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 .
The amendment filed on July 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 and 19-22 are pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kraehmer et al. [US 20070211246 A1, hereafter Kraehmer].
As per Claim 1, Kraehmer teaches a method of producing an optical element for
a lithography apparatus 700 (See fig. 7, Para 9, method of manufacturing a polarization-
modulating optical element), comprising the steps of:
a) detecting a height profile of a surface of a crystal substrate of the optical
element (Para 14 and 16), and
b) ascertaining, using the height profile detected, an installed orientation of the
optical element in an optical system of the lithography apparatus in relation to a stress-
induced birefringence on incidence of polarized radiation, where the installed orientation
has an orientation in relation to a rotation of the optical element about a center axis of
the optical element that runs through the surface (Para 10-11 and 31).
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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraehmer as applied above, in view of Doerband [US 20060215177 A1].
As per Claims 2 and 3, Kraehmer teaches the method of claim 1.
Kraehmer does not explicitly teach comprising the following step that precedes
step a): polishing the surface of the crystal substrate so as to create the height profile of
the surface.
Doerband teaches the processing of the optical surface may comprise a machining such as milling, grinding, loose abrasive grinding, polishing, ion beam figuring, magneto-rheological figuring, and finishing of the optical surface of the optical element (Para 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time
the invention was made to incorporate optical surface processing method of the optical
element as disclosed by Doerband in order to determine a desired surface shape of an
optical element.
Claim(s) 8-11, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraehmer as applied above, in view of Goehnermeier et al. [US 20060215177 A1, hereafter Goehnermeier].
As per Claim 8, Kraehmer teaches the method of claim 1.
Kraehmer does not explicitly teach wherein the crystal substrate includes a
crystal having cubic symmetry, a monocrystal, a fluoride crystal, calcium fluoride,
magnesium fluoride, barium fluoride and/or lutetium aluminum garnet.
Goehnermeier teaches wherein the crystal substrate includes a crystal having
cubic symmetry, a monocrystal, a fluoride crystal, calcium fluoride, magnesium fluoride,
barium fluoride and/or lutetium aluminum garnet (Para 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time
the invention was made to incorporate optical surface processing method of the optical
element as disclosed by Goehnermeier in order to produce a system that minimize
stress-induced birefringence.
As per Claims 9 and 10, Kraehmer teaches the method of claim 1. Goehnermeier further teaches wherein the surface of the crystal substrate is
formed by a crystal plane of the crystal substrate (Para 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time
the invention was made to incorporate optical surface processing method of the optical
element as disclosed by Goehnermeier in order to produce a system that minimize
stress-induced birefringence.
As per Claim 11, Kraehmer teaches the method of claim 1.
Goehnermeier further teaches wherein the optical element comprises a
transmitting optical element, a partly transmitting optical element, a beam splitter, a
beam splitter of an optical pulse extender, a lens element and/or a chamber window of
the lithography apparatus (Para 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time
the invention was made to incorporate optical surface processing method of the optical
element as disclosed by Goehnermeier in order to produce a system that minimize
stress-induced birefringence.
As per Claim 13, Kraehmer teaches the method of claim 1.
Goehnermeier further teaches wherein the ascertaining of the installed
orientation of the optical element ascertains an angle of rotation (a) of the optical element relative to a polarization plane of the incident polarized radiation (Para 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time
the invention was made to incorporate optical surface processing method of the optical
element as disclosed by Goehnermeier in order to produce a system that minimize
stress-induced birefringence.
As per Claim 14, Kraehmer teaches the method of claim 1.
Goehnermeier further teaches wherein the ascertaining of the installed orientation of the optical element ascertains an angular distribution of height values (H)
of the ascertained height profile of the surface, and wherein angles (6) of the angular
distribution correspond to a respective angle of rotation (a) of the optical element in
relation to the rotation of the optical element about the center axis (Para 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time
the invention was made to incorporate optical surface processing method of the optical
element as disclosed by Goehnermeier in order to produce a system that minimize
stress-induced birefringence.
Claim(s) 15, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraehmer in view of Doerband as applied in claim 2 above, further in view of Goehnermeier.
As per Claim 15, Kraehmer in view of Doerband teaches the method of claim 2.
Goehnermeier further teaches the following step after step b): marking the
installed orientation ascertained on the optical element (Para 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time
the invention was made to incorporate optical surface processing method of the optical
element as disclosed by Goehnermeier in order to produce a system that minimize
stress-induced birefringence.
As per Claim 16, Kraehmer in view of Doerband teaches the method of claim 2.
Goehnermeier further teaches wherein the crystal substrate comprises at least
one of a crystal having cubic symmetry, a monocrystal, a fluoride crystal, calcium
fluoride, magnesium fluoride, barium fluoride, or lutetium aluminium garnet (Para 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time
the invention was made to incorporate optical surface processing method of the optical
element as disclosed by Goehnermeier in order to produce a system that minimize
stress-induced birefringence.
As per Claim 19, Kraehmer teaches the method of claim 2.
Goehnermeier further teaches wherein the optical element comprises at least
one of a transmitting optical element, a partly transmitting optical element, a beam
splitter, a beam splitter of an optical pulse extender, a lens element, or a chamber
window of the lithography apparatus (Para 48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate optical surface processing method of the optical
element as disclosed by Goehnermeier in order to produce a system that minimize stress-induced birefringence.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 21, the prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious to one skilled in the art a method as claimed, more specifically the method comprising steps of determining, using the determined height profile, an angle of orientation for installing the optical element in the lithography apparatus to reduce and/or minimize stress-induced birefringence on incidence of polarized radiation, wherein the angle of orientation includes an angle of rotation about a center axis of the optical element that runs through the surface of the crystal substrate; and marking the angle of orientation for installing the optical element in the lithography apparatus on the optical element, wherein the angle of orientation is determined using the determined height profile of the surface of the crystal substrate of the optical element, and the height profile of the surface of the crystal substrate is determined after the polishing of the surface of the crystal substrate, in combination with the other elements required by claim 21.
Claims 22 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Claims 4-7, 12 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argued that the prior art to Kraehmer does not disclose using the detected height profile (of the surface of the crystal substrate of the optical element) to ascertain an installed orientation of the optical element in an optical system of the lithography apparatus in relation to a stress-induced birefringence on incidence of polarized radiation. Applicant also argued that Kraehmer does not disclose that the installation orientation is ascertained using the detected height profile.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kraehmer, for example [0031], disclosed “the wringing to the surface of the first component 110 which has been provided before with the height profile 110acauses (which is detected height profile) in the second component 120 a mechanical stress and thereby results in a stress-induced birefringence in the second component 120”.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Applicant argued that Doerband does not disclose or suggest that the polishing of the surface of an optical element has anything to do with the orientation of the optical element. Thus, "polishing the surface of the crystal substrate so as to create the height profile of the surface" wherein the height profile of the surface generated by the polishing is used to ascertain the installed orientation of the optical element would not have been made obvious by the combination of Kraehmer and Doerband.
In response to applicant's argument that the polishing of the surface of an optical element has anything to do with the orientation of the optical element, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights