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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/18/2026 has been entered. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 7-12 remain pending.
Note: The Examiner notes Claim 5 is present in the Claim Set dated 06/18/2026 and remains pending and is examined in this Office Action.
Response to Applicants Arguments and Remarks
Applicant’ Arguments/Remarks regarding Amended Claim 1, pages 7-11 filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner will address applicable arguments for Claim 1.
Regarding Amended Claim 1 the Applicant argues that,
The Amended Claim 1 is neither taught or suggested by the references (Fujinoki979, Ezaki et. al.,
Blankenbecler, Maida et. al., Fujinoki348 and Mitsumori et. al.) where Amended Claim 1
includes the below underlined/italic font:
a substrate precursor having a mass of more than 100 kg.
predetermining a desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor for each of the glass body portions.
providing a model of a titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor for each of the rod-like glass body portions.
calculating an optimal arrangement of the rod-like glass body portions relative to one another for all possible arrangements of the at least three rod-like glass body portions.
wherein the order of the first, second and third rod-like glass body portions is determined according to the calculated optimal arrangement such that the difference between the model of the titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor and the desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor is less than 0.5%,
Fujinoki does not teach or suggest arranging a plurality of raw material portions into a single
elongate glass components, or how the portions are arranged and optimized for order of
combining.
Blankenbecler has no applicability to EUV substrates for mirrors and the gradient optics of
Blankenbecler are relatively small scale, not the scale of EVU mirrors of more than 100kg.
Blankenbecler suggest a process related to titanium diffusion (no relevance to claimed method) for selecting plates for a stack of plates and suggest nothing in regard to rod-like portions end to end to form a single elongate, calculating all possible combinations for the multiple portions (three rod-like glass bodes) to assure the difference between the model of the titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor and the desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor is less than 0.5% as well as optimize the desired spatial distribution in the substrate precursor.
In response to the Applicant’s argument, the Examiner replies,
Respectful disagreement. See i.-v. below
Fujinoki979 discloses a substrate precursor (Page 1 lines 15-16) where connecting glass bodies, processing the glass bodies for homogenization and spherical shaping, and after homogenization and spherical shaping, placing the homogenized spherical shape into heated cylindrical molding container to create a molded body of 24kg (Page 9 lines 45-49, Page 10 lines 16-24) Ezaki et. al. discloses spatially measuring a titania profile on a glass article (Page 8 lines 59-60, Page 9 lines 1-2) and would be motivated to measure the same on multiple glass rods which could be useful for modeling purposes (Page 9 lines 2-3). The combination is then modified by Mitsumori which discloses a fusing of a plurality of glass bodies to make a molded glass body up to 100kg or more for use as a substrate for an EUVL apparatus like a mirror (Page 2 lines 25-30, Page 3 lines 1-3) which is the same purpose of the Fujinoki979 substrate, being motivated to do so to make an after-molding glass body of any mass, as in a mirror, as noted by Mitsumori (Page 6, lines 4-5). Hence, the argument is moot.
Blankenbecler discloses predetermining a desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor for each of the glass body portions (FIG. 1, FIG. 5 element 40, Col 7 lines 62-65, Col 4 lines 44-50) where FIG. 1 illustrates five (5) glass articles. Hence, the argument is moot.
Blankenbecler discloses providing a model of a titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor for each of the rod-like glass body portions (FIG. 1, FIG. 5 elements 40-88) where FIG. 1 illustrates five (5) glass articles. Hence, the argument is moot.
Blankenbecler discloses providing calculating an optimal arrangement of the rod-like glass body portions relative to one another for all possible arrangements of the at least three rod-like glass body portions. (FIG. 1, Col 8 lines 64-67, Col 9 lines 1-3, Col 14 lines 17-20, Col 15 lines 22-28, Col 15 lines 9-21). , “the possible starting spatial distributions correspond to a…large number of possible plate arrays which can be physically made using the available compositions.”, “The algorithm continues in a “do-loop” to assess a best fit for each possible plate array”, “In step 74, the computer next compute a value of fit between the refractive index distribution for the lens blank resulting from this plate array”, “Then after all the possible plate arrays (all possible arrangements of the plate arrays) and diffusion times with a best fit are calculated, a straightforward search is conducted of the fits to determine the best fit (optimal arrangement)”, FIG. 1 illustrates five (5) glass articles stacked, where the end-face-to-front-face stack orientation exists between successive glass plates. Hence, the argument is moot.
Blankenbecler discloses wherein the order of the first, second and third rod-like glass body portions is determined according to the calculated optimal arrangement such that the difference between the model of the titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor and the desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor is less than 0.5% FIG. 1 , Col 4 lines 38-50; Col 15 lines 42-46, “Each of the starting spatial distributions of concentration used in the method may correspond to a distribution of concentrations which can be achieved by juxtaposing (ordering) starting materials selected from a particular set of available starting compositions. The method may further include the step of monitoring the actual compositions of the starting materials and performing the predictive steps which lead to selection of the optimum starting spatial distribution of concentration using the actual compositions of the available starting materials as the compositions of the available starting materials…”, “…In the next stage of the process, the values are applied to actual fabrication…an actual assemblage is made…corresponding to the spatial distribution selected as the best array”. FIG. 1 - illustrates five (5) glass articles stacked, where the end-face-to-front-face stack orientation exists between at least 3 successive glass plates. Hence, the argument is moot.
Additional
The Examiner would like to expand on Blankenbecler. Blankenbecler is an analogous reference. Blankenbecler discloses a method for the arrangement of glass plates (five), where the end faces of the plates are stacked on one another, based on the spatial distribution of a property of the glass plates (concentration, index of refraction, coefficient of thermal expansion, Col 7 line 66, Col 8 lines 8-12, 38), in order to achieve a glass plate stack that meets a required spatial distribution property after a diffusion process where the stack is heated and fused together to form a unitary blank (FIG. 1, Col 7 lines 1-5). This method is analogous to the claimed method, as Blankenbecler measurement methods and optimization of the glass article location and optimization of the fused glass blank spatial properties can be deployed for any stack of glass articles stacked end face to end face (such as a rod-like glass body) where a spatial distribution of a property exists in each glass article where a target spatial property is achieved after thermal treatments of glass articles. While Blankenbecler is targeting spatial stepped index of refraction (stepped concentration of constituents) and the instant application is targeting spatial concentration uniformity, the application of the method of Blankenbecler reads on the appropriate claims and limitations in the instant application.
Respectful disagreement. Fujinoki does teach arranging a plurality of raw material portions into a
single elongate glass components; Page 6 lines 4-5,10-11, “In order to process the glass body into a columnar shape…”, “it is possible to perform homogenization by vertically welding or adding the divided glass bodies together.” Fujinoki is not relied upon to teach how the portions are arranged and optimized for order of combining. Blankenbecler is relied upon to teach this limitation. Hence, the argument is moot.
Respectful disagreement. While Blankenbecler does not teach a method for EUV substrates for
mirrors, Blankenbecler is relied upon to teach a measurement method where
the optimization of the glass article location and optimization of the fused glass blank spatial
properties can be deployed for any stack of glass articles stacked end face to end face (such as a
rod-like glass body) where a spatial distribution of a property exists in each glass article where a
target spatial property is achieved after thermal treatments of glass articles.
Blankenbecler is relied upon to teach the above in c) and is not relied upon to teach a blank at
scale of 100kg. Mitsumori is relied upon to teach a blank of at least 100kg. Hence, the argument
is moot.
Respectful disagreement. Blankenbecler is relied upon to teach items in a) ii.-v., c) and in the Additional section. That the claimed method does not use diffusion processing is not relevant, as the overall measurement/arrangement method of Blankenbecler is analogous to the appropriate claims in the instant application. While Blankenbecler does not disclose the difference between the model of the titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor and the desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor is less than 0.5% as well as optimize the desired spatial distribution in the substrate precursor, Blankenbecler does disclose a target related to comparing the glass article property information and a “best fit” for the property for the glass stack. It would have been obvious to try to use the methods of the combination (Blankenbecler and the other noted references) to try to achieve difference between the model of the titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor and the desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor is less than 0.5%, as the claim includes a difference value of 0.0% . It would have been obvious to try for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve a 0% difference within the scope of the claim and the instant application as the focus is to minimize and preferably be absent any difference between the titanium model and the desired spatial titanium distribution in the precursor substrate. As such, a value of 0.0% for the above claimed difference between the titanium apportionment and titanium distribution is from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Hence, the argument is moot.
Priority
The Examiner recognizes Foreign Priority to EP22186404.4, with a filing date of 07/22/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2023 and 12/12/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the minor informalities listed below:
Figures, when more than one (1) figure, are to be labeled “FIG. X” or FIG. XA” where X is an Arabic numeral and A is an uppercase letter. For example, “Fig. 1” should read “FIG. 1” and “Fig. 7a” should read “FIG. 7A” FIG. 1 – FIG. 12 need amending.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 1 – predetermining a desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor for each of the glass body portions/ –predetermining a desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor for each of the rod-like glass body portions; is connected to a front face of a third of the rod-like glass body portion / is connected to a front face of a third
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Claims 1-4, 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of JP 2006240979A (as
submitted in the IDS dated 07/14/2023, English Abstract only) (English language translation of the
Description provided herewith and referenced herein) by Fujinoki et. al. (herein “Fujinoki979”), and
in further view of WO2013084978A1 (as submitted in the IDS dated 07/14/2023, English Abstract only)
(English language translation of the Description provided herewith and referenced herein) by Ezaki et.
al. (herein “Ezaki”) and in further view of JP 5287271B2 (English language translation of the Description
provided herewith and referenced herein) by Mitsumori et. al. (herein “Mitsumori”) and in further view
of U.S. Patent 5,582,626 by Blankenbecler (herein “Blankenbecler”) and in further view of and in further
view of PGPUB 20140206524 by Maida et. al. (herein “Maida) and in further view of JP 2007186348A
(as submitted in the IDS dated 07/014/2023, English Abstract only) (English language translation of the
Description provided herewith and referenced herein) by Fujinoki et. al. (herein “Fujinoki348”),
Regarding Claim 1, Fujinoki979 teaches a method for producing:
a substrate precursor; Page 1 lines 15-16, “A method for producing a…silica-titania glass suitable for a mirror substrate or a reflective mask substrate…”
comprising:
a TiO2-SiO2 mixed glass; Page 2 line 22, “A first example of the method for producing a homogeneous silica-titania glass of the present invention…”
comprising the steps of:
introducing a silicon dioxide raw material and a titanium dioxide raw material into a flame; Page 3 lines 24-25,” As shown in FIG. 1, first, a silica raw material and a titania raw material are introduced into an oxyhydrogen flame...”, where silica is synonymous with silicon dioxide and titania is synonymous with titanium dioxide.
producing a glass body having a titanium dioxide content of 3 wt.% up to 10 wt.%; Page 5 lines 38, 42, “In the method of the present invention, the composition of the silica-titania glass body is not particularly limited but preferably comprises titania and SiO2, and the titania concentration is… more preferably 8% by mass...”
the glass body comprising:
a macroscopic, production-related titanium profile; Page 4, lines 38-40, “…the growth edge is covered with a flame, but due to the temperature distribution in the flame, the concentration distribution of silica and titania is likely to occur in the growth surface…”
a microscopic, production-related layer structure; Page 1 lines 45-46, “…the growth streaks accompanying the rotation of the substrate during glass growth form layered striae”.
dividing the glass body into at least three rod-like glass body portions, each portion having and end side and a front face ; Fig. 4 (original) Fig. 13 step 104, Page 2 line 41, Page 7 lines 35-37, “...In the cutting step, it is preferable to divide the silica-titania glass body into 3 or more and 10 or less”, “A fan-shaped rod-shaped glass body is cut out (step 102), …and formed into a rod-shaped glass body…”
connecting the glass body portions to form an elongate first glass component; Page 6 lines 4-5,10-11, “In order to process the glass body into a columnar shape…”, “it is possible to perform homogenization by vertically welding or adding the divided glass bodies together.”
first homogenization treatment of the first glass component; Fig. 13 step 108, Page 7 lines 35-40, “ A fan-shaped rod-shaped glass body is cut out (step 102), corners of the rod-shaped glass body are removed (step 104:removal processing step), and formed into a rod-shaped glass body having a substantially circular cross section(step 106: first). 1), a homogenization treatment is performed by applying a zone melting method so that a shear stress acts in a direction perpendicular to the growth axis of the glass body (step 108: first homogenization treatment step).”
pushing together the first glass component to create a spherical glass system; Fig. 11 (original) Fig. 13 step 109, Page 7 lines 6-12, “As shown in Fig. 11, the diameter of the glass body 18 is reduced (see note below) by reducing the distance between the chucks 32 a and 32 b of the lathe while igniting a part of the glass body 18 after the homogenization treatment with a burner 34. After enlarging and molding the spherical glass body 20 (step 112: second molding step), the molded spherical glass body 20 is separated from the glass support rod 30.” Note: the word reduced appears to be a typographical error, as Fig. 11 clearly shows the diameter is increased.
turning the glass system by more than 70 degrees; Fig. 14 (original) Page 7 lines 59-60, Page 8 lines 1-2, “In FIG. 14, 42a is a homogenization process axis in the first homogenization process, and 42b is a homogenization process axis in the second homogenization process. Although the holding method is not particularly limited, as shown in FIG. 14, the spherical glass body 30 separated from the glass support rod 30 is rotated by approximately 90 degrees…”
stretching the glass system to form an elongate second glass component; Fig. 13 step 113, Fig. 15. (original) lines 41-43, “… and after changing the spherical glass body so as to change the axis
(step 111: switching process), The spherical glass body is stretched while being heated (step 113: stretching process) and formed into a glass body having a cylindrical shape…”
second homogenization treatment of the second glass component to create a substrate precursor, the substrate precursor being substantially free of layer structures; Fig. 13 step 117, Page 8 lines 15-17, “By applying homogenization treatment to the shaped rod-shaped glass body 23 in the same manner as in the step108 (step 117), the striae is mechanically removed and the highly homogeneous silica having no striae in three directions completely…”, “ …where striae are layer structures.”
Fujinoki979 fails to disclose spatially measuring the titanium profile in each of the rod-like glass body portions. In the same field of endeavor as silica/titania containing glass processing methods for EUV, Ezaki teaches measuring a “from a central portion of a titania-silica glass substrate… from the central portion of the substrate surface to a corner portion of the central portion of the substrate surface… an electron probe microanalyzer (Manufactured by JEOL Ltd.) TiO2 concentration was measured” (Page 8 lines 59-60, Page 9 lines 1-2). Ezaki discloses the claimed invention except for performing the measurement on each of the rod-like glass body portions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the measurements of Ezaki on the rod-like glass body portions of Fujinoki. One would have been motivated to measure the rod-like glass body portions for the purpose of obtaining maximum and minimum TiO2 concentrations, as noted by Ezaki (Page 9 lines 2-3), which could be useful for the purposes of modeling. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Fujinoki979 teaches connecting glass bodies, processing the glass bodies for homogenization and spherical shaping, and after homogenization and spherical shaping, placing the homogenized spherical shape into heated cylindrical molding container to create a molded body (Page 9 lines 45-49, Page 10 lines 16-24) of 24kg but does not teach a molded body of at least 100kg.
In an analogous field of endeavor of substrate precursors for EUV applications, Mitsumori teaches a method for fusing a plurality of glass bodies to make a molded glass body of up to 100kg or more for use as a substrate for an EUVL apparatus like a mirror (Page 2 lines 25-30, Page 3 lines 1-3) where the molded glass body of Mitsumori is analogous to the molded body of Fujinoki (where rod-like glass bodies were spatially measured by Ezaki). Mitsumori cites a method to place two glass bodies before fusion into a molding form to obtain a fusion formed body, or glass body after molding (Fig. 1 , lines 55-60). Mitsumori further describes the processes of heat treatment (Page 5, lines 10-50), “According to the above-described molding method, it is possible to produce a molded glass body for an optical member for EUV lithography…”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the method of fusing and molding a plurality of glass bodies of Mitsumori after the glass molded body process in the method of Fujinoki979. One would have been motivated to do so to make an after-molding glass body of any mass, as noted by Mitsumori (Page 6, lines 4-5)
While Fujinoki979 teaches a relationship between titania concentration homogeneity via refractive index homogeneity (Page 10 lines 57-58) the combination fails to disclose wherein the step of measuring the titanium profile in each of the rod-like glass body portions comprises the following steps of:
predetermining a desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor for each of the glass body portions;
providing a model of a titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor for each of the rod-like glass body portions;
the model being dependent on,
an arrangement of the at least three rod-like glass body portions in the elongate first glass component relative to one another;
the spatial titanium profile in each of the rod-like glass body portions;
calculating an optimal arrangement of the rod-like glass body portions relative to one another for all possible arrangements of the at least three rod-like glass body portions by means of the model of titanium apportionment;
so that a difference between the titanium apportionment and titanium distribution is minimal;
positioning the rod-like glass body portions so that, in the step of connecting, an end side of a first of the rod-like glass body portions is connected to a front face of a second of the rod-like glass body portions, and an end side of the second rod-like glass body portion is connected to a front face of a third of the rod-like glass body portion;
wherein ,
the order of the first, second and third rod-like glass body portions is determined according to the calculated optimal arrangement;
such that the difference between the model of the titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor and the desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor is less than 0.5% based on a maximum value of the desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor.
In a similar field of endeavor as making optical element blanks, Blankenbecler teaches an analogous method for making gradient property refractive elements that replaces a “cut” and “try” method where the starting materials vary slightly (Col 2 lines 36-41, 51-52). The method includes stacking plates where there is a starting spatial distribution of concentration of a common constituent in each plate, where the starting spatial distribution of concentration is converted to a property or properties (Col 3 lines 29-31, 48-50), “where the property to be controlled is index of refraction, the concentration to property relationship may be a relationship between concentration of or more constituents and index of refraction” (Col 3 53-57). The optimal arrangement of glass plates in the array and the closeness of the fit to the desired index profile is based upon the modeled results of the refractive index distribution related to diffusion time at a fixed temperature of the glass plates.
Further, Blankenbecler teaches:
predetermining a desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor for each of the glass body portions; Fig. 5 element 40, Col 7 lines 62-65, Col 4 lines 44-50, “...to select the starting assemblage …the desired profile for the index of refraction is input into the computer…”, “…the method may further include the step of monitoring the actual composition of the starting materials and performing predictive steps which lead to the selection of the of the optimum starting spatial distribution of concentration using the actual compositions of the available starting materials”.
providing a model of a titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor for each of the glass rod-like body portions ; Fig. 5 elements 40-88.
the model being dependent on,
an arrangement of the at least three rod-like glass body portions in the elongate first glass component relative to one another; FIG. 1, FIG. 5 element 46, Col 8 lines 41-47, 64-67, “Each such starting spatial distribution represents a spatial distribution which can actually be made from the available compositions in the physical system used in the fabrication process. In the process illustrated in FIGS. 1-4, each starting spatial distribution must be a set of plates”. FIG. 1 illustrates five (5) glass articles stacked, where the end-face-to-front-face stack orientation exists between successive glass plates.
the spatial titanium profile in each of the rod-like glass body portions; Col 7 lines 66-67, Col 8 lines 1-5, 12-17, “the index of refraction is to vary in only one dimension, i.e., in only the Z-direction of the assemblage. Accordingly, the desired index of refraction profile can be input as a series of Z-values with associated index of refraction values. The compositions of the particular set of materials available for use in the process are also input to the computer in Step 42”, “most preferably, where materials are supplied in batches the composition of each batch is measured and the composition of the batches actually on hand are used as the available compositions for input into the computer”.
calculating an optimal arrangement of the glass body portions relative to one another for all possible arrangements of the at least three rod-like glass body portions by means of the model of titanium apportionment; FIG. 1, Col 8 lines 64-67, Col 9 lines 1-3, Col 14 lines 17-20, Col 15 lines 22-28, Col 15 lines 9-21, “the possible starting spatial distributions correspond to a…large number of possible plate arrays which can be physically made using the available compositions.”, “This set can be further limited to exclude those plate arrays which cannot possibly result in a distribution of index of refraction matching the desired index of refraction profile”. The algorithm continues in a “do-loop” to assess a best fit for each possible plate array based for a diffusion time, “In step 74, the computer next compute a value of fit between the refractive index distribution for the lens blank resulting from this plate array and this diffusion time”, “Then after all the possible plate arrays (all possible arrangements of the plate arrays) and diffusion times with a best fit are calculated, a straightforward search is conducted of the fits to determine the best fit (optimal arrangement)”, “ This process repeats again and again, resulting in storage of similar values for each possible plate array selected.” FIG. 1 illustrates five (5) glass articles stacked, where the end-face-to-front-face stack orientation exists between successive glass plates.
so that a difference between the titanium apportionment and titanium distribution is minimal; Col 14, lines 21-34 “The lower the value of such a sum, the better the fit”.
positioning the rod-like glass body portions so that, in the step of connecting, an end side of a first of the rod-like glass body portions is connected to a front face of a second of the rod-like glass body portions, and an end side of the second rod-like glass body portion is connected to a front face of a third of the rod-like glass body portion; FIG. 1 - illustrates five (5) glass articles stacked, where the end-face-to-front-face stack orientation exists between at least 3 successive glass plates.
wherein,
the order of the first, second and third rod-like glass body portions is determined according to the calculated optimal arrangement; FIG. 1 , Col 4 lines 38-50; Col 15 lines 42-46, “Each of the starting spatial distributions of concentration used in the method may correspond to a distribution of concentrations which can be achieved by juxtaposing starting materials selected from a particular set of available starting compositions. In this case, the step of providing the assemblage…includes the step of forming such assemblage from that set of starting materials. The method may further include the step of monitoring the actual compositions of the starting materials and performing the predictive steps which lead to selection of the optimum starting spatial distribution of concentration using the actual compositions of the available starting materials as the compositions of the available starting materials…”, “…In the next stage of the process, the values are applied to actual fabrication…an actual assemblage is made…corresponding to the spatial distribution selected as the best array”. FIG. 1 - illustrates five (5) glass articles stacked, where the end-face-to-front-face stack orientation exists between at least 3 successive glass plates.
Take as a whole, items a)-h) above discloses the claimed inventions except for use on rod-like glass body portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the methods a)-h) above of Blankenbecler in the rod-like glass body portions of the combination to accommodate for changes in starting material composition to calculate new sets of possible starting arrays, per Blankenbecler (Col 16 lines 19-24).
such that the difference between the model of the titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor and the desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor is less than 0.5% based on a maximum value of the desired spatial titanium distribution in the substrate precursor.
While the combination does not teach the difference between the titanium apportionment and
titanium distribution is less than 0.5% based on a maximum value of the titanium distribution, the
claim includes a difference value of 0.0% . It would have been obvious to try for one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve a 0% difference.
Within the scope of the claim and the instant application, the focus is to minimize and preferably be
absent any difference between the titanium model and the desired spatial titanium distribution in
the precursor substrate. As such, a value of 0.0% for the above claimed difference between the
titanium apportionment and titanium distribution is from a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385
(2007).
The combination does not disclose, specifically, wherein the step of measuring comprises the following steps of providing a model of a titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor, the model being dependent on the effects of pushing together on the spatial titanium profiles in each of the rod-like glass body portions. In the same field of endeavor as silica/titania containing glass processing methods for EUV, Maida discloses homogenization methods for an ingot of titania doped quartz glass which includes a pushing together to form a spherical body ([0065]), where after the homogenization methods there is/is not a process step hot shaping to form a blank ([0037], [0065]-[0068], Example 1/[0059]-[0073] and Comparative Example 1/[0077]-[0079]). Maida further teaches that hot shaping serves to reduce the curvature radius of striae in EUV lithography members ([0039]), and analogously, homogenization methods for an ingot of titania doped quartz glass which includes a pushing together without hot shaping does not reduce the radius of curvature of striae. Maida discloses the claimed invention except for use on rod-like glass body portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take into account during the step of measuring the known effects of not reducing the radius of curvature of the striae during the pushing together of the glass bodies without hot shaping, as noted by Maida, (Table 2, Example 1), which illustrates higher radius of curvatures of striae align with homogeneous TiO2 concentrations (distributions of 0.1wt%) and improved flatness of EUV masks made from the blanks. Further, Maida discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of the pushing together on multiple glass articles (rod-like glass bodies). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the pushing together on multiple glass articles (rod-like glass bodies), since it has been held that a mere duplication involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the pushing together on multiple glass articles (rod-like glass bodies) for the purpose of achieving the concept of the instant application, which is spatial uniformity of the glass article. The court held that mere duplication has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
The combination does not disclose, specifically, wherein the step of measuring comprises the following steps of providing a model of a titanium apportionment in the substrate precursor, the model being dependent on the effects of turning on the spatial titanium profiles in each of the rod-like glass body portions . In the same field of endeavor as silica/titania containing glass processing methods for Extreme Ultra Violet Lithography (herein “EUV”), Fujinoki348 discloses where the spherical glass body of a first homogenization step and second molding step is rotated 90 degrees in method for producing silica-titania glass having no striae in three directions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention take into account during the step of measuring the known effects of turning on the spatial titanium profiles by turning the spherical glass body to obtain the effect of eliminating striae and to make the composition uniform, as noted by Fujinoki348 ([0017], lines 1-2, 18-28).
Regarding Claim 2 - Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Mitsumori, Blankenbecler, Maida, and Fujinoki348 in the
rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination does not disclose a substrate precursor that has a mass of more than 300 kg. Refer to
Claim 1- Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not
establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ
143 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 3 - Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Mitsumori, Blankenbecler, Maida, and Fujinoki348 and in
the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination does not teach producing a second glass body comprising a titanium dioxide content
of 3 wt.% up to 10 wt.%, a macroscopic, production-related titanium profile, a microscopic, production-
related layer structure, and dividing the glass body into a plurality of second rod-like glass body portions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
repeat the process of claim 1 to produce a second glass body to support the production of a larger
precursor substrate motivated by the economies of scale. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable
significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA
1960).
Regarding Claim 4 and 12 - Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Mitsumori , Blankenbecler, Maida, and Fujinoki348
in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fujinoki979 further teaches wherein:
at least eight rod-like glass body portions are connected to form the first glass component;
Claim 4.
and connection takes place at a relevant contact surface of the rod-like glass body portions;
Claim 12 .
Page 6 lines 4-5, 10-11. “. Further, the number of divisions is preferably 8 or less”, “vertically
welding or adding the divided glass bodies together.”
Regarding Claim 6 - Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Mitsumori , Blankenbecler, Maida, and Fujinoki348 in the
rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fujinoki979 further teaches, wherein the glass body comprises at least one of the following property profiles:
a macroscopic, production-related CTE profile; Page 4, lines 38-40, “…the growth edge is covered with a flame, but due to the temperature distribution in the flame, the concentration distribution of silica and titania is likely to occur in the growth surface…”. Hence, titania concentration varies with temperature. One skilled in the art would know that CTE, or Coefficient of Thermal Expansion, varies with titania concentration. Therefore, a macroscopic production related CTE profile exists due to temperature condition.
Regarding Claim 7, which depends on claim 6 - Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Mitsumori, Blankenbecler, Maida,
and Fujinoki348 in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Blankenbecler further teaches in the step of spatially measuring, at least one of the property profiles is measured in each of the glass plate arrays; Col 13 lines 1-2, 11-13 Col 8 lines, 12-17, “Accordingly, the desired index of refraction profile can be input as a series of Z-values with associated index of refraction values. The compositions of the particular set of materials available for use in the process are also input to the computer in Step 42.”, “Other concentration to property relationships can be applied to predict properties other than refractive index”, “ A particularly useful mechanical property which can be predicted…is coefficient of thermal expansion”, “most preferably, where materials are supplied in batches the composition of each batch is measured and the composition of the batches actually on hand are used as the available compositions for input into the computer”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate another property profile to model in the combination, such as coefficient of thermal expansion, so as to ensure the stress induced on the assemblage upon cooling does not exceed the maximum stress which the material of the assemblage can tolerate, as noted by Blankenbecler (Col 13 lines 37-47).
Regarding Claim 8, which depends on claims 7/6 - Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Mitsumori, Blankenbecler, Maida,
and Fujinoki348 in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
The combination discloses a method regarding measuring the desired spatial titanium distribution
where the measuring comprises a series of following steps, but does not specifically disclose measuring
a desired spatial property distribution where the measuring comprises the same series of following
steps. Further Blankenbecler teaches similar requirements, but specific to, measuring a desired spatial
property distribution:
so that a sum difference is minimal; Col 14, lines 21-34, “The lower the value of such a sum, the better the fit”.
the sum difference comprising:
the difference between the titanium apportionment and titanium distribution and the second difference between the property apportionment and the property distribution. Fig. 5 , Col 14 lines 4-10, 17-33. “Thus, at each of several points of different values of z, the value of the predicted refractive index for this particular time…is subtracted from the value of refractive index specified for the same point z in the desired index of refraction distribution.” Blankenbecler uses refractive index in the model to evaluate both concentration of titanium distribution and property distribution (See Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to apply the measuring steps of the combination to the desired spatial property
distribution, with the specific requirements of the desired spatial property distribution regarding the
sum difference, provide a model for relevant properties to improve the overall
model. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 9, which depends on claims 8/ 7/6 - Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Blankenbecler, Maida,
Fujinoki348 and Mitsumori as combined in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations
of claim 1.While the combination does not teach the sum difference is less than 0.5% based on a
sum of a maximum value of the titanium distribution and a maximum value of the property
distribution, the claim includes a difference value of 0.0% sum difference based on a sum of a maximum
value of the titanium distribution and a maximum value of the property distribution. It would have been
obvious to try for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
invention. Within the scope of the claim and the instant application, the focus is to minimize and
preferably be absent any sum difference based on a sum of a maximum value of the titanium
distribution and a maximum value of the property distribution. As such, a sum difference value of 0.0%
for the above sum difference based on a sum of a maximum value of the titanium distribution and a
maximum value of the property distribution from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions
with a reasonable expectation of success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill
and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 10 - Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Mitsumori , Blankenbecler, Maida, and Fujinoki348
in the rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fujinoki979 further teaches:
creating a porous soot body; Fig. 2, element 10, Page 3 lines 24-26, “As shown in FIG. 1, first, a
silica raw material and a titania raw material are introduced into an oxyhydrogen flame, and
silica / titania glass fine particles (soot) are vertically deposited and grown on a rotating
substrate to form a porous glass body.”
the microscopic, process-related layer structure extending substantially along a growth axis;
Page 1 lines 45-46, 56, “In the silica-titania glass manufactured by such a vertical direct method,
the growth streaks accompanying the rotation of the substrate during glass growth form
layered striae”, “In addition, since such striae are formed in parallel to the growth surface…”.
vitrifying the soot body to create the cylindrical glass body; Page 3 lines 26-29, “The
porous glass body is made transparent by heating in a furnace, and a silica-titania glass body
produced…”
the macroscopic, production-related titanium profile extending substantially along a
longitudinal axis; Fig. 2, Page 4, 38-40 “...the VAD method has disadvantages of…the
homogeneity of the component concentration of the multi-component glass such as silica-
titania glass…varies depending on the temperature condition”…”That is, it has been found
that… a distribution of silica-titania component concentrations in the radial direction is easily
formed”. See Fig. 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
524
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As a distribution of silica-titania component concentrations in the radial direction is easily formed, “the
glass concentration of titania tends to increase at higher temperatures…and the growth edge is covered
with a flame”, (Page 4 lines 37-38) As the process creates a mass of material grown radially and
longitudinally, the titania concentration in a radial direction and a longitudinal direction is illustrated
below:
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A production related longitudinal titania profile is present.
Regarding Claim 11, Fujinoki979, Ezaki, Mitsumori, Blankenbecler, Maida, and Fujinoki348 in the
rejection of claim 1 above teach all of the limitations of claim 1.
Fujinoka979 further teaches the first glass component is heated during the step of pushing together;
Fig. 11 (original) Fig. 13 step 109, Page 7 lines 6-12, “As shown in FIG. 11, the diameter of the glass body
18 is reduced by reducing the distance between the chucks 32 a and 32 b of the lathe while igniting a
part of the glass body 18…with a burner 34.” Fujinoka979 discloses the claimed invention except for the
first glass component being heated before the step of pushing together. Both the process of
Fujinoki979 and the instant claim support creating a spherical glass system from the first glass
component. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
effective filing date of the invention to split the process steps of heating and pushing together of
Fujinoki979, as in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into
two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and
result, was held to be not patentably distinguishing the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd.
Pat. App. 1959). One would have been motivated to heat the first glass component before the step of
pushing together to assess potential process problems before creating a spherical glass system, such as
cracking of the support rods on the lathe or deformation of the glass rod under its own weight, as noted
by Fujinoki979 (Page 6 lines 29-35, 40-42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Koike (USPGPUB 20100179047A1) teaches a method to form a glass body for TiO2-SiO2 glass substrates for EUV lithography applications, where the glass contains concentrations of TiO2, Ti+3, fluorine, OH, bubbles, a thermal expansion coefficient and methods to measure each of the above.
Angell (USPGPUB 20150218039A1) teaches a method of making a glass article of a silica-titania glass for use in EUV lithography having a titania compositional gradient throughout the glass article, which also contains concentrations of Ti+3, fluorine, OH, and a thermal expansion coefficient.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights