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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kondo (US 2004/0032576 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kondo teaches ([0009-0010, 0054 and 0088] and with reference to Figures 1 and 5) a method of forming a line and space pattern (Figure 5, lines 11 and spaces represented by A, B, C and D regions) by exposing a mask (Figure 1, feature R) on a substrate (Figure 1, feature W) in a first direction and a second direction to perform a stitching process (Figure 5, stitching exposure occurs in the x and y directions).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kondo further teaches the method comprises performing a first exposure process on the substrate (forming pattern 30A in Figure 5) such that first shots of the mask contact each other in the first direction and performing a second exposure process on the substrate (forming pattern 30B in Figure 5) such that second shots of the mask contact each other to be spaced apart from the first shots in the second directions wherein the second shots have an offset with the first shots (Figure 5, the first exposure process to form 30A is offset from the second exposure to form 30B).
Regarding claim 2, Kondo teaches the offset (Figure 5, width of 30B) is greater than a width of an interference area (Figure 5, width of 30AB).
Regarding claim 3, Kondo teaches each of the first shots and the second shots comprises a reference energy area exposed to reference energy (Figure 5 features 30A-30D), a one-time interference area having energy higher than the reference energy due to interference of first shots and the second shots (Figure 5, features AB, AC, BD, CD) and a two-times interference area having energy higher than the reference energy due to interference of the first shots and the second shots (Figure 5, feature 31).
Regarding claim 6, as seen in Figure 5 of Kondo, the reference energy areas (features 30A-30D) have a rectangular shape, the one-time interference areas having energy higher than the reference energy (features AB, AC, BD, CD) are positioned on a side that surrounds the reference energy areas, and the two-times interference area (feature 31) having energy higher than the reference energy is disposed between vertices of a reference energy area and a pair of vertices in a first direction.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2017/0336547 A1), herein referred to as Park, provided in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed 7/18/2023.
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches (Claim 19) a wire grid polarizer. Claim 9 further recites product-by-process limitations which are not considered to limit the claimed wire grid polarizer.
MPEP Chapter 2113, Section I states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (US 2004/0032576 A1) in view of Matsuyama et al. (US 2012/0133915 A1) herein referred to as Matsuyama.
Kondo teaches the method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5. However, from the same field of technology, Matsuyama discloses [0161] a step-and-stitch method for forming patterns on a substrate.
In view of claim 5, Matsuyama teaches [0110] forming line and space patterns that may be configured to have a pitch of 110-500 nm, which overlaps the range recited in claim 5. In view of MPEP Chapter 2144.05 Section I, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
At the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Kondo to include forming line and space patterns with a specified pitch, as taught by Matsuyama, in order to form improved high-resolution patterns with greater uniformity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7 and 8 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.
The prior art does not teach or suggest the limitations of claims 4, 7 and 8 directed to the specified limitations of the mask used in the stitching exposure method recited in claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is (571)270-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm, EST.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724