stripe width varies in a direction orthogonal to the length of the stripe [Fig 9A, 0037]. The halftone grayscale distribution describes a gradient from dense intensity to sparse intensity: the exposure dose from the light source itself is unchanged, but the intensity amount “seen” by the wafer is changed as a result of the change in the pattern density. Fig. 2B indicates that the dose distribution between different exposure stripes is blended in the stitching area 202, because the exposure is overlapped, so that the dosage is uniform across all regions of the corresponding pattern areas in the wafer such that the power and pixel edge differences between adjacent exposure stripes and provides a continuous power distribution curve [0025, 0026, 0029, 0030, 0032, 0038, claim 1]. Chang teaches the static image pattern or coupling patter is digitally superimposed onto edge sections of each image by the projector control unit without being embedded in a mask[0025-0027, 0029, 0030, 0032, 0038, claim 1]. The examiner interprets "without being embedded in a mask" as this requirement as stating that a physical mask is not used to block the light to create the pattern during illumination. Chang teaches halftone distribution pattern: a series of fully opaque dots with increasing or decreasing pitch spacing in order to create a pattern that appears as a deepening gray gradient to the human eye, ie a binary pixel pattern wherein each pixel is either fully illuminated or dark.
Chang’s system implies some sort of projector control unit to carry out the method described, but does not explicitly state a projector control unit.
Jorgenson teaches a method of exposing material with a light beam and describes his invention as an improvement from the “step and flash” processes of the prior art [0003] ie the same “step and scan” process referred to in Chang [0003, 0004]. Jorgenson notes that the relative motion between the electronic light projector is programmable by changing the motion area and the image data via the PC (ie the projector control unit) as this configuration saves production time [Fig 6, 0010, 0018, 0019]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chang and included the projector control unit, as suggested by Jorgenson, in order to allow for programmable relative motion by changing the motion area and the image data via the PC and decreases exposure time.
As explained above Chang teaches combining the common pattern with the image through the digital data file, but does not explicitly state this is accomplished by performing an “AND” logical operation pixel by pixel.
Anbarjafari teaches operations for digital images and notes that performing an “AND” logical operation pixel by pixel[0:17] in order to arrive at the intersection between the 2 images to combine the images and isolate regions of interest[1:51-2:31]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chang and had the common pattern and image of Chang be combined via a logical AND operation pixel by pixel, as suggested by Anbarjafari, in order to combine the images and isolate regions of interest.
As Chang notes a halftone distribution pattern: a series of fully opaque dots with increasing or decreasing pitch spacing in order to create a pattern that appears as a deepening, continuous gray gradient to the human eye this would be a continuous power distribution in the overlap zone between strips.
As to claim 2, Chang notes the images to be exposed are in form of CAD (Computer aided design) image data (72) with a static image pattern (71) superimposed on to the data pattern given by the CAD file on each side of the image area. While it is unclear exactly how the CAD image data differs from image data generally as explained above, Chang’s “data file” must come from a computer of some sort and therefore would reasonably be interpreted as being created with the aid of a computer. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would “at once envisage” the data file as being a CAD file, see MPEP 2131.02. Further still, one of ordinary skill in the art of controlled exposure lithography systems would be aware of known file formats suitable for such a purpose, and as the genus of file formats composed by the image data file of Chang capable of being utilized by such a control system and the sub genus of file formats composed by the claimed “CAD image data” are identical or near identical is size and used for the same purpose (of superimposing a “common pattern” or “static image pattern” as explained above), see MPEP 2144.08.
As to claim 3, Chang teaches the material (11) is a photosensitive as overexposure results in “hot spots,” the material must be photo sensitive in some way [0012, 0031].
As to claim 4, Chang teaches the exposure device and the stage are moved relative to one another in order to set up the sequence of images as described above, but does not explicitly state the electronic light projector is connected to a motor controller providing a synchronization signal to the electronic light projector for controlling the movement of the electronic light projector relative to the exposure table.
Jorgenson teaches a method of exposing material with a light beam and describes his invention as an improvement from the “step and flash” processes of the prior art [0003] ie the same “step and scan” process referred to in Chang [0003, 0004]. Jorgenson discloses a motor and motion controller that provide signal to the ejector in order to synchronize the exposure and movement of the table [0015, 0016] and increase building speed [0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Chang and had the projector connected to a motor controller providing a synchronization signal, as suggested by Jorgenson, in order to coordinate exposure and movement of the table and increase building speed.
As to claim 6, Chang teaches the superimposed pattern on one side of the exposure stripe is complementary to the other side of the adjacent exposure stripe [Fig 9a, 0037, 0025].
As to claim 8, Chang teaches the superimposed pattern has a width between a full projected image width and one projected image pixel as the static pattern is a portion of the size full image [Fig 9a].
As to claim 9, Chang teaches the superimposed pattern has a length corresponding to number of rows in one projected image as the static pattern spans the entire image it would have a length as the number of rows of the image [Fig 9a].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2004/0191643) in view of Jorgenson (EP 3053729) and Anbarjafari (Image Video Lecture 07), as applied above to claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, and in further view of Okuyama (US 2003/0011860). Note this is an alternative rejection of claim 2
As to claim 2, Chang taught the feature of the CAD image data as explained above.
In the alternative, Okuyama teaches a apparatus for exposing photosensitive material in stepwise fashion using CAD data in order to control the exact pattern during manufacturing[0110 -0114, 0120]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Change and had the image data be CAD image data, as suggested by Okuyama, in order to control the exact pattern during manufacturing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights