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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 19, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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, 2, 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. [US 2002/0061472] in view of Page et al. [US 2016/0047980].
For claim 1, Cooper teaches a lithographic patterning system (see Fig. 4) comprising:
a first actinic radiation source (first source, see [0043]-[0045]), wherein the first actinic radiation source is configured to propagate light along a first optical axis (axis along a normal of a first mask);
a first mask (a first mask) for patterning the propagated light from the first actinic radiation source;
a second actinic radiation source (second source), wherein the second actinic radiation source is configured to propagate light along a second optical axis (axis along a normal of a second mask); and
a second mask (a second mask) for patterning the propagated light from the second actinic radiation source;
wherein the propagated light along the first optical axis from the first actinic radiation source forms an intersection in the photo-definable polymer layer with the propagated light along the second optical axis from the second actinic radiation source (intersecting projections, see [0005] and [0059] and Fig. 4), and
wherein a patterned semiconductor component is formed at the intersection (object formed, see [0005] and [0059] and Fig. 4).
Cooper fails to teach a stage for supporting a substrate with a photo-definable polymer layer, wherein the stage is orthogonal to a central axis.
Page teaches a stage (212, see Fig. 2A and 2B) for supporting a substrate (215) with a photo-definable polymer layer (polymerizable resin, see [0040]-[0041]), wherein the stage is orthogonal to a central axis (Z axis).
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 claimed stage as taught by Page as a support in the apparatus as taught by Cooper in order to retain the formed structure during manufacture and thereby increase object stability and alignment with the patterned radiation.
For claim 2, Cooper teaches the first and second actinic radiation sources are the same wavelength (see [0045]), but fails to explicitly teach that the sources provide UV light.
Page teaches the sources provide UV light (UV sources, see [0046]).
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 claimed wavelength as taught by Page in the apparatus as taught by Cooper in order to provide the desired energy density to polymerize photosensitive material and maintain throughput and resolution.
For claim 4, in the combination above, Page teaches the first and second actinic radiation sources comprise UV lasers (UV laser sources, see [0038] and [0046]).
For claim 6, Cooper teaches the first mask providing a first design for an angled exposure along the first optical axis (first angle of the optical axis for exposure of the first mask, see Figs. 4 and 5).
For claim 7, Cooper teaches the second mask providing a second design for an angled exposure along the second optical axis (second angle of the optical axis for exposure of the second mask, see Figs. 4 and 5).
For claim 8, Cooper fails to teach that the first optical axis is at a first angle with respect to the central axis and the second optical axis is at a second angle with respect to the central axis.
Page teaches the first optical axis is at a first angle with respect to the central axis and the second optical axis is at a second angle with respect to the central axis (angle of exposure relative the z-axis, see Figs. 2A and 2B).
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 claimed relative angle as taught by Page in the orientation of the optical axes as taught by Cooper in order to manufacture a desired lattice structure.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper and Page as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swainson [US 4,041,476].
For claim 3, Cooper teaches the two radiation beams have different wavelengths (see [0045]), but fails to teach the first actinic radiation source provides UV light and the second actinic radiation source provides IR light.
Swainson teaches the first actinic radiation source provides UV light and the second actinic radiation source provides IR light (infrared and ultraviolet beam sources, see Table 1, Fig. 1 and col. 10 lines 29-52).
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 claimed light source wavelengths as taught by Swainson as the different wavelength sources as taught by Cooper depending on the type of material used to manufacture the object and any dose requirements.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper and Page as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. [US 2021/0191282].
For claim 5, Cooper teaches first and second mask mounts that movable in the mask plane, see [0044]), and providing masks that are tilted with respect to the object (see Fig. 5), but fails to teach the first and second mask mounts, respectively, are configurable to orient the surfaces of the first and second masks at pre-selected angles with respect to the first and second optical axes.
Liu teaches a mask mount is configurable to orient the surfaces of the mask at a pre-selected angle with respect to the optical axis (tilt angle adjustment of the mount 211, see [0023] and Fig. 2B).
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 claimed tiltable mask mount as taught by Liu in the mask mounts as taught by Cooper in order to provide configurable pattern designs features that have relatives angles of less 90°.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper and Page as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Williams et al. [US 7,820,365].
For claim 9, Cooper teaches providing masks that are tilted with respect to the object so that the bisector angle between the optical axes is 30° (see Fig. 5 and [0023]) and Page teaches forming a lattice structure where the sources are provided at angles relative the central axis (see Figs. 2a and 2B). Both Cooper and Page fail to explicitly teach the first angle and the second angle are at approximately 45° angles with respect to the central axis.
Williams teaches the first angle and the second angle are at approximately 45° angles with respect to the central axis (+45° and -45° angles relative to the substrate, see Fig. 2B and col. 4 lines 1-22).
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 claimed 45° angle as taught by Williams in the orientation of the optical axes as taught by Cooper in order to form the desired lattice structure having 90° angle between the relative lattice elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kiss et al. [DE 103 50 705], Romanato et al. [US 2005/0064343], Jung et al. [US 2010/0035190], Jacobsen et al. [US 8,195,023], Mizumura [US 2013/0169917], Brueck et al. [US 9,152,040], and Yang et al. [US 9,738,013] each apparatus for providing masked exposure at different angles.
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