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 .
This is response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 01/27/2026. Claims 1-11 are pending in the office action.
Claim 8 has been amended.
Claim objection is obviated in view of claim amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the follow reasons:
35 U.S.C 102:
Application’s position:
Ding et al., was published on January 1, 2023. The present patent application was filed on December 22, 2022, which was less than 1 year after the download date of the paper. … Ding et al., is not eligible to be prior art under 35 U.S.C 102(b)(1)(A), and thus cannot be used as a reference for this anticipation rejection.
Examiner’s position:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position as the follow reason:
First, the date of Ding et al., publication on January 1, 2023 was not corrected (see the attached image).
PNG
media_image1.png
839
1107
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Secondly, there are two different publication dates on two different sources
First publisher: Journal of Lightwave Technology, published on January 2022 that before the patent application date December 22, 2022.
Second publisher: IEEE, date of publication is October 19, 2021 which is more than 1 year before the patent application effective filling date as December 22, 2022.
Using IEEE publisher, thus Ding et al., is well qualified as the prior art under 35 U.S.C 102(b)(1)(A).
Hence, claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 102 is sustained.
35 U.S.C 103:
Application’s position:
Ding et al., is not eligible to be prior art under 35 U.S.C 102(b)(1)(A), and thus cannot be used as a reference for this anticipation rejection.
In addition, the technology and apparatus described in Van De Peut et al. are fundamentally different from the present claimed invention and Ding et al. Van De Peut et al. relates to an electron beam-based maskless lithography, whereas the presently claimed invention and Ding et al. relate to an UV light-based maskless lithography. As a result, the apparatuses are entirely distinct. The apparatus described by Van De Peut et al. includes components for manipulating electron beamlets, such as an aperture array, beam stop array, and beam deflector array, which are not applicable to the presently claimed invention or Ding et al.
Due to these fundamental differences, the methods used for processing input pattern data to generate exposure dose maps also differ significantly. Van De Peut et al. address issues related to electron beam exposure, such as resist heating correction, while the focus on issues associated with optical exposure, such as light scattering. Consequently, the exposure dose maps produced by Van de Peut et al's method typically feature gray-scale edges with a bright inner region, as shown in FIGS.8C,8D, and SF. This is the opposite of the present exposure dose maps, which, as shown in FIG. 3, typically have bright edges and a gray-scale inner region.
Examiner’s position:
First of all, similar as above, Using IEEE publisher, date of publication is October 19, 2021 which is more than 1 year before the patent application effective filling date as December 22, 2022. Thus Ding et al., is well qualified as the prior art under 35 U.S.C 102(b)(1)(A).
Secondly, after further review and broader interpretation “around a boundary between two adjacent submaps” which is considered “the transition zones between two adjacent submaps” (see Ding’s fig. 4(d)-4(h)), hence, Ding et al., alone, without in view of Van De Peut et al., (U.S. Pub. 2012/0286173), Ding would read on the limitation “transition zones around a boundary between two adjacent submaps” (see Ding’s fig. 4(d)-4(h), and page 166, col. 1, last paragraph). Thus, Ding et al., read on the limitation “transition zones around a boundary between two adjacent submaps”
Therefore, claim rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 is sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding et al., Fabrication of Polymer Optical Waveguides by Digital Ultraviolet Lithography, Journal of Lightwave Technology, IEEE, Vol. 40, No. 1, January 1, 2022, pages 163-169).
As per claim 8: Ding discloses a method of performing the optimization of parameters for DUL process, comprising:
designing a line pattern with all white pixels (fig. 3(a) all-white 8-pixel wide line pattern);
designing a line pattern with half-maximum gray edges on both sides and one more pixel wider in line width than the abovementioned line pattern (fig. 3(c) a 9-pixel wide line pattern with half-maximum gray edge, hence the 9-pixel has one more pixel wider than all-while 8-pixel wide line pattern); and
designing one angled line pattern (fig. 3(e) angle line pattern);
to optimize a total exposure time tr, a threshold of exposure time to, and an FWHM w via trial fabrication and optimization of all the three patterns (page 165, col. 2, fabrication conditions includes parameters “a total exposure time, a threshold of exposure time in equation (3), and an FWHM in equation (4)).
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) 1-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al., Fabrication of Polymer Optical Waveguides by Digital Ultraviolet Lithography, Journal of Lightwave Technology, IEEE, Vol. 40, No. 1, January 1, 2022, pages 163-169) in view of Van De Peut et al., (U.S. Pub. 2012/0286173).
As per claim 1: Ding teaches a method of performing digital lithography for a maskless (virtual mask) optical exposure process (the abstract), comprising:
converting a computer aided design (CAD) pattern into a bitmap (pages 164-165, the designed patterns of waveguides were converted into 8-bit grayscale bitmaps); and
transforming the bitmap to an exposure dose-map for (1) compensation of a proximity effect and (2) adaptive to a non-linear response curve of a photoresist (page 164, col. 1, proximity effects are corrected by an exposure dose-map calculated with the approximation of Gaussian-like light pixel. Stitching loss is depressed by creation of non-linear transition zone in quadratic form), and
slicing the exposure dose-map into a plurality of submaps with transition zones between two adjacent submaps so as to depress a stitching error caused by mechanical mispositioning when the substrate is moved from one position to the next by a motorized stage (page 164, col. 2, III. Fabication and Optimization, “nano-precision motorized stage”, fig. 4a and 4b, slice or partition (read lines) into subpattern 1 and subpattern 2 (submaps); fig. 4(d)-4(h) SEM image of the stitching transition zone of the fabricated waveguide with different compensation coefficients, page 165, col. 1-col. 2, to reduce optical loss of stitching mislignment (i.e., misposition), transition zone were introduced between adjacent subpatterns, fig. 4(d)-4(h) shown ), transition zone boarder/boundary (red circles) were introduced between adjacent subpatterns).
Ding teaches the grayscale value of the pixels around the abutting center line and transition zones between two adjacent submaps (see fig. 4(d) – 4(h) SEM images of the stitching transition zone), but Ding silence transition zones around a boundary between two adjacent submaps.
Van De Peut teaches the data for each field may also be split into stripes, to be written by one channel of the system. This may be done by splitting the field dose map into a dose map per channel, and reducing polygons to the stripe area written by one channel. The stripe area preferably extends beyond the borders of the stripe, to account for stitching strategy and dithering startup artifacts. If a "smart boundary" stitching strategy is used, where critical features are assigned to a single channel/stripe, then the critical features of polygons on the stripe boundary are assigned to a particular stripe/channel when splitting up the dose map (‘173, par. [0078] and also see fig. 8B-8C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Van De Peut and Ding using Van De Peut’s “smart boundary” stitching strategy Ding’s subpatterns for performing various type of corrections which may involve pattern shifting or scaling in two dimensions and involving multiple pixel or sub-pixel shifts (‘173, par. [0006]).
As per claim 2: Ding and Van De Peut teach the method according to claim 1, further comprising: performing a closed-loop exposure of the plurality of exposure dose-submaps on a substrate using a submap data bank generated by the transforming of the bitmap to the exposure dose-map and the slicing of the exposure dose-map into the plurality of submaps (page 163, col. 1, DUL/DMD, fig. 2, CCD as close-loop exposure, and fig. 4(a)-4(b) subpattens; 173, par. [0082] [0084]).
As per claim 3: Ding and Van De Peut teach the method according to claim 1, where assuming that a gray value g is analogically represented by a depth of light penetration in the photoresist in the exposure process, a exposure time t is determined in accordance with the Beer Lambert law as
PNG
media_image2.png
12
84
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where t0 is the threshold of exposure time, the constant cr depends on contents of the SU-8 photoresist which is one of a photoinitiator or an inhibitor, as well as an intensity of a UV source which generates UV light to provide a light pattern (page 165, col. 1, first paragraph and equation (3)).
As per claim 4: Ding and Van De Peut teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the compensation of the proximity effect comprises: modeling a scattered light intensity distribution of each pixel of a light pattern derived from the CAD pattern using a Gaussian-like distribution function (page 165, col. 1, B. Proximity Effect Compensation and Seamless Stitching, “to compensate proximity effect, we model the scattered light intensity distributions of each pixel by using a Gaussian-like distribution function).
As per claim 5: Ding and Van De Peut teach the method according to claim 4, wherein the Gaussian-like distribution function is:
PNG
media_image3.png
18
109
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where P is a scattered light intensity of adjacent pixels of the light pattern with a distance of rto the central position of the light pixel with a peak intensity of Po, and w is a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the scattered light distribution (page 165, col. 1, B. Proximity Effect Compensation and Seamless Stitching, equation (4)).
As per claim 6: Ding and Van De Peut teach the method according to claim 1, wherein grayscale values corresponding to exposure doses of the pixels in each transition zone are compensated in quadratic form so as to compensate for the potential width difference induced by two separated exposures (page 166, col. 1, we set the grayscale values which are corresponding to the exposure dose, of the pixels in transition zone in quadratic form so as to compensate the potential with difference induced by two separated exposures).
As per claim 7: Ding and Van De Peut teach the method according to claim 6, wherein each transition zone is defined by pixel position from xo to x1, and gray values of the transition zone in two successive submaps are:
PNG
media_image4.png
38
180
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(page 166, col. 1, equation (5)).
As per claim 9: Ding teaches a digital ultraviolet lithography (DUL) apparatus (fig. 2a) comprising:
a spatial light modulator comprising a plurality of pixels used as a virtual mask (page 163, col. 2, second paragraph, “the DUL uses high-speed spatial light modulator, such as digital micro-mirror device (DMD), with millions of pixels as virtual dynamic mask);
a processor (page 163, col. 2, second paragraph, state of each micro-mirror can be rapidly controlled by computer (processor)) configured to:
convert a computer aided design (CAD) pattern into a bitmap (pages 164-165, the designed patterns of waveguides were converted into 8-bit grayscale bitmaps);
transform the bitmap to an exposure dose-map for (1) compensation of a proximity effect and (2) adaptive to a non-linear response curve of a photoresist (page 164, col. 1, proximity effects are corrected by an exposure dose-map calculated with the approximation of Gaussian-like light pixel. Stitching loss is depressed by creation of non-linear transition zone in quadratic form), and
divide the exposure dose-map into a plurality of submaps with transition zones between two adjacent submaps so as to depress a stitching error caused by mechanical mispositioning (page 164, col. 2, III. Fabication and Optimization, “nano-precision motorized stage”, fig. 4a and 4b, slice or partition (read lines) into subpattern 1 and subpattern 2 (submaps); fig. 4(d)-4(h) SEM image of the stitching transition zone of the fabricated waveguide with different compensation coefficients, page 165, col. 1-col. 2, to reduce optical loss of stitching mislignment (i.e., misposition), transition zone were introduced between adjacent subpatterns, fig. 4(d)-4(h) shown ), transition zone boarder/boundary (red circles) were introduced between adjacent subpatterns);
wherein the spatial light modulator is configured to generate a light pattern to expose the photoresist on a substrate using the plurality of submaps one by one (page 163, col. 2, second paragraph, “the DUL uses high-speed spatial light modulator, such as digital-mirror device (DMD) and also see fig. 2(a)).
Ding teaches the grayscale value of the pixels around the abutting center line and transition zones between two adjacent submaps (see fig. 4(d) – 4(h) SEM images of the stitching transition zone), but Ding silence transition zones around a boundary between two adjacent submaps.
Van De Peut teaches the data for each field may also be split into stripes, to be written by one channel of the system. This may be done by splitting the field dose map into a dose map per channel, and reducing polygons to the stripe area written by one channel. The stripe area preferably extends beyond the borders of the stripe, to account for stitching strategy and dithering startup artifacts. If a "smart boundary" stitching strategy is used, where critical features are assigned to a single channel/stripe, then the critical features of polygons on the stripe boundary are assigned to a particular stripe/channel when splitting up the dose map (‘173, par. [0078] and also see fig. 8B-8C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Van De Peut and Ding using Van De Peut’s “smart boundary” stitching strategy Ding’s subpatterns for performing various type of corrections which may involve pattern shifting or scaling in two dimensions and involving multiple pixel or sub-pixel shifts (‘173, par. [0006]).
As per claim 10: Ding and Van De Peut teach the DUL apparatus according to claim 9, further comprising:
a camera-based machine vision module to check a plurality of markers on the substrate for position checking (page 164, col. 2, III. Fabication and Optimization, “digital camera is integrated to precisely local the vertical position”, fig. 2, CCD as camera and fig. 4(d) -4(g) for align transition zone, page. 166, col. 1); and
inspect the levelness of the substrate, wherein the spatial light modulator creates a structured light pattern to increase accuracy of position checking and levelness inspection (page 163, col. 1, ON and OFF states).
As per claim 11: Ding and Van De Peut teach the DUL apparatus according to claim 9, further comprising:
a camera-based machine vision module to monitor the evolution of a photoresist that can instantly respond to UV exposure and thereby develop a closed-loop exposure scheme that is self-adaptive to instant response of photoresist (the abstract, col. 2, III. Fabication and Optimization, “digital camera is integrated to precisely local the vertical position”, fig. 2, CCD as camera and fig. 4(d) -4(g) for align transition zone, page. 166, col. 1);
precisely locate the target position of a substrate for overlay exposure process (fig. 2, high precisions XY-stage); and
precisely locate a small target position of a substrate or part of a structure for in-situ lithography process (page 164, col. 2, III. Fabication and Optimization, “digital camera is integrated to precisely local the vertical position” and fig. 2, High-precision XY-stage).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NGHIA M DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5973. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
NGHIA M. DOAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2851
/NGHIA M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851