Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/214,455

EDGE EXPOSURE APPARATUS, METHOD OF MAKING AND USING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jun 26, 2023
Examiner
KIM, PETER B
Art Unit
2882
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
776 granted / 938 resolved
+14.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
972
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 938 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Applicant’s arguments filed on Feb. 11, 2026 have been fully considered. 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Wang) (2019/0094697). Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method for retrofitting an existing high energy edge exposure unit (102, Fig. 1 and 8), comprising: removing an existing high energy light source (mercury-xenon lamp, para 0050) from the existing high energy edge exposure unit; and arranging a low energy light source (LED 114) in the existing high energy edge exposure unit (para 0050), wherein the low energy light source comprises an emulator (122l, Fig. 8, para 0050-0053) configured to receive mechanical commands (para 0051, “a shutter open command, a shutter close command”) from a host controller (122e, Fig. 8, para 0050-0053) intended for a mercury vapor lamp (para 0050), the mechanical commands including shutter command (para 0051, 0052), and convert the mechanical commands into non-mechanical software emulation commands for the low energy light source (para 0052, “LED controller 122l represents a virtual shutter (i.e., simulates a shutter), and translates commands for the virtual shutter to commands for the LED”). Although Wang does not disclose that the mechanical commands include filter and diaphragm commands, Wang discloses controllers 122l and 122e including processors to execute instructions or commands (para 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include mechanical filter and diaphragm commands in the executable instructions for commands that can be executed virtually by software emulation since the examiner takes an official notice that such commands are common and necessary for an exposure unit. Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses wherein the high energy light source comprises a mercury vapor light source (para 0050). Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses wherein the low energy source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) light source (para 0050). Regarding claims 4-6, Wang discloses wherein the LED light source is configured to emit energy having a wavelength in a range from about 255 nm to about 400 nm range, wherein the wavelength is in a range from about 340 nm to about 380 nm range and wherein the wavelength is in a range from about 360 nm to about 370 nm range (para 0058). Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses a method of operating a retrofit high energy edge exposure unit (Fig. 1, 8) for edge exposure (para 0021), comprising: proving a low energy retrofit edge exposure unit (para 0050); receiving a workpiece (110) covered by a photosensitive layer (112, para 0022); and exposing an edge portion of the photosensitive layer to radiation generated by the low energy retrofit edge exposure unit (para 0050, 0058), wherein the low energy retrofit edge exposure unit comprises an emulator (122l, Fig. 8, para 0050-0053) configured to receive mechanical commands (para 0051, “a shutter open command, a shutter close command”) from a host controller (122e, Fig. 8, para 0050-0053) intended for a mercury vapor lamp (para 0050), the mechanical commands including shutter command (para 0051, 0052), and convert the mechanical commands into non-mechanical software emulation commands for the low energy retrofit edge exposure unit (para 0052, “LED controller 112l represents a virtual shutter (i.e., simulates a shutter), and translates commands for the virtual shutter to commands for the LED”). Although Wang does not disclose that the mechanical commands include filter and diaphragm commands, Wang discloses controllers 122l and 122e including processors to execute instructions or commands (para 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include mechanical filter and diaphragm commands in the executable instructions for commands that can be executed virtually by software emulation since the examiner takes an official notice that such commands are common and necessary for an exposure unit. Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses wherein the radiation generated by the low energy retrofit edge exposure unit is emitted from a light emitting diode (LED) (para 0050). Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses an edge-exposure tool (Fig. 1, 8), comprising: a workpiece table (106) configured to support a workpiece (110) covered by a photosensitive layer (112), and a retrofit edge exposure light source configured to radiate the photosensitive layer (para 0050, 0058), and an emulator (122l, Fig. 8, para 0050-0053) configured to receive mechanical commands (para 0051, “a shutter open command, a shutter close command”) from a host controller (122e, Fig. 8, para 0050-0053) intended for a mercury vapor lamp (para 0050), the mechanical commands including shutter command (para 0051, 0052), and convert the mechanical commands into non-mechanical software emulation commands for the retrofit edge exposure light source (para 0052, “LED controller 122l represents a virtual shutter (i.e., simulates a shutter), and translates commands for the virtual shutter to commands for the LED”). Although Wang does not disclose that the mechanical commands include filter and diaphragm commands, Wang discloses controllers 122l and 122e including processors to execute instructions or commands (para 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include mechanical filter and diaphragm commands in the executable instructions for commands that can be executed virtually by software emulation since the examiner takes an official notice that such commands are common and necessary for an exposure unit. Response to Arguments Applicant argues that Wang does not actually disclose “retrofitting” as recited by claims 1 and 7. Applicant argues that Wang does not teach the physical steps of “removing an existing high energy light source from the existing high energy edge exposure unit” and “arranging a low energy light source in the existing high energy edge exposure unit” and “arranging a low energy light source in the existing high energy exposure unit”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang discloses in para 0050, “the embodiments of FIG. 8 illustrate how to retrofit an edge-exposure tool to use the LED 114 in place of a lamp, such as, for example, a mercury-xenon lamp or some other suitable lamp”. Applicant further argues Wang’s LED controller translates electronic commands to other electronic commands. However, para 0051 and 0052 of Wang teaches the exposure controller 112e (corresponds to claimed host controller) is not “modified” to accommodate the LED controller and that the command to open and close the shutter is a mechanical command, which the LED controller 112I converts to non-mechanical software emulation (para 0052, a virtual shutter). Conclusion 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 PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, 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. /PETER B KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 February 24, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 26, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 07, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 11, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596310
DETECTION DEVICE, LITHOGRAPHY APPARATUS, AND ARTICLE MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591183
A SENSOR POSITIONING METHOD, A POSITIONING SYSTEM, A LITHOGRAPHIC APPARATUS, A METROLOGY APPARATUS, AND A DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12578181
MEASURING METHOD, MEASURING APPARATUS, LITHOGRAPHY APPARATUS, AND ARTICLE MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578661
APPARATUS FOR CLEANING AN EXTREME ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT CREATION CHAMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12578185
ALIGNMENT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+9.1%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 938 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month