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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 11, 3, 4, 7, 11, 17, 20 and the cancellation of claims 2 and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 17 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner notes new art is cited to account for the newly amended limitations.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (JP 2006-269628, applicant submitted prior art; see applicant provided translation for cited paragraph numbers) in view of Miyamoto et al. (PCT/JP2016/079158; US 2019/0181607 used as a translation thereof).
With respect to claim 1, Saito discloses a control method of a line narrowing gas laser device (fig.1/13), comprising: receiving a command of either a single-wavelength mode command or a multi-wavelength mode command from an external apparatus ([0009,30] exposure device provides signal for either single wavelength operation or multi); and controlling the line narrowing gas laser device to generate pulse laser light in accordance with the command ([0028]), wherein the line narrowing gas laser device includes a line narrowing device (fig.1/13 situated to left of chamber), the line narrowing device includes: a grating system (fig.1/13 #5); a beam adjustment optical system (fig.1/13 #4s+6+actuators+controls) which is arranged on an optical path of a light beam (fig.1/13 shown as dotted lines) and configured to adjust the optical path of at least a part of the light beam so as to cause a first portion of the light beam (fig.1/13 #7) to be incident on a first region of the grating system (fig.1/13 at least upper portion of #5) and a second portion of the light beam (fig.1/13 #8) to be incident on a second region of the grating system (fig.1/13 at least lower portion of #5); and an adjustment mechanism (fig.1/13 #42b/43b/44b) configured to adjust an energy ratio of a wavelength component of a second wavelength selected as being incident on the second region to a wavelength component of a first wavelength selected as being incident on the first region by adjusting either a position or posture of at least one plane parallel substrate (fig.1/13 #6a/b, [0009]) included in the beam adjustment optical system ([0005, 7-9, 30, 31], actuators adjust mirror angles and position to control both selected wavelength 1/2 and energies thereof), and the controlling the line narrowing gas laser device includes controlling the adjustment mechanism so that the energy ratio of the wavelength component of the second wavelength becomes a minimum value when the single-wavelength mode command is received from the external apparatus ([0009], energy ratio of second wavelength necessarily becomes minimum, 0, as no second wavelength component exists when using single wavelength mode), and controlling the adjustment mechanism so that the energy ratio of the wavelength component of the second wavelength becomes larger than the minimum value when the multi-wavelength mode command is received from the external apparatus ([0009], energy ratio of second ratio necessarily larger than minimum value when two wavelength operation in effect). Saito further teaches at least 1 of the mirrors to rotate ([0009]), but does not disclose the adjustment mechanism rotation to be via a linear stage. Miyamoto teaches a related laser device (fig.1) which includes the use of a linear stage (fig.9 #9/#24/#25/#26/27) which is used to rotate an optical element (fig.9 #14p; noting the stage is linear as the direction of travel is only up/down in order to enable the rotation, [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a linear stage for enabling the rotation of 1 or both of the mirrors of Saito as taught by Miyamoto in order to utilize a simple mechanical means by which to provide the rotation of the elements (Miyamoto, [0069]).
With respect to claim 3, Saito, as modified, discloses the linear stage adjusts the beam adjustment optical system so that the entire light beam is incident on the first region when the single-wavelength mode command is received from the external apparatus ([0009], also note that the claims do not exclude the first/second regions from overlapping such that R1 could be the entire grating while R2 is a smaller portion of the grating).
With respect to claim 4, Saito discloses the line narrowing device further includes a first actuator (fig.1/13 #42b) configured to adjust an incident angle of the first portion on the grating system, and a second actuator (fig.1/13 #43b) configured to adjust an incident angle of the second portion on the grating system, and the controlling the line narrowing gas laser device includes: reading a target value of a first wavelength parameter related to the first wavelength and a target value of a second wavelength parameter related to the second wavelength when the multi-wavelength mode command is received from the external apparatus ([0030]); and controlling the first and second actuators based on the target values of the first and second wavelength parameters as performing adjustment oscillation ([0030]).
With respect to claim 5, Saito discloses the first wavelength parameter includes the first wavelength, and the second wavelength parameter includes the second wavelength ([0030]).
With respect to claim 6, Saito discloses the first wavelength parameter includes the first wavelength, and the second wavelength parameter includes a wavelength difference between the first wavelength and the second wavelength ([0033]).
With respect to claim 7, Sait, as modified, discloses reading a target value of an energy ratio parameter between the wavelength component of the first wavelength and the wavelength component of the second wavelength when the multi-wavelength mode command is received from the external apparatus; and controlling the linear stage based on the target value of the energy ratio parameter after controlling the first and second actuators based on the target values of the first and second wavelength parameters ([0030,31], note power control device receives, “reads”, target of [E1target + E2target]/[E1meas + E2meas] from #41).
With respect to claim 8, Saito discloses the energy ratio parameter includes a combination of energy of the wavelength component of the first wavelength and energy of the wavelength component of the second wavelength (above ratio uses components from first and second wavelengths).
With respect to claim 9, Saito discloses the energy ratio parameter includes a value obtained by dividing energy of the wavelength component of the second wavelength by energy of the wavelength component of the first wavelength (above ratio has energy wavelength component of second wavelength in numerator and energy component of first wavelength in denominator).
With respect to claim 17, Saito discloses a line narrowing gas laser device (fig.1/13), comprising: a laser chamber (fig.1/13 #1); an optical resonator (fig.1/13 formed via #3/5) including a line narrowing device (fig.1/13 situated to left of chamber); and a processor (fig.1/13 controller #41 processes incoming data, etc), the processor being configured to receive, from an external apparatus ([0030]), a command being either a single-wavelength mode command or a multi-wavelength mode command ([0009,30] exposure device provides either single wavelength operation or multi) and to control the line narrowing gas laser device to generate pulse laser light in accordance with the command ([0028]), wherein the line narrowing device includes: a grating system (fig.1/13 #5), a beam adjustment optical system (fig.1/13 #4s+6+actuators+controls) arranged on an optical path of a light beam (fig.1/13 shown as dotted lines) and configured to adjust the optical path of at least a part of the light beam so as to cause a first portion of the light beam (fig.1/13 #7) to be incident on a first region of the grating system (fig.1/13 at least upper portion of #5) and a second portion of the light beam (fig.1/13 #8) to be incident on a second region of the grating system (fig.1/13 at least lower portion of #5); and an adjustment mechanism (fig.1/13 #42b/43b/44b) configured to adjust an energy ratio of a wavelength component of a second wavelength selected as being incident on the second region to a wavelength component of a first wavelength selected as being incident on the first region by adjusting either a position or posture of at least one plane parallel substrate (fig.1/13 #6a/b, [0009]) included in the beam adjustment optical system ([0005, 7-9, 30, 31], actuators adjust mirror angles and position to control both selected wavelength 1/2 and energies thereof), and the processor controls the adjustment mechanism so that the energy ratio of the wavelength component of the second wavelength becomes a minimum value when the single-wavelength mode command is received from the external apparatus ([0009], energy ratio of second wavelength necessarily becomes minimum, 0, as no second wavelength component exists when using single wavelength mode) and controls the adjustment mechanism so that the energy ratio of the wavelength component of the second wavelength becomes larger than the minimum value when the multi-wavelength mode command is received from the external apparatus ([0009], energy ratio of second ratio necessarily larger than minimum value when two wavelength operation in effect). Saito further teaches at least 1 of the mirrors to rotate ([0009]), but does not disclose the adjustment mechanism rotation to be via a linear stage. Miyamoto teaches a related laser device (fig.1) which includes the use of a linear stage (fig.9 #9/#24/#25/#26/27) which is used to rotate an optical element (fig.9 #14p; noting the stage is linear as the direction of travel is only up/down in order to enable the rotation, [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a linear stage for enabling the rotation of 1 or both of the mirrors of Saito as taught by Miyamoto in order to utilize a simple mechanical means by which to provide the rotation of the elements (Miyamoto, [0069]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito and Miyamoto in view of Pawliczek (Pawliczek, “Part to Part and Part to whole Ratios”, 08/01/2012, retrieved 06/27/2025, https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/blog/part-to-part-and-part-to-whole-ratios/).
With respect to claim 10, Saito, as modified, teaches the method outlined above, but does not teach the energy ratio parameter includes: a value obtained by dividing energy of the wavelength component of the first wavelength by a total value in which the energy of the wavelength component of the first wavelength and energy of the wavelength component of the second wavelength are added; and a value obtained by dividing the energy of the wavelength component of the second wavelength by the total value. Pawliczek demonstrates the usefulness of part to part and part to whole ratios when doing calculations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the method and ratios of Saito to make use of the claimed part to whole ratios as Pawliczek has demonstrated such ratios to be useful when completing computations comparing parts to the whole.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito and Miyamoto in view of Asayama (US 2019/0036290).
With respect to claim 11, Saito, as modified, teaches the method outlined above, including the line narrowing gas laser device further includes a laser chamber (fig.1/13 #1) in which a pair of electrodes are arranged (fig.1/13 #2) and laser gas is accommodated ([0006]), and a charger configured to apply a voltage between the electrodes ([0006]), and the controlling the line narrowing gas laser device includes: reading a target value of total pulse energy of the wavelength component of the first wavelength and the wavelength component of the second wavelength when the multi-wavelength mode command is received from the external apparatus ([0031] E1t+E2t); and controlling charge voltage of the charger in the laser chamber based on the target value of the total pulse energy after the linear stage is controlled based on the target value of the energy ratio parameter ([0031]). Saito does not teach controlling the gas pressure. Asayama teaches a related gas laser device wherein the voltage and gas pressure are controlled to reach a desired energy (fig.2/5 [0148]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to further adjust the gas pressure of Saito based on the teachings of Asayama in order to add additional control of the laser affecting both needed voltage and achieved energy.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito and Miyamoto in view of Miura (US 2007/0296945).
With respect to claim 20, Saito discloses an electronic device manufacturing method, comprising:, generating pulse laser light using a line narrowing gas laser device (fig.1/13 [0030]); the line narrowing gas laser device including: a laser chamber (fig.1/13 #1); an optical resonator (fig.1/13 formed via #3/5) including a line narrowing device (fig.1/13 situated to left of chamber); and a processor (fig.1/13 #41 processes data), and the processor being configured to receive, from an external apparatus ([0030]), a command being either a single-wavelength mode command or a multi-wavelength mode command and to control the line narrowing gas laser device to generate the pulse laser light in accordance with the command ([0009, 28, 30] exposure device provides either single wavelength operation or multi)), wherein the line narrowing device includes: a grating system (fig.1/13 #5), a beam adjustment optical system (fig.1/13 #4s+6+actuators+controls) arranged on an optical path of a light beam (fig.1/13 shown as dotted lines) and configured to adjust the optical path of at least a part of the light beam so as to cause a first portion of the light beam (fig.1/13 #7) to be incident on a first region of the grating system (fig.1/13 at least upper portion of #5) and a second portion of the light beam (fig.1/13 #8) to be incident on a second region of the grating system (fig.1/13 at least lower portion of #5); and an adjustment mechanism (fig.1/13 #42b/43b/44b) configured to adjust an energy ratio of a wavelength component of a second wavelength selected as being incident on the second region to a wavelength component of a first wavelength selected as being incident on the first region by adjusting either a position or posture of at least one plane parallel substrate (fig.1/13 #6a/b, [0009]) included in the beam adjustment optical system ([0005, 7-9, 30, 31], actuators adjust mirror angles and position to control both selected wavelength 1/2 and energies thereof), and the processor controls the adjustment mechanism so that the energy ratio of the wavelength component of the second wavelength becomes a minimum value when the single-wavelength mode command is received from the external apparatus ([0009], energy ratio of second wavelength necessarily becomes minimum, 0, as no second wavelength component exists when using single wavelength mode) and controls the adjustment mechanism so that the energy ratio of the wavelength component of the second wavelength becomes larger than the minimum value when the multi-wavelength mode command is received from the external apparatus ([0009], energy ratio of second ratio necessarily larger than minimum value when two wavelength operation in effect). Saito further teaches at least 1 of the mirrors to rotate ([0009]), but does not disclose the adjustment mechanism rotation to be via a linear stage. Miyamoto teaches a related laser device (fig.1) which includes the use of a linear stage (fig.9 #9/#24/#25/#26/27) which is used to rotate an optical element (fig.9 #14p; noting the stage is linear as the direction of travel is only up/down in order to enable the rotation, [0069]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of a linear stage for enabling the rotation of 1 or both of the mirrors of Saito as taught by Miyamoto in order to utilize a simple mechanical means by which to provide the rotation of the elements (Miyamoto, [0069]).
Saito, as modified, further suggests use in a manufacturing setting ([0002, 30]), but does not teach outputting the pulse laser light to an exposure apparatus; and exposing a photosensitive substrate to the pulse laser light in the exposure apparatus to manufacture an electronic device. Miura teaches a related device including an exposure device ([0052]) using dual wavelength laser light ([0069]) to expose a photosensitive substrate ([0053, 85]) to manufacture an electronic device ([0001]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the method of Saito to output the laser light to an exposure device to expose a photosensitive substrate and manufacture an electronic device as demonstrated by Miura in order to make use of the system in a manufacturing capacity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the previously included pto892 form for a list of related art.
JP 2007-005538 (cited by applicant) is noted as teaching similar to that of Saito.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights