DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 8, 13, 21, 32, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki [JP 2014-207414] in view of Tsushima [JP 2007-012970] and Ozaki et al. [US 7,253,882] .
For claims 1, 13, 21, and 32, Matsuzaki teach a maskless lithography apparatus (see Figs. 1 and 6) comprising:
a chassis (15) supporting a substrate;
an optical writing head (20), said optical writing head being selectably operable at multiple ones of at least one of a plurality of at least partially different wavelength ranges (two or more different wavelengths, see pages 1 and 6);
a displacement subsystem (table 15 on which the substrate W is mounted is movable along the main scanning direction (X direction) and the sub scanning direction (Y direction), and the table 15 is driven by the table driving unit 17, see page 3) for providing desired relative displacement between said substrate and said optical writing head;
a power source (source 30 and 230) that provides a power output to said optical writing head (see Fig. 1 and 6);
and a writing controller (40) operative to cause said optical writing head to sequentially write a plurality of different patterns on said substrate at corresponding ones of said plurality of at least partially different wavelength ranges by writing partially mutually overlapping non-concentric spots at correspondingly different ones of said multiple ones of at least one of said plurality of at least partially different wavelength ranges (pattern lights P1 and P2 for each mirror group A1 and A2 for each wavelength, see page 4 and Fig. 3) and different patterns including patterns for electrical circuit features and alphanumeric characters (circuit pattern, see page 1), and
wherein said writing controller includes at least one pattern generator that supplies image data (mask pattern data, see page 3),
a step/frame generator that receives position information for said substrate and provides sequence inputs (position information is input to the control unit 40, control timing of each micromirror of the DMD 25 according to the relative position of the exposure area, light of a pattern to be drawn is sequentially projected at the position, see page 3), and
a frame and wavelength/intensity sequencer that receives said image data and said sequence inputs and provides output writing data to said optical writing head (42, data provided to control DMD based on wavelength and position timing, see page 4).
Matsuzaki fails to teach the optical writing head being selectably operable at multiple ones of at least one of a plurality of at least partially different intensity ranges, and a plurality of power controllers in electronic communication with said power source, wherein each of said power controllers receives output writing data and provides a wavelength/intensity selection output to said power source; a writing controller operative to cause said optical writing head write a plurality of different patterns on said substrate at a corresponding plurality of at least partially different intensity ranges, wherein said writing controller provides said output writing data to said power controllers, and wherein said writing controller provides instructions to said plurality of power controllers.
Ozaki teaches a plurality of power controllers (Light source drivers, 424, see Fig. 22) in electronic communication with said power source (LDs 64), wherein each of said power controllers receives output writing data provides a selection output to said power source (exposure control portion 422 transfers a lighting signal to a light source driver 424 for a light source unit 430 at a processing initiating timing (e.g., a timing at which movement of the movable stage 152 shown in FIG. 1 is to be initiated), and the light source driver 424 drives the laser module 64 on the basis of the lighting signal, see col. 19 lines 25-35); a writing controller provides said output writing data to said power controllers, and wherein said writing controller provides instructions to said plurality of power controllers (lighting signal sent to the light source driver 424 to initiate laser module 64 to provide imaging of pattern formed by DMD onto the substrate, see Fig. 1 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plurality of power controllers receiving writing data for controlling power source as taught by Ozaki in the control of the power sources as taught by Matsuzaki in order to provide for independent control of the light source wavelengths for adjusting the amount of light of the two divided pattern lights according to the mask pattern.
Tsushima teaches an optical writing head (see Fig. 5, 6 and 9) being selectably operable at multiple ones of at least one of a plurality of at least partially different intensity ranges, and a plurality of power controllers in electronic communication with a power source, wherein each of said power controllers provides a wavelength/intensity selection output to said power source (the light source unit 6 includes a light source 6a that outputs i-line, a light source 6b that outputs h-line, and a light source 6c that outputs g-line and each light source 6a, 6b, 6c can change the output (light intensity | strength) arbitrarily, to increase or decrease the output by increasing or decreasing the amount of energy (for example, electric power) input to the light source, see page 9); a writing head operative to cause said optical writing head write a plurality of different patterns on said substrate at a corresponding plurality of at least partially different intensity ranges (multiple circuit patterns with different light intensities, see page 11), wherein said writing provides instructions to said plurality of power controllers (control of energy power to each of the light sources 6a-6c, see page 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the intensity power control as taught by Tsushima as functions of the writing controller as taught by Matsuzaki in order to further control the cross section shape of the resist pattern.
For claim 8, Matsuzaki teaches said writing controller is operative to cause said optical writing head to write each of said plurality of different patterns in a plurality of frames at a corresponding plurality of different times (control timing of each micromirror of the DMD 25 according to the relative position of the exposure area, see pages 3 and 4).
For claim 37, Matsuzaki teaches said writing controller is operative to cause said optical writing head to sequentially write a plurality of different patterns in a selectable sequence (control timing of each micromirror of the DMD 25 according to the relative position of the exposure area, see pages 3 and 4).
For claim 38, the combination of Matsuzaki and Tsushima teaches said writing controller is operative to cause said optical writing head to sequentially write a plurality of different patterns (see pages 3 and 4 and Fig. 1 of Matsuzaki) at different intensities (see pages 9 and 11 and Fig. 5 of Tsushima).
Claims 4, 5, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki in view of Tsushima and Ozaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kato et al. [WO 2019/049940] and Sjostrom [US 2009/0197188].
For claims 4 and 5, the combination of Matsuzaki and Tsushima teaches the writing controller is operative to cause said optical writing head to sequentially write each of said plurality of different patterns at correspondingly said at least partially different wavelength (see page (see pages 3 and 4 and Fig. 1 of Matsuzaki), and/or said at least partially different intensity ranges (see pages 9 and 11 and Fig. 5 of Tsushima) by writing a plurality of different patterns using light at correspondingly different ones of said at least partially different wavelength (see pages 3 and 4 and Fig. 1 of Matsuzaki), and/or said at least partially different intensity ranges (see pages 9 and 11 and Fig. 5 of Tsushima).
Matsuzaki fails to teach writing mutually partially overlapping spots of different spot sizes for each of said plurality of different patterns, wherein said mutually partially overlapping spots of different spot sizes are non-concentric.
Kato teaches writing mutually partially overlapping spots for each of said plurality of different patterns (overlapping scan spots SP, SP’ along scan lines SL* as shown in Figs. 6, 11-14, 18, 19, and 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overlapping spots as taught by Kato in the exposure using spots as taught by Matsuzaki in order to achieve the necessary threshold dose to resolve the image in the photoresist.
Sjostrom teaches writing non-concentric spots of different spot sizes for each of said plurality of different patterns (310B and 330A or 330A and 320B, see Figs. 3d and 3e).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the non-concentric spots of different spot sizes as taught by Sjostrom in the exposure using spots as taught by Matsuzaki in order to compensate for discrepancies in the spot position and maintain desired critical dimension (see [0067]-[0074] of Sjostrom).
For claim 9, in the combination of Matsuzaki and Sjostrom, Sjostrom teaches said writing controller is operative to write each of said plurality of different patterns with a plurality of spots of a uniform size, the uniform size of the spots for each of said plurality of different patterns being different (310B and 330A or 330A and 320B, see Figs. 3d and 3e).
For claim 10, in the combination of Matsuzaki, Kato, and Sjostrom, Sjostrom teaches said plurality of spots written for each of said plurality of different patterns are written at partially mutually overlapping locations on said substrate (310B and 330A or 330A and 320B, see Figs. 3d and 3e), and Kato teaches said plurality of spots written for each of said plurality of different patterns are written at partially mutually overlapping locations on said substrate (overlapping scan spots SP, SP’ along scan lines SL* as shown in Figs. 6, 11-14, 18, 19, and 21).
For claim 11, in the combination of Matsuzaki and Sjostrom, Sjostrom teaches said plurality of spots written for each of said plurality of different patterns are each written at locations such that the centers of all of said plurality of spots forming a single pattern lie inside a single spot center outline (centers of the rows of 310B and 330A or 330A and 320B, see Figs. 3d and 3e).
For claim 12, in the combination of Matsuzaki and Sjostrom, Sjostrom teaches the single spot center outline of each pattern is arranged such that a corresponding spot of the plurality of spots does not extend beyond the design boundaries of an object to be written thereby (310B and 330A or 330A and 320B does not extend beyond 392 and 394, see Figs. 3d and 3e).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki in view of Tsushima and Ozaki as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Salmi [US 2003/0175625].
For claims 6 and 7, Matsuzaki fails to explicitly teach said writing controller is also operative to cause said optical writing head to write legends on soldermask or at least one of said plurality of different patterns defines an alphanumeric character.
Salmi teaches imaging legends on soldermask or at least one of said plurality of different patterns defines an alphanumeric character (see [0012] and [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a legend or alphanumeric character as taught by Salmi in the optical head writing of patterns as taught by Matsuzaki in order to provide markings for labeling or categorizing the printed circuit board for later retrieval or operational information.
Claims 33, 39, 41, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki in view of Tsushima, Ozaki, and Salmi as applied to claims 6 and 21 above, and further in view of Leung [US 5,109,149].
For claims 33, 39, 41, and 45, in the combination of Matsuzaki and Salmi, Salmi teaches writing a legend and alphanumeric characters on a soldermask (see [0012] and [0025]) and Matsuzaki teaches said a writing controller operative to cause said optical writing head to sequentially write a plurality of different patterns (see pages 3 and 4 and Fig. 1 of Matsuzaki), but fails to teach said writing controller is operative to cause said optical writing head to write at an accuracy of less than 5 microns, a legend and a text resolution of less than 300 microns, optical writing head to write a pattern and/or a legend at a size, an intensity and a soldermask legend hue which is invisible to an unaided human eye, and said optical writing head to write a legend at a spot size of less than 30 microns.
Leung teaches said writing controller is operative to cause said optical writing head to write at an accuracy of less than 5 microns (positioning accuracy of 0.1 micron, see col. 4 line 46 - col. 5 line 6), a legend and a text resolution of less than 300 microns, optical writing head to write a pattern and/or a legend at a size, an intensity and a soldermask legend hue which is invisible to an unaided human eye, and said optical writing head to write a legend at a spot size of less than 30 microns (focused laser spot 26 is in the order of 0.7 micron, see Fig. 3 lines ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the positioning accuracy as taught by Leung in the exposure system as taught by Matsuzaki in order to reduce error in beam location and increase the reproducibility of the exposure pattern.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13, and 21 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. Ozaki is relied upon to teach upon to teach the salient features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kaiser [US 2016/0291480] and Hawryluk [US 2010/0283978] each teach adjusting power and wavelength of exposure light.
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 Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights