DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 6/25/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, 21, and 23-25 are pending.
Claims 2, 10, 16-20, and 22 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 9, and 12 are currently amended.
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, 3-9, 11-15, 21, and 23-25 (all pending claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR20220049651A, using US Pub. 2022/0113619 as the official English translation), in view of Terada (US Pub. 2004/0197433), Nishimura (US Pub. 20190353555), and Paeng (US Pub. 2021/0143032).
Regarding claim 1, Oh teaches a mask treating apparatus (Oh, Fig. 10, apparatus 300), comprising:
a controller configured to operate to control the mask treating apparatus to treat a mask having a first pattern within a plurality of cells thereof and a second pattern outside regions of the plurality of cells (Oh, Fig. 10, controller 390 is configured to identify a correction target area from among the plurality of pattern elements in which correction target pattern elements have a critical dimension different from a target critical dimension, and drive the laser to irradiate the laser beam to the correction target area while the chemical liquid is provided on the photomask 100, [0010]);
a support unit configured to support and rotate the mask (Oh, Fig. 10, [0085], support driving unit 330 supports and rotates the photomask 100); and
a heating unit having a laser irradiator configured to irradiate a laser light to a specific region of the mask supported on the support unit (Oh, Fig. 10, [0079], laser irradiation unit 360 irradiates laser beam LB to target correction area PA’), wherein
the controller is configured to control the support unit (Oh, Fig. 10, [0085], controller 390 controls driving unit 330) and the heating unit (Oh, Fig. 10, [0076], controller 390 controls laser irradiation unit 360), wherein the support unit comprises
a support part including a support shaft and a chuck, the support part configured to support the mask (Oh, Fig. 10, [0085], support portion 320 and support portion 310, where the photomask 100 is supported on portion 310), and
wherein the support shaft further comprises a rotation part configured to rotate the moving stage part during a supply of chemical (Oh, Fig. 10, [0069], photomask 100 may be configured to rotate during supply of the chemical liquid), and wherein the controller is configured to control the rotation part such that the mask does not rotate at all throughout an entire period during which the laser light is being irradiated by the laser irradiator to the second pattern, and stops rotating after the mask is supplied with the chemical to form a puddle of the chemical on the mask (Oh, Fig. 10, [0088], controller 390 may stop rotation of the photomask 100 and then irradiate the laser beam LB to the correction target area PA’).
Oh fails to teach a moving stage part having at least one component between the support shaft and the chuck and configured to move a position of the chuck independent of the support shaft, and wherein the controller is configured to control the moving stage part such that a position of the mask supported on the support part is changed such that the second pattern is positioned at the specific region.
However, Terada teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the moving stage part such that a position of the mask supported on the support part is changed such that the second pattern is positioned at the specific region (Terada, Fig. 5, [0114], control portion 81 commands drive portions 77 and 80 of X-Y stage 62 to move to predetermined coordinates, where the coordinates correspond to different discrete positions noted by plural alignment marks 15, [0128] and Fig. 11, and the process encompasses movement to each alignment mark 15, [0133]).
Terada is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor substrate processing. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the laser irradiation unit of Oh with the laser device of Terada, X-Y stage of Terada, and associated controller programming as doing so would provide a manner to correct the position of the substrate in relation to the laser irradiation position based on a real time imaging of the current position in relation to a predetermined optimum position (Terada, [0114]).
Modified Oh fails to teach a moving stage part having at least one component between the support shaft and the chuck and configured to move a position of the chuck independent of the support shaft.
However, Nishimura teaches a moving stage part having at least one component between the support shaft and the chuck and configured to move a position of the chuck independent of the support shaft (Nishimura, Fig. 3, [0022]-[0024], horizontal positioning mechanism 22 is located between chuck 22 and rotary mechanism 24 and moves the position of the chuck 22).
Nishimura is analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of semiconductor substrate processing. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the horizontal positioning mechanism in the manner of Nishimura into the apparatus of modified Oh as doing so would provide a mechanism for achieving high-accuracy position of the chuck mechanism on the horizontal plane (Nishimura, [0023]).
The Examiner construes ‘the mask having a first pattern within a plurality of cells thereof and a second pattern outside regions of the plurality of cells‘ as a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. The courts have held that such an inclusion does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
To clarify the record, the limitation “…configured to rotate the moving stage part during a supply of chemical“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The rotatable support unit and chemical supply unit of Oh are in communication with the controller wherein the controller can cause the chuck to rotate and cause the chemical to be supplied to the photomask, thereby being capable of performing the above limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Modified Oh fails to teach wherein the laser irradiator is configured to move such that the laser light hits a surface of the mask at an angle that is not perpendicular to the mask.
However, Paeng teaches wherein the laser irradiator is configured to move such that the laser light is not perpendicular to the mask (Paeng, Fig. 2, [0072]-[0073], second motor 232 can move mirror 216 to move laser beam from laser 204 at a tilted angle away from perpendicular centerline 248; [0128] describes where the beam angles can be ±3° from orthogonal, which meets the limitation; the Examiner also notes the claimed mask is found in the Oh reference, as combined herein).
Paeng is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the second motor of Paeng into the apparatus of modified Terada as doing so would allow for the possibility to move the laser beam spot location across various spots on the substrate (Paeng, [0072]) without having to motorize the laser itself. As well, it would allow for removal of the moving stage parts of modified Terada (plural motors or linear actuators vs one motor moving mirror), potentially saving costs while still allowing for directional control of the laser to the substrate.
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the laser irradiator is configured to move such that the laser light is not perpendicular to the mask“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The motor of Paeng is in contact with a mirror that is in line with a laser beam, and the motor is capable of tilting the mirror such that the reflected angle of the laser beam is varied, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 3, Oh teaches a liquid supply unit configured to supply a treating liquid to the mask supported on the support unit (Oh, Fig. 10, [0076], chemical supply unit 340 is configured to supply the chemical liquid CL to an upper surface of the photomask 100),
wherein the controller is configured to control the rotation part such that the mask is rotated while the liquid supply unit is supplying the treating liquid to the mask (Oh, Fig. 10, [0069], photomask 100 may be configured to rotate during supply of the chemical liquid).
To clarify the record, the limitation “…configured to supply a treating liquid to the mask supported on the support unit “ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The chemical supply unit of Oh is in communication with the controller wherein the controller can cause the chemical to be supplied to the photomask, thereby being capable of performing the above limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 4, modified Oh fails to teach a base positioned below the support chuck; a first driving part installed at the base and moving the support part in a first direction which is horizontal to the ground; and a second driving part installed at the base and moving the support part in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction and horizontal to the ground.
However, Nishimura teaches a base positioned below the support chuck (Nishimura, Fig. 3, [0022]-[0026], horizontal positioning mechanism 22 is located below chuck 22 on holding plate 251); a first driving part installed at the base and moving the support part in a first direction which is horizontal to the ground (Nishimura, Fig. 3, [0022]-[0024], horizontal positioning mechanism 22 includes an XY table for movements in direction orthogonal to each other in the horizontal direction, which can include two linear motors in combination orthogonal to each other); and a second driving part installed at the base and moving the support part in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction and horizontal to the ground (Nishimura, Fig. 3, [0022]-[0024], horizontal positioning mechanism 22 includes an XY table for movements in direction orthogonal to each other in the horizontal direction, which can include two linear motors in combination orthogonal to each other).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the horizontal positioning mechanism in the manner of Nishimura into the apparatus of modified Oh as doing so would provide a mechanism for achieving high-accuracy position of the chuck mechanism on the horizontal plane (Nishimura, [0023]).
Regarding claim 5, Oh fails to teach a container defining a treating space and a recollecting path, wherein the support unit is configured to support the mask at the treating space.
However, Terada teaches a container defining a treating space and a recollecting path (Terada, Fig. 5, [0107], cup 61 defines a space within which chuck 60, recovery nozzle 66, and discharge opening 72 are disposed), the treating space for treating the mask and the recollecting path for recollecting the treating liquid (Terada, Fig. 6, [0121], recovery nozzle 66 recovers fluid dispensed form main nozzle 64 and is connected to recovery tank 96),
wherein the support unit is configured to support the mask at the treating space (Terada, Fig. 5, [0107], cup 61 encompasses chuck 60, upon which the substrate is located).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the liquid recovery portions of Terada into the apparatus of Oh as doing so would provide a mechanism to discharge the liquid from the processing area (Terada, [0107]).
Regarding claim 6, Oh fails to teach wherein a position of the laser irradiator is fixed while the laser irradiator irradiates the laser light.
However, Terada teaches wherein a position of the laser irradiator is fixed while the laser irradiator irradiates the laser light (Terada, Fig. 5, [0113], laser device 63 is fixed to upper surface of casing 4a).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the laser irradiation unit of Oh with the laser device of Terada, X-Y stage of Terada, and associated controller programming as doing so would provide a manner to correct the position of the substrate in relation to the laser irradiation position based on a real time imaging of the current position in relation to a predetermined optimum position (Terada, [0114]).
Regarding claim 7, Oh teaches wherein the mask treating apparatus is configured to perform a process for reducing a deviation between a critical dimension of the first pattern and a critical dimension of the second pattern by irradiating the laser light with respect to the second pattern (Oh, Figs. 3, 4A and 4B, [0042], main pattern elements P1, auxiliary pattern elements P2, where target pattern elements P1’ are identified to deviate from the target critical dimension, [0049], and in process S28, the CD correction may be performed through local etching by irradiating a laser beam to the correction target area, [0071]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “the mask treating apparatus is configured to perform a process for reducing a deviation between a critical dimension of the first pattern and a critical dimension of the second pattern by irradiating the laser light with respect to the second pattern“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The controller of Oh controls the subsystems of the apparatus to apply laser irradiation to a specified region of a photomask that has been identified as needing correction, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 8, Oh teaches wherein regarding the first pattern and the second pattern provided at each cell, the first pattern is a monitoring pattern of an exposing pattern formed at a cell and the second pattern is a condition setting pattern of the mask treating apparatus (Oh, Figs. 3, 4A and 4B, [0042], main pattern elements P1, auxiliary pattern elements P2, where target pattern elements P1’ are identified to deviate from the target critical dimension, [0049], and in process S28, the CD correction may be performed through local etching by irradiating a laser beam to the correction target area, [0071]).
The Examiner construes ‘a first pattern and a second pattern provided at each cell, the first pattern is a monitoring pattern of an exposing pattern formed at a cell and the second pattern is a condition setting pattern of the mask treating apparatus‘ as a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. The courts have held that such an inclusion does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 9, Oh teaches a substrate treating apparatus (Oh, Fig. 10, apparatus 300), comprising:
a support unit configured to support and rotate a substrate at which a pattern is formed (Oh, Fig. 10, [0085], support driving unit 330 supports and rotates the photomask 100);
a heating unit configured to heat a specific region of the substrate (Oh, Fig. 10, [0079], laser irradiation unit 360 irradiates laser beam LB to target correction area PA’);
a controller configured to control the support unit and the heating unit (Oh, Fig. 10, [0085], controller 390 controls driving unit 330 and laser irradiation unit 360, [0076]),
wherein the support unit comprises:
a support part including a support shaft and a chuck, the support part configured to support the substrate (Oh, Fig. 10, [0085], support portion 320 and support portion 310, where the photomask 100 is supported on portion 310); and
wherein the support shaft further comprises a rotation part configured to rotate the moving stage part during a supply of chemical (Oh, Fig. 10, [0069], photomask 100 may be configured to rotate during supply of the chemical liquid), and wherein the controller is configured to control the rotation part such that the substrate does not rotate at all throughout an entire period during which laser light is being irradiated by the heating unit to the specific pattern and stops rotating after the substrate is supplied with the chemical to form a puddle of the chemical on the substrate (Oh, Fig. 10, [0088], controller 390 may stop rotation of the photomask 100 and then irradiate the laser beam LB to the correction target area PA’).
Oh fails to teach a moving stage part having at least one component between the support shaft and the chuck and configured to change a position of the chuck independent of the support shaft, and the controller is configured to control the moving stage part such that a position of the substrate supported on the support unit is changed to have a specific pattern among the pattern positioned at the specific region.
However, Terada teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the moving stage part such that a position of the substrate supported on the support unit is changed to have a specific pattern among the pattern positioned at the specific region (Terada, Fig. 5, [0114], control portion 81 commands drive portions 77 and 80 of X-Y stage 62 to move to predetermined coordinates, where the coordinates correspond to different discrete positions noted by plural alignment marks 15, [0128] and Fig. 11, and the process encompasses movement to each alignment mark 15, [0133]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the laser irradiation unit of Oh with the laser device of Terada, X-Y stage of Terada, and associated controller programming as doing so would provide a manner to correct the position of the substrate in relation to the laser irradiation position based on a real time imaging of the current position in relation to a predetermined optimum position (Terada, [0114]).
Modified Oh fails to teach a moving stage part having at least one component between the support shaft and the chuck and configured to change a position of the chuck independent of the support shaft (Nishimura, Fig. 3, [0022]-[0024], horizontal positioning mechanism 22 is located between chuck 22 and rotary mechanism 24 and moves the position of the chuck 22).
However, Nishimura teaches a moving stage part having at least one component between the support shaft and the chuck and configured to change a position of the chuck independent of the support shaft (Nishimura, Fig. 3, [0022]-[0024], horizontal positioning mechanism 22 is located between chuck 22 and rotary mechanism 24 and moves the position of the chuck 22).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the horizontal positioning mechanism in the manner of Nishimura into the apparatus of modified Oh as doing so would provide a mechanism for achieving high-accuracy position of the chuck mechanism on the horizontal plane (Nishimura, [0023]).
The Examiner construes ‘a substrate at which a pattern is formed‘ as a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. The courts have held that such an inclusion does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
To clarify the record, the limitation “…configured to rotate the moving stage part during a supply of chemical“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The rotatable support unit and chemical supply unit of Oh are in communication with the controller wherein the controller can cause the chuck to rotate and cause the chemical to be supplied to the photomask, thereby being capable of performing the above limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Modified Oh fails to teach wherein the heating unit is configured to move such that the laser light hits a surface of the substrate at an angle that is not perpendicular to the surface of the substrate.
However, Paeng teaches wherein the laser irradiator is configured to move such that the laser light is not perpendicular to the substrate (Paeng, Fig. 2, [0072]-[0073], second motor 232 can move mirror 216 to move laser beam from laser 204 at a tilted angle away from perpendicular centerline 248; [0128] describes where the beam angles can be ±3° from orthogonal, which meets the limitation).
Paeng is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of semiconductor processing. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the second motor of Paeng into the apparatus of modified Terada as doing so would allow for the possibility to move the laser beam spot location across various spots on the substrate (Paeng, [0072]) without having to motorize the laser itself. As well, it would allow for removal of the moving stage parts of modified Terada (plural motors or linear actuators vs one motor moving mirror), potentially saving costs while still allowing for directional control of the laser to the substrate.
To clarify the record, the limitation “wherein the laser irradiator is configured to move such that the laser light is not perpendicular to the mask“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The motor of Paeng is in contact with a mirror that is in line with a laser beam, and the motor is capable of tilting the mirror such that the reflected angle of the laser beam is varied, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 11, Oh teaches a liquid supply unit configured to supply a treating liquid to the substrate supported on the support unit (Oh, Fig. 10, [0076], chemical supply unit 340 is configured to supply the chemical liquid CL to an upper surface of the photomask 100), and wherein the controller is configured to control the rotation part so the substrate is rotated while the liquid supply unit is supplying the treating liquid to the substrate (Oh, Fig. 10, [0069], photomask 100 may be configured to rotate during supply of the chemical liquid).
To clarify the record, the limitation “…configured to supply a treating liquid to the substrate supported on the support unit “ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The chemical supply unit of Oh is in communication with the controller wherein the controller can cause the chemical to be supplied to the photomask, thereby being capable of performing the above limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 12, modified Oh fails to teach wherein the moving stage part comprises: a base positioned below the support part; a first driving part installed at the base and moving the support part in a first direction which is horizontal to the ground; and a second driving part installed at the base and moving the support part in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction and horizontal to the ground.
However, Nishimura teaches wherein the moving stage part comprises:
a base positioned below the support part (Nishimura, Fig. 3, [0022]-[0026], horizontal positioning mechanism 22 is located below chuck 22 on holding plate 251);
a first driving part installed at the base and moving the support part in a first direction which is horizontal to the ground (Nishimura, Fig. 3, [0022]-[0024], horizontal positioning mechanism 22 includes an XY table for movements in direction orthogonal to each other in the horizontal direction, which can include two linear motors in combination orthogonal to each other); and
a second driving part installed at the base and moving the support part in a second direction which is orthogonal to the first direction and horizontal to the ground (Nishimura, Fig. 3, [0022]-[0024], horizontal positioning mechanism 22 includes an XY table for movements in direction orthogonal to each other in the horizontal direction, which can include two linear motors in combination orthogonal to each other).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the horizontal positioning mechanism in the manner of Nishimura into the apparatus of modified Oh as doing so would provide a mechanism for achieving high-accuracy position of the chuck mechanism on the horizontal plane (Nishimura, [0023]).
Regarding claim 13, Oh teaches wherein the heating unit includes a laser irradiator irradiating a laser light to the specific pattern (Oh, Fig. 10, [0079], laser irradiation unit 360 irradiates laser beam LB to target correction area PA’).
Oh fails to teach a position of the laser irradiator is fixed while the laser irradiator irradiates the laser.
However, Terada teaches a position of the laser irradiator is fixed while the laser irradiator irradiates the laser light (Terada, Fig. 5, [0113], laser device 63 is fixed to upper surface of casing 4a).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the laser irradiation unit of Oh with the laser device of Terada, X-Y stage of Terada, and associated controller programming as doing so would provide a manner to correct the position of the substrate in relation to the laser irradiation position based on a real time imaging of the current position in relation to a predetermined optimum position (Terada, [0114]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “to the specific pattern“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The control device and X-Y stage of Terada work in concert to move the chuck/substrate to any X-Y coordinates, where laser device 63 emits beams to the substrate, thereby being capable of performing the above limitation ([0114]). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 14, Oh teaches wherein the substrate treating apparatus is configured to perform a process for minimizing a deviation between a critical dimension of the specific pattern and a critical dimension of a pattern aside from the specific pattern by irradiating the laser light with respect to the specific pattern (Oh, Figs. 3, 4A and 4B, [0042], main pattern elements P1, auxiliary pattern elements P2, where target pattern elements P1’ are identified to deviate from the target critical dimension, [0049], and in process S28, the CD correction may be performed through local etching by irradiating a laser beam to the correction target area, [0071]).
To clarify the record, the limitation “the substrate treating apparatus is configured to perform a process for minimizing a deviation between a critical dimension of the specific pattern and a critical dimension of a pattern aside from the specific pattern by irradiating the laser light with respect to the specific pattern“ is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. The controller of Oh controls the subsystems of the apparatus to apply laser irradiation to a specified region of a photomask that has been identified as needing correction, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 15, Oh teaches wherein the specific pattern is a condition setting pattern of the substrate treating apparatus (Oh, Figs. 3, 4A and 4B, [0042], main pattern elements P1, auxiliary pattern elements P2, where target pattern elements P1’ are identified to deviate from the target critical dimension, [0049], and in process S28, the CD correction may be performed through local etching by irradiating a laser beam to the correction target area, [0071]).
The Examiner construes ‘the specific pattern is a condition setting pattern’ as a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. The courts have held that such an inclusion does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 21, modified Oh teaches wherein the chuck is located within the treating space (Terada, Figs. 5-6, [0105]-[0106], chuck 60 horizontally supports substrate W within casing 4a of apparatus 4).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the laser irradiation unit of Oh with the laser device of Terada, X-Y stage of Terada, and associated controller programming as doing so would provide a manner to correct the position of the substrate in relation to the laser irradiation position based on a real time imaging of the current position in relation to a predetermined optimum position (Terada, [0114]).
Modified Oh fails to teach wherein the moving stage part is configured to move the chuck within the treating space.
However, Nishimura teaches wherein the moving stage part is configured to move the chuck within the treating space (Nishimura, Fig. 3, [0022]-[0024], horizontal positioning mechanism 22 is located below chuck 22 and moves the position of the chuck 22).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the horizontal positioning mechanism in the manner of Nishimura into the apparatus of modified Oh as doing so would provide a mechanism for achieving high-accuracy position of the chuck mechanism on the horizontal plane (Nishimura, [0023]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Oh teaches wherein the chuck is located within the treating space (Terada, Figs. 5-6, [0105]-[0106], chuck 60 horizontally supports substrate W within casing 4a of apparatus 4).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the laser irradiation unit of Oh with the laser device of Terada, X-Y stage of Terada, and associated controller programming as doing so would provide a manner to correct the position of the substrate in relation to the laser irradiation position based on a real time imaging of the current position in relation to a predetermined optimum position (Terada, [0114]).
Modified Oh fails to teach the moving stage part is configured to move the chuck in a first direction and in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Nishimura teaches wherein the moving stage part is configured to move the chuck in a first direction and in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction (Nishimura, Fig. 3, [0022]-[0024], horizontal positioning mechanism 22 includes an XY table for movements in direction orthogonal to each other in the horizontal direction, which can include two linear motors in combination orthogonal to each other).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the horizontal positioning mechanism in the manner of Nishimura into the apparatus of modified Oh as doing so would provide a mechanism for achieving high-accuracy position of the chuck mechanism on the horizontal plane (Nishimura, [0023]).
Regarding claim 24, Oh teaches wherein the mask is a photomask (Oh, Fig. 10, [0076], apparatus 300 for correcting the photomask).
The Examiner construes ‘the mask is a photomask‘ as a material or article worked upon by the apparatus. The courts have held that such an inclusion does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 25, Oh teaches wherein the support unit includes a plurality of support pins configured to lift the mask above the chuck (Oh, Fig. 10, [0084], guide structure 315 supports photomask 100 above chuck surface).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has appropriately amended claims 1 and 9 to eliminate indefinite claim language, thus the §112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the §103 rejections of claims 1 and 9 have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive. Claims 1 and 9 incorporate subject matter similar to previous claim 22, now cancelled.
The Examiner notes that neither the claimed “laser irradiator” (claim 1) or “heating unit” (claim 9) are described as having any embedded memory or processor, thus the function of said unit is not structurally limiting in the same way as the claimed controller.
The Examiner construes the operation of the heating unit newly added to claims 1 and 9 as an intended use of the laser unit. In this light, the operation of the device is given patentable weight only to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2114(II).
The previous Examiner provided the following statement explaining the capability of the Oh apparatus modified by at least the Paeng reference:
“[t]he motor of Paeng is in contact with a mirror that is in line with a laser beam, and the motor is capable of tilting the mirror such that the reflected angle of the laser beam is varied, thereby being structurally capable of meeting the claim limitation” (Non-Final Office Action dated 3/31/2026, pg. 23).
The current Examiner agrees with the previous interpretation and statement of capability, thus the rejection of previous claim 22 has been applied in substantially the same form and scope to amended claims 1 and 9.
The Examiner additionally notes that, even if it could be shown that the above interpretation is incorrect, Paeng explicitly discloses where the angles of incidence of the irradiated laser light are are 90±3° (par. [0128]), which meets the limitation.
For at least these reasons, the §103 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
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 Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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.
/Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights