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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prongue et al. [Total Internal Refelection Holography for Optical Interconnections, Optical Engineering Vol. 33 No. 2, Feb. 1994].
Regarding claim 10, Prongue et al. discloses a method for configuring an exposure mask (page 636, section 2.1 teaches mask fabrication), comprising:
determining a size of an exposure mask comprising a mask region a plurality of pinholes for phase plate fabrication (page 636, section 2.1 teaches mask size with a plurality of pinholes);
determining a relative transmission for the mask region relative to the pinholes, wherein the mask region is transmissive to collimated light (page 636-637, section 2.1-2.2);
determining a size and location for the plurality of pinholes within the exposure mask based on the relative transmission (page 636, section 2.1, see also Fig. 1); and
fabricating the exposure mask with the plurality of pinholes (page 636, section 2.1 teaches mask fabrication).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Prongue et al. discloses wherein the plurality of pinholes in the exposure mask have a periodic structure, wherein any two pinholes of the plurality of pinholes have about 18 micrometer separation (page 637, section 3.1, see also Fig. 4).
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 1-9, 11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prongue et al. in view of Van Der Laan et al. [US 2002/0027648 A1].
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 18, Prongue et al. discloses a method / an interferometer configuration for phase plate fabrication (page 636, section 2.1 teaches fabrication), comprising:
providing an interferometer configuration to generate a hologram of a plurality of pinholes (as shown in Fig. 1), wherein the interferometer configuration comprises at least a photopolymer and an exposure mask comprising a mask region and the plurality of pinholes (page 636, section 2.1);
exposing the photopolymer to collimated light through the exposure mask, by passing the collimated light through: the mask region of the exposure mask to create a collimated beam directed to the photopolymer; and the plurality of pinholes to create a spherical wavefront, wherein the collimated beam and the spherical wavefront generate the hologram of the plurality of pinholes (page 636-637, section 2.1-2.2, see also Fig. 1 and 2a).
Prongue et al. does not explicitly teach iteratively shifting pinhole placement for additional wavelengths to repeat exposure of the photopolymer to the collimated light.
However, shifting a pinhole mask to repeat exposure of the photopolymer to the collimated light is implicit in lithographic exposures. Specifically, Van Der Laan et al. discloses a lithographic projection apparatus comprises forming a spot of radiation at the wafer level using a pinhole at reticle level, wherein the pinhole reticle is iteratively shifted for additional wavelengths to repeat exposure of the photopolymer to the collimated light (as shown in Fig. 12, see also paragraphs [0045], [0069], [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to iteratively shifting pinhole placement for additional wavelengths to repeat exposure of the photopolymer to the collimated light, as taught by Van Der Laan et al. in the system of Prongue et al. because such a modification minimizes the variation in angular intensity distribution over the image field and the uniformity can be improved (paragraph [0119] of Van Der Laan et al.).
Regarding claim 2, Prongue et al. discloses wherein the interferometer configuration comprises: a substrate for photopolymer attachment; the photopolymer having a predetermined thickness; and the exposure mask with the plurality of pinholes (page 636, section 2.1, see also Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Prongue et al. discloses wherein the collimated light is laser light (page 636, section 2.1).
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 19, Prongue et al. discloses wherein the plurality of pinholes in the exposure mask have a periodic structure, wherein any two pinholes of the plurality of pinholes have about 18 micrometer separation (page 637, section 3.1, see also Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 6, 8, 11 and 14-16, Prongue et al. discloses the method, as applied above.
Prongue et al. does not teach further comprising: determining the relative transmission using the following expression: T=πr2 / p2 = 0.4 = %, wherein T is the relative transmission between the exposure mask and the plurality of pinholes, p is a distance between each of the plurality of pinholes, and r is a radius of each pinhole or wherein each of the plurality of pinholes has about 1 micrometer diameter, further comprising: adding a random phase to at least a portion of the plurality of pinholes in the exposure mask, further comprising: randomizing a location of at least a portion of the pinholes in the exposure mask
However, Prongue et al. teaches wherein the size of the pinholes in the mask influences the aperture of the object waves and correctly choosing the pinhole sizes, the distance between neighboring pinholes, and the distance separating mask and HOE, we can avoid overlap of the different object beams and the size and intensity of the readout spots and the object wave irradiance may vary considerably from one object to the other (page 636, section 2.1). Further, Van Der Laan et al. discloses a lithographic projection apparatus comprises forming a spot of radiation at the wafer level using a pinhole at reticle level wherein each pinhole further comprises dots with a size approximately of the order of the wavelength or the size of the spot is approximately 1% of the image field area or less (paragraphs [0042] and [0045]). Further, Van Der Laan et al. teaches determining the relative transmission, wherein each of the plurality of pinholes has about 1 micrometer diameter (paragraph [0089]), further comprising: adding a random phase to at least a portion of the plurality of pinholes in the exposure mask (paragraph [0107]), further comprising: randomizing a location of at least a portion of the pinholes in the exposure mask (paragraph [0102], see also Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the appropriate diameter of the pinhole with optimum transmission and provide random phase and positioning, as taught by Van Der Laan et al. in the system of Prongue et al. because such a modification minimizes the variation in angular intensity distribution over the image field and the uniformity can be improved (paragraph [0119] of Van Der Laan et al.).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Prongue et al. discloses further comprising: selecting a placement of the photopolymer between 100 micrometers and 200 micrometers away from a Talbot self-imaging plane generated by the exposure mask (as shown in Figs. 1-3, 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 9, Prongue et al. discloses wherein the interferometer configuration comprises at least two exposure masks (as shown in Figs. 3, 5 and 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied refence does not teach “exposing the photopolymer to collimated light through the exposure mask, by passing the collimated light through”, see pages 7-9 of remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As applied above, Prongue et al. discloses wherein the mask is placed in close proximity to the photosensitive layer is illuminated by the collimated beam (page 636-637, section 2.1-2.2, see also Fig. 1 and 2a).
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC § 102/103 is maintained.
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 DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882