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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 18, 2025, has been entered.
This Office Action is also in response to applicant’s amendment filed on November 18, 2025, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1 and 12.
Claims 1-13 remain pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Paul et al (US 206/0377988 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Richter (US 2020/0331100 A1).
Claims 1 and 12 have been amended to necessitate a new ground rejection.
Paul et al teaches an optical element, with regard to claim 12, and method for making the element, with regard to claim 1, wherein the optical element is for beam shaping of a laser beam having a first wavelength such as ultraviolet beam (lEVA, known to have a wavelength of at least 100 nm), wherein the method comprises the steps: providing an EVA reflector, that may serve as the laser mirror, having a layered structure made of a substrate (2, Figure 15), a dielectric layer (5), and an absorption layer (9) with the absorption layer being located between the substrate and the dielectric layer. Paul et al teaches that the dielectric layer (5) may comprise a plurality of individual layers which consist of layer pairs made of two materials with different refractive indices, (please see paragraph [0068]). Paul et al further teaches that the materials may include dielectric materials.
With regard to claim 12, Paul et al teaches that the optical element for beam shaping of a laser beam (4, Figure 15) having a first wavelength having a first wavelength such as ultraviolet beam (lEVA, known to have a wavelength of at least 100 nm), the beam shaping of the laser beam having the first wavelength taking place by the reflection of the laser beam on the optical element. Paul et al teaches that the optical element has a layered structure made of a substrate (2, Figure 15), a dielectric layer (5), and an absorption layer (9) with the absorption layer being located between the substrate and the dielectric layer. Paul et al teaches that the dielectric layer (5) may comprise a plurality of individual layers which consist of layer pairs made of two materials with different refractive indices, (please see paragraph [0068]). Paul et al further teaches that the materials may include dielectric materials.
Paul et al further teaches the method comprises the step of generating a plurality of bulges of the dielectric layer by treating the laser mirror with a series of focused heating layer beams (7, from laser source 8, please see paragraph [0107]), having a second heating wavelength (lH) that is different from the first wavelength, (please see the abstract). The plurality of bulges are formed directly by the heating laser beams in situ without adding any additional material or removing any material from the laser mirror. The plurality of bulges having a height perpendicular to the dielectric layer and the layered structure of the dielectric layer is maintained for the bulges, (please see Figure 15).
Paul et al teaches that the plurality of bulges may be formed into a two dimensional array, (please see Figures 11, 12A and 12B) but it does not teach explicitly the optical element is a diffractive optical element.
Richter in the same field of endeavor teaches a laser processing machine for forming surface structure on a workpiece wherein a series of focused laser beams incident on the workpiece to form a plurality of bulges, (please see Figures 1 and 2 and the abstract). Richter teaches the bulges may form diffractive optical element (DOE, please see paragraph [0013]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Richter to modify the optical element of Paul et al to make the optical element being a diffractive optical element for the benefit of allowing the element being utilized as diffractive element. Although these references do not teach explicitly that the height of the bulge is at least half of the first wavelength, such feature is either implicitly met or obviously modified by one skilled in the art since in order for the bulges to diffract the light of the first wavelength (lEUV) the height has to be proportional to the wavelength in order for proper phase modulation be imparted to the light having the first wavelength while encounters the diffractive optical element to undergo interference among the light beams.
With regard to claim 2, these references do not teach explicitly that the laser or EUV mirror provided and the diffractive optical element has the claimed transmission for the first wavelength. However, the optical element is to serve as an EUV mirror for reflecting the EUV or first wavelength, and the optical element has the identical structure as the claim, it is either implicitly true or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to make it have the desired transmission so that it would reflect the light of first wavelength more efficiently.
With regard to claim 4, Paul et al in light of Richter teaches when treating the layer mirror, the series of focused heating laser beam provides a heat input of the into the volume of the dielectric layer and/or absorption layer. Although these references do not teach explicitly that the heat input is at least 30 kJ/cm3, such feature is either implicitly included or obvious modification by one skilled in the art to actually heating the optical element to form the plurality of bulges.
With regard to claim 5, it is implicitly true the height of at least one bulge may be designed by selecting layer thickness of the dielectric layer and/or absorption layer and the heating duration and/or power of the heating the laser beam. In order for the diffractive optical element to shape the laser light having the first wavelength, the height of the bulge has to be proportional to the first wavelength or integer multiple of the first wavelength which means that it can be designed to be at least half of the first wavelength to provide the desired diffraction and shaping properties.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, Paul et al teaches that the absorption layer (9) may consist of silicon, (please see paragraph [0022]). Paul et al teaches that the mirror is treated with a series of focused heating laser beams and the second wavelength of the heating layer beam may include wavelength between 400 nm and 900 nm, (please see paragraph [0026]). It is within general level skilled in the art and obvious matters of design choice to design the heating beam with a wavelength in the claimed range of 200 nm to 700 nm. Although this reference does not teach explicitly that the thickness of the absorption layer is greater than 30 nm, such modification is considered to be obvious to one skilled in the art to achieve the absorption function of the heating light beam.
With regard to claims 8-10, both Rhee et al and Richter teach to use laser beam to form the diffractive optical element with a plurality of bulges or grating lines. Richter specifically that the laser light is focused heating laser to form the plurality of bulges. However, these references do not teach explicitly that the focused heating laser beams has the claimed power, the claimed full width at half maximum and claimed heating duration. However, such are either implicitly met for actually forming the bulges or obvious matters of design choices to one skilled in the art to actually forming the bulges.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul et al and Richter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Shirai (PN. 6,310,905).
The method for producing a diffractive optical element for beam shaping of a laser beam taught by Paul et al in combination with the teachings of Richter as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 3, Paul et al teaches that the absorption layer (9) may consist of silicon, (please see paragraph [0022]). The substrate may consist of glass, (please see paragraph [0024]). This reference however does not teach explicitly that the dielectric layer consist of the claimed materials.
Shirai in the same field of endeavor teaches an EUV reflector that is comprised of multilayer structure including dielectric materials such as aluminum oxide, hafnium oxide, magnesium fluoride and lanthanum fluoride, (please see column 2, line 32 to column 3, line 6). It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings of Shirai to modify the EUV reflector to alternatively include the above mentioned dielectric materials since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul et al and Richter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Sohn et al (US 2015/0306704 A1).
The method for producing a diffractive optical element for beam shaping of a laser beam taught by Paul et al in combination with the teachings of Richter as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 11 and 13, Paul et al teaches that a series of laser beams (7, Figures 11 and 14A) is used to treat the mirror wherein the mirror or optical element is displaced during the treatment along a displacement direction perpendicular to the heating laser beam. Richter also teaches that when treating the laser mirror with a series of focused heating laser beams the laser mirror or the element is displaced during the treating along a displacement direction (please see Figure 1) perpendicular to the hearing laser beam. These references however do not teach explicitly that the heating laser is deflected during the treatment perpendicularly to the displacement direction. With regard to claim 13, these references also do not teach explicitly about a device for performing the method for producing the diffractive optical element. Sohn et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a device for manufacturing grooves on an optical film wherein the device is comprised of a heating laser (1, please see Figure 1) producing haring laser beam, a film moving unit serves as the laser mirror positioning device for providing the film, a focusing device for focusing the heating laser beam onto the film, a mirror (R, Figures 12 and 13) serves as the deflection device and a controller (300). The film moving unit serves as the laser mirror positioning device being designed to displace the film or laser mirror in a displacement direction. The mirror or deflection device being designed to deflect the heating laser beam perpendicularly to the displacement direction and the controller (300, Figure 1) being designed to actuate the heating laser, the mirror or deflection device (R ) and the film moving unit or laser mirror positioning device.
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Sohn et al to provide a device for performing the method for producing the diffractive optical element specifically to include a controller and a deflection device to deflect the heating laser beam to desired locations of the optical element for the benefit of controlling formation of the bulges or diffractive optical element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 18, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and addressed for the reasons set forth above. Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended claims that have been fully addressed for the reasons set forth above. The applicant being one skilled in the art must have the basic knowledge that laser processing means that directly heats the material to form the surface bulges structure with whether adding or removing the material or not are well-known in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached on 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872